Replies to post #121342 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rafunrafun]

Excellent post. Can you give an example of what you think would be proprietary information in this case?

[Biobillionair]

Ort-
Thanks for posting, here's the email I received from JT this am:

Jason,

Amarin has not requested that the briefing be locked.

My understanding is that a clerk for the court needs to unblock it after it has been filed. That could happen as early as today (not in Amarin's control).

John

This could be consistent with your theory the document was filed late yesterday and needed to be "screened", but today should have provided the court time to "screen" the content or substance.

I think Amarin makes it clear, "it's not in Amarin's control"; I do not think Amarin or Attorney's requested the brief be sealed.

Also from PACER today:

The court has at its discretion the option to make certain documents available only to parties in the case. If you are an attorney of record or another party in the case, you must enter your ECF filing ID before trying to access these documents. All others interested in these documents should contact the Court Clerk's office for information about viewing copies, as PACER does not have the ability to provide access to restricted documents.

Thank you,

Matthew

PACER Service Center
Phone: [phone]

This appears to be a court generated "seal" or restricted document, I have no doubt Amarin "let it fly" I just want to see how far they hit the ball. Did they hit the ball way out into left field wacko BB theories of regulatory "takings" or did they stay within the confines of just ITC complaint. IMO the court needs to consider the collective actions of the FDA when considering the FDA requesting the ITC to not perform their congressional mandated task. Additionally the ITC did not file an accurate ITC docket, it did not include the mistaken identity of who filed the Frank Palone "comment". I did forward Amarin and Attorneys the screen shot of the ITC docket before and after with the stamped times. The ITC may contest the validity if Amarin included the screen shot, if so I'm happy to submit to questioning under oath regarding my contact with ITC just after 10-27-2017.

I guess we'll find out in due time, thank you for weighing in with your experience it's greatly appreciated.

BB

[Pyrrhonian]

I did notice that very recently Omega Via took the “pharmaceutical grade” off its label. Perhaps relevant.

[sts66]

Glad to have you on board - we could use another "real" lawyer-type here, since most of us just play lawyers on TV :>) One thing occurred to me when I read about AMRN's filing mysteriously being sealed when AMRN apparently didn't request it be sealed, which IMO rules out the "it contains proprietary data" theory, but this idea is pretty far out there - assuming AMRN really "let it fly" against DS and ITC in their filing, perhaps the court is for some reason protecting the ITC from embarrassment by keeping the contents out of public view, or even protecting *itself* in some manner? This is just very, very odd - I own another biotech (NAVB) that has been in court for nearly two years in a lawsuit against a predatory lender (CRG), is currently appealing a BS decision from a corrupt TX court, and every single sordid detail has been revealed in thousands of pages of filings made public by the court's version of PACER - stuff that makes you sick to your stomach if you're a NAVB shareholder (CRG tried to BK them to steal their IP, admitted it under oath, also planted moles on the BOD that were later discovered and kicked out, email trains showed despicable behavior). So if all of that behind the scenes stuff, things that could have led to criminal or civil charges (NAVB waived rights to that as part of a settlement agreement with CRG that was violated by the judge, thus the appeal) were made public, what on earth can AMRN's court filing contain that is so sensitive it must be kept secret?