Outstanding point, ILT. Requests for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) (mistake) and 60(b)(3) (fraud/misrepresentation) must be filed within one-year after the entry of the original Judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Requests for relief under the other provisions of Rule 60 (including fraud upon the court under the landmark SCOTUS decision Hazel-Atlas), are not subject to the one-year time limit. United States v. Sierra-Pacific Indus, Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1167 (9th Cir. 2017).
As you correctly note, EPADI II's Rule 60 Motion was ultimately denied on grounds of Standing, but the merits were never adjudicated. It is too late for a Denner piloted Amarin to seek relief for mistake (Curfman/Bhatt/Jarvis analysis), or fraud/misrepresentation. But it is not too late for a Denner piloted Amarin to pursue Rule 60 Hazel-Atlas fraud upon the court relief either through a Rule 60 motion in the underlying action, or a new lawsuit filed in Nevada (the venue for fraud upon the court relief must be the court which has allegedly been the target of such fraud upon the court).
We can't do it derivatively, due to the Standing rulings in our previous application. But nothing stops Amarin from doing so. Amarin has Stranding, and fraud upon the court is not subject to the one-year time limit. The obstacles that we faced are simply inapplicable to Amarin.
It would take a creative, forward thinking lawyer/legal team with a spine to even attempt this operation. But it is viable, although it would undoubtedly be met with a barrage of cynicism and acrimony from the generics.
It might be worthwhile for interested shareholders to raise these points with Denner's team after the proxy fight, if they prevail.
