Replies to post #344796 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[johngnatt]

@marjac Where can I find your original case, Du denial on flimsy ground and your request for appeal.

I am in the folder but can not find the document. Can you let me know the file names to look at?

[dukesking]

Marjac and team, thank you for your continued efforts and excellent work. I look forward to seeing the appeal process play out. Wishing you all the best and much success on your efforts. Thanks for the update.

[alm2]

Marjac
Great legal work
Great confidence
Great determination

Great lawyer

Grateful thanks from us all -
Reading your Brief in August can’t come soon enough !
Alm

[Laurent Maldague]

Appreciate your efforts Marjac. Very disappointed in the recent SC denial, but don't believe the US market is gone, not by a long shot.


Regarding rule 60/24, I've read through your filings and believe the rule 60 was masterfully written. The only part I'm uncertain on is rule 24(a), intervention as a matter of right. I hope the allegations of fraud aspect gives us 24(a), because 24(b) is the complete discretion of the judge.

[Rob777]

Marjac- Thank you so much for all of your work on this. Whether you win or not, getting the truth out is so important. And if you get a panel that actually prepares, you have an excellent shot at at this. In my opinion the panel for Amarin's appeal didn't prepare a bit.

[johngnatt]

@marjac
c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.

Tming. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;


Judge Du threw a ruckus over timing of the motion calling it untimely.

1, 3 is something that can be easily explained .


Regarding 2, how can Mori and Hayashi be considered newly discovered evidence? Can it be argued that the Judge failed to recognize this basic statistical fact due to defendents deceipr. The evidence which was obvious needed more clarification based on original data and when presented with more factual context becomes new evidence ?


What line of thought will adequately hit 1, 2 and 3 such that timing is a moot point?

[Jasbg]

marjac,

Hikma is staffing this Appeal with four lawyers, consisting of a partner in Washington, D.C., an associate in Washington, D.C., an associate in Chicago, and a partner in San Francisco. The sun never sets on Winston Strawn.

Reddys is likewise staffing the Appeal with four lawyers, all from the Madison, NJ office of Windels Marx. Chris Sipes and two Covington lawyers are appearing on behalf of Amarin. Eleven lawyers in all on the e-mail chain, eight of which are arrayed against us.

Looking from the outside as a lay person in Law - it does seem a bit unfair 8 against one.

Know there are pro law people supporting you on this board - but will you in fact be the only lawyer present on our side 'when this gets to court' ?

The two Amarin Lawyers i assume is sort of neutral in regard to actually defending our case.

Jasbg

PS. Thanks for the update.

[sts66]

Why are AMRN's lawyers involved in your case? They did not support you in filing the Rule 24 and 60 bits, so what are they going to do now? Meaning why would the court of appeals even allow them to participate?

Why do you claim the original appeal to the SC is not really over? There's nothing left to do - the highest court said we're not interested in the case - how can it NOT end there? (regardless of whatever Hikma said, immaterial)