I liked this type of shareholder engagement and most of what they had to say regarding the changes they’ve made to address inventory, cost savings and expanding in EU and ROW. LONG overdue and a product of Sarissa actions not because it’s the new AMRN/BOD. Regardless of outcome, I hope they continue with this type of shareholder engagement on a regular basis.
I find it hard to believe that the questions they answered were the most asked by investors. Foremost on my mind is what strategies they have to compete with generics in the US and for extending the lifecycle for V in US. They were silent on this issue. Why? Why aren’t they pursuing FDC, MND or a generic of their own in the US? Are they really just giving up on US market without a fight? If so, then how exactly did settling with HN benefit us and why wouldn’t they just sell the US market or partner for an AG?
I know many others asked why AMRN doesn’t partner to launch an authorized generic in the US, or release a branded generic of their own, to compete with generics for the MARINE indication, while continuing to sell brand V for the REDUCEIT indication? They claim we’ve lost IP protection in the US as the reason for focusing on EU/ROW expansion. We still have IP protection for CVD. Can someone explain why they wouldn’t try to compete with GV with an authorized or branded generic of their own for MARINE indication, while continuing to offer brand V for CVD/Trig indications.
Another question that I believe others asked is why are (were) they so opposed to having Sarissa shareholder representation on the board. All this could have been avoided and saved 7 million dollars if they just added a Sarissa shareholder rep to the BOD. How would adding a couple of Sarissa rep(s)to the board negatively impact their current strategies? I don’t believe it would have. It didn’t have to be all or nothing.
