Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

Kiwi
Think of it this way
A CEO indeed a board of directors have a fiduciary duty to represent the interests of the shareholders
However - what if a CEO or Board refuse to take appropriate legal steps to represent the shareholders interests
Whilst the shareholders can act to correct the failure of the CEO /Board such action can not necessarily happen in an instant - there are procedures to be followed and such takes time
Now put this failure into the context of the litigation rules and time limits that operate -in respect of the patent challenge litigation-could Epadi / indeed all shareholders - after it became apparent ( on request to the CEO) that Amarin were not going to pursue Rule 60- immediately and within the requirement that Rule 60 litigation is embarked on not only within the 12 month time frame but also on a timely basis have removed the Board and CEO to ensure the Rule 60 opportunity was not lost to the company (and its shareholders)
Epadi had in effect no choice but to issue immediately it could to try and achieve this purpose - otherwise it would have been lost
The court will (one hopes) see that there was no other option open within the time frames applicable to this litigation(Rule 60litigation)
Not indeed that the generics and indeed Du view the action brought as untimely (although the generics suggested in effect an absurd interpretation of what in the context of this litigation of what timely is

Hope this helps - i
Alm