Replies to post #332636 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Downtownguy]

The way Du arrived at her ruling is quite possibly due to the most “exceptional circumstance” I’ve ever seen. So there, Hikma

[postes]

Thank you for posting this info

[marjac]

Defendants' response is par for the course in any type of "David v. Goliath" type fight. Make ad hominem personal attacks on the lawyer, label everything frivolous, and threaten sanctions.

I cannot count the number of times I have faced such a reaction. Yet I have never been sanctioned in 27 1/2 years of practice. Exactly one Rule 11 sanctions motion has been filed against me in all of that time, and I soundly defeated it.

In fact, more often than not, I have developed healthy collegial relationships, even friendships with all but the most bitter of adversaries. That will not be the case here, but the point is that this type of response is nothing that I have not previously encountered.

Notice that they bulk of their diatribe is spent attacking me, and there is nothing attacking the underlying Rule 60 issues, other than amorphous proclamations of "frivolous", and "conspiracy" theories. They label the allegations "defamatory", even though the litigation privilege is a blanket prohibition on all defamation claims in this context.

The next step is that I hope the Court grants my pro hac vice motion as soon as possible, so that I can enter the battle.

I am thankful that Amarin does not oppose the Motions.

[MateoPaisa]

One of the important questions being faced in the rule 60 motion is whether the pleading party owns the patents.

“Courts have long made it clear that shareholders have no legal or equitable interest in any part of the company’s property or assets, and the company is the sole and beneficial owner of all the property vested in it. The case of Short v. Treasury Commissioners [1948] 1 KB 116 122, stated that “shareholders are not, in the eyes of the law, part owners of the undertaking. The undertaking is something different from the totality of the shareholding.”

Marjac, how do you counter this? I know you have deeply considered this. How can this be overcome?

[rafunrafun]

Glad to know that they monitor this board:

which he publicly shared online under the screenname “mar-jac"

Be nice :-)

[studythosestocks]

Thanks for posting this LB. I've gained a deep appreciation for many on this board trying to help this cause.
I believe regardless of outcome that Rule 60 motion may be beneficial in some small but meaningful way whether legally, publically, politically or otherwise which hasn't been reflectively noticed yet.
You got to fight the good fight regardless sometime of outcome.

[Meowza]

[Examiner77]

Louie thank you for posting

[ziploc_1]

The legal strategy of the defendants, in their gratuitously insulting reply to the Kasanoff brief, adheres to the old dictum: "when the law and the facts are BOTH against you, you pound the table".

[ralphey]

Does anyone think we should move our board to a private setting so HIKMA cant see - however, I suspect that they have already infiltrated and either way would have a presence

[ralphey]

Once again I am seeing that judges practice law ...not science .... so although the science was wrong it appears due process and the law may take precedence ... this is indeed tragic

[hayward]

louiebouie

Thanks in the reply they state


19 final judgment; a nonparty cannot move for relief under Rule 60(b) except in ‘exceptional circum-
20 stances

I would say investors loosing BILLIONS of dollars from DU wrong understanding of the trial and there witness telling non truths an EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE

Michael

[johngnatt]

So no @marjac does get a chance to reply to the Hikma response.
Why did they go after the person and not the content of the Rule 60 filing?

[sts66]

Mr. Kasanoff’s motion is the result of an online crowdfunding campaign by disgruntled retail investors in Amarin stock. For the past year, Mr. Kasanoff and other retail investors have concocted various conspiracy theories on online message boards regarding this Court’s
judgment.

Who cares how the legal work was funded? That's just an attempt to belittle us "disgruntled shareholders" - like we should be happy Du stole millions of dollars of personal wealth from us, and billions in MC from AMRN? Not surprised that they've been following the MB for over a year. They claimed multiple times that the EPADI II has no standing to file the Rule 24 and 60 docs - how does marjac rebut this part? (ignore the lack of standing part, focus on "claim or defense" part)

EPADI II
next asks to intervene permissively under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). Mot. 10–12. But that rule requires “a
claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact,” and EPADI II
does not articulate any “claim or defense,” let alone one that shares a common question of law or fact
with the patent infringement claims in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Indeed, EPADI II has
not even filed a pleading, as required by Rule 24(c). EPADI II admits it is “not . . . raising new causes
of action” and instead “stand[s] on Amarin’s pleadings already on file.” Mot. 12–13. Yet Amarin’s
pleadings only state claims for patent infringement, and again, EPADI II does not own, license, or
claim any other right to the patents-in-suit. Mot. 6. EPADI II’s failure to plead any claim or defense,
and its lack of standing to pursue the patent claims under which this case arose, are fatal.