Replies to post #338223 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[sts66]

The word "inconvenience" is not used in her decision - prejudice is - did EPADI really ask for a ruling that would not allow defendants to respond to their complaint? Appears they did - maybe I misunderstood what was being attempted here, but I never thought Hikma would be denied the ability to take part in the this case - guess I thought Rule 24 was just to get Du to allow Rule 60 to be heard, and Hikma would participate in that, but she's saying they are prejudiced if they cannot dispute the Rule 24 filing.

Third, the discretionary factors also weigh against granting EPADI permission to
intervene. Specifically, allowing EPADI to intervene solely to attempt to vacate the Court’s
judgment would clearly prejudice Defendants. EPADI’s argument to the contrary is not
credible. (ECF No. 401 at 18.) Even taken on its own terms, EPADI’s argument ignores
the pertinent question of whether Defendants would be prejudiced by arguing without
applicable legal support that Defendants are not entitled to assert prejudice because of
EPADI’s unsubstantiated allegations that Defendants and their counsel engaged in
fraudulent conduct. EPADI’s argument thus misses the mark.