Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Laurent Maldague]

Eight, I appreciate you taking the opposing view. I've come to believe that the battle for standing will hinge on either the privity or fraud exceptions to rule 60(b).

The fraud exception does seem to require that a non-party's interest be "directly affected". However it's not clear to me the exact interpretation of this, and courts might have latitude to consider this on a case by case basis given the facts, and make a determination.

If you look at Herring vs FDIC, the court was willing to entertain the possibility that shareholders had a direct interest in the case. It hinged on a factual finding that even if the fraud charge was proven, Southwestern Bank would still net owe money to the FDIC.

"The shareholders respond that the fraud affects more than the $530,124. If the $530,124 were disallowed, the FDIC would accumulate less interest, and the trial court might also refuse to award the FDIC any interest or its receivership expenses of $883,282. If so, the shareholders might recover funds.

The FDIC replies, and this court finds persuasive, that the Arizona courts have established that, even if the FDIC engaged in fraud, no correction could generate any funds for the shareholders. The Arizona courts have already calculated the interest due if the $530,124 were disallowed. "

If we were to go off the theory that shareholders as a matter of law aren't directly affected, why go into this concrete line of monetary calculation? Remember, technically Southwestern Bank would be the entity receiving any net funds from this litigation, and the funds may be disbursed as a "final liquidating dividend" to shareholders. So the courts seem willing to analyze "direct affect" in practical terms.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1307028.html