Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[eightisenough]

jas-amrn needs to be a "party" of the rule 60 motion, to assure standing--since the court could easily dismiss marj (although it shouldn't) for lack of standing--as hickma is arguing.

Also, if amrn is actually a party here, there is a much better chance for the court to rule in favor of marj and amrn's case regarding the substantive issue--the actual rue 60 motion of "mistake"--

for if amrn itself doesn't argue "mistake" (in mori etc)---then its tantamount to a "renter" or "bypasser"--screaming "police"--someone just destroyed the 'owner's building---while the actual owner remains silent.

Just issuing a press release is not sufficient "support"

gl in convincing the ceo