Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Whalatane]

Alm thx .... So the BOD and JT have never offered an explanation of why they didn't pursue the Rule 60 litigation. Just stating they were not opposed to EPADI doing so .
Is that basically it ?
....I haven't followed the details but appreciate you and others take on this

Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order
Primary tabs
(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.

(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.
--------------------------------------------------------
So with newly discovered evidence ...ie Mori stats being in correct ...wont they argue that AMRN should have found that pre trial if they were being diligent ?
With fraud ...wont they argue its was accidental ( the cropping ) and not be their hand ?

Kiwi