Marjac,
I have been reticent to post recently but I am still loosely following the discussion. I apologize if I am asking you the same question that others have asked (such as Bouf). I appreciate your tenacity and dedication. My intent here is to be constructive but I realize (as I proof read) that my question is challenging.
I've briefed and argued several rule 24 motions in corporate actions, including those involving unorganized interest groups.
Both paths to intervention (as a matter of right and discretion) include an analysis as to whether any of the existing parties adequately represent the claimed interest of the intervenor. It is expressly provided in Rule 24(a) and almost always included in the Court's analysis under Rule 24(b). And while courts broadly favor intervention, this is not the case when the claimed interest is identical to the interests of any party to the action.
In other words, how are the interests of this party, an unorganized group of shareholders, not adequately represented by Amarin in the action? Aren't they literally identical? Do you have any authority to support this proposition, particularly involving shareholders from a publicly traded company?
Note, this analysis does not involve or touch the arguments contained in the Rule 60 motion - to which I am very sympathetic.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
