Marjac - I understood completely your logic and reasoning for Mori to not be in your wonderful amicus -and I mean the team when I refer to “your”... it is frustrating to think that the wrong that is Mori can not be placed before the court ... is there some other mechanism by which this could be still done ? Even as lawyers we must think outside the box here .... the amicus is brilliant -not necessarily because it will create the en banc -(I really hope it does) but because it opens up new dimensions as to the conduct of Hikma/their lawyers/ their expert - if it is considered that there is fraud / a perversion of the course of justice - then the du decision can be righted by other means (you and I others have referred to the same - even if en banc does not materialise Mori is a different kettle of fish - no assertion of impropriety is associated with this - but for a court to unwittingly found in part at least its monumental decision on a study which has fundamentally flawed statistical analysis is an injustice which has to be righted How ? By what mechanism can this be done ? And how succinctly - in one page can this be stated - HinduKush ?? The double effect of K (fraud) and Mori (statistically flawed ) is what must be negated Marjac and team .... think this through ... how ?? The answer provides salvation And Marjac I too will be delighted to reciprocate ... on anything that crosses the pond ... Alm
Does anyone have the entire deposition of Dr. Heinecke that you can link to? Would like to read from pages 14-81 if there is any interesting content. Marjan, if you have this you can also email to me. MD
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
