Replies to post #275770 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[caddiedad]

Agreed TTE. What an extended patience test this investment has turned into. On another note.
I’m still in amazement how much dirty influence the STAT team has. They get air time on CNBC (apparently partners with the network, so says Scott Wapner when interviewing them) and move the markets with opinions, not scientific evidence.

[rosemountbomber]

Thanks for the re-read and reassuring take on the brief. What bothers me is my difficulty in comprehending whether factual errors can be looked at and considered at the appeals court. I seem to have read different ideas about that.

[postes]

TTE...I've read it twice..both times very encouraging.

Quote-----

We could get into an endless debate here about Du's qualifications, but her career isn't really a track record of terrible decisions or clear bias. It makes this decision bizarre. The decision is so sloppy and terrible, when compared with that track record, that one has to question real motivations here. At best, it was her contempt for the big-timing East Coast suits. At worst -- something more sinister.

As you point out this decision is inconsistent and out of charachter for her..easier to comprehend if this
was her MO.

[MontanaState83]

TTE - Agree, the factual errors are beyond grotesque. In a just world that should be enough (IMHO)

[rafunrafun]

her career isn't really a track record of terrible decisions or clear bias

Agree. I reviewed a handful of her cases, thinking that as a Harry Reed protege, her rulings would be politically biased. Wrong.

I read at least 3 cases where her rulings were contrary to how one expect a liberal judge to rule.

So if not political / ideological, then what the heck was it? She is smart - she has 27 years of experience. There is something that is missing here.

[HinduKush]

Hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head:

The offsetting of secondary considerations is a clear, crazy error. And the sequencing of prima facie vs secondary may be in error, but there is a debate there. I would say, however, that the pure factual errors are SO grotesque here that even if the procedural errors weren't out there, there is STILL a very compelling case for reversal. The defendants were so far from presenting clear and compelling prima facie evidence that we shouldn't even have needed any secondary conditions (although we had them -- in spades).

Yes, which is why I am trying to dig up as much verifiable documented literature of the period aka peer reviewed published articles circa 2000-2008 that I can. This is the litmus test of a POSA's opinion...on which The Du-ster should have based her prima facie enunciation...turns out she gave up cerebrating and her thesis is a house of straw waiting for the wind of knowledge to blow it down with a puff. I am aware of the rules of what might or might not be admissible but that's Singer's job.
HK

PS Irregardless of the papers/documents cited in the pretrial and trial briefs, Toth et al did a piss poor job, IMHO, (under Covington guidance) on conveying with clarity the true state of lipid science circa Mori 2000 on cross examination, leave alone establishing a favorable scientific thread of thought in her excellency's mind, whilst allowing themselves to be cornered into utterances that were later misquoted out of context through legal maneuvering on her part in her infamous judgment.

[jessellivermore]

TTE,

Nice summation...No question she obviously had an agenda and was not judging impartially...Lets hope we get a better shake down the road in DC...

":>) JL

[moonotaur]

It does seem a bit coincidental that MRC basically laid out the case and the decision that came exactly how it played out. No way was/is MRC just some random schmuck. He was on someone’s payroll and wouldn’t surprise me in the least bit of that payroll extended elsewhere.

[Jasbg]

TTE@ Great encouraging and enlightening post.

That's why keep coming back to this board. When the 'brilliant minds' here - 'Have their Moments' - you want to 'listen and learn'.

Jasbg