So the fraud was submission of the cropped table, which is different from the trial exhibit, with the intent to cause the court to accept an erroneous interpretation of the evidence, which could not be supported by the actual exhibit.
Is there a plausible explanation for why AMRN did not argue this in its proposed findings and post trial submissions? This is obviously going to be the court’s first question, right?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
