Marjac, Hikma does not seem to deem the Amarin v. Hikma et al case that we shareholders attempted to participate in ( page I, Related Cases, “No” ) as “any related or prior cases…”. Yet the Hikma petition refers to that case several times as the originating reason why Hikma is before the Court a second time( e.g., pages 6 and 17).
Further, “…the Court should invite the government’s views.”( page 18, Conclusion ). The Court( like Hikma and Amarin) is already aware of the Amarin shareholder views, but our lack of standing to raise the “fraud on the Court” issue seemed to preclude a judgment or decision or opinion on that issue, notwithstanding Hazel-Atlas and FRCP….”at any time”. What now? Is the government, DOJ, S.G., Antitrust Division, aware of our views?
Be aware that the DOJ, Antitrust Division, issued a PR or FAQ some months ago wherein it stated it will investigate questions (via subpoena of witnesses and production of documents, no doubt) of collusive, anti-competitive, unfair, inequitable behavior and conduct in the pharmaceutical industry. Remember Norton v. Curtis, cited in the SH briefs and petition?
A preliminary injunction might be issued against Hikma, pending investigation/resolution of discovery and any trial that relates to those questions? A final order reinstating the patents invalidated in that first suit could issue, as Hazel-Atlas makes clear.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
