Replies to post #351569 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[marjac]

My initial instinct is no viable lawsuit because I don't think the law compels Amarin to sell its product in this marketplace, especially since this marketplace via the court decision and other regulations, has been obstructive to the optimized sale of the product.

This is definitely one where I would seek out and love to know the opinions of other lawyers. If we recall, the huge legal question when the Obamacare individual mandate was being litigated, was whether the government can constitutionally force someone to buy a product. Here the parallel legal question is whether the law can compel a company to sell its product. This is certainly an interesting legal question worthy of further pondering.

[marjac]

Here's a pretty direct negative answer from the Federal Trade Commission:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/refusal-supply

Refusal to Supply

In general, a seller has the right to choose its business partners. A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly. This principle was laid out by the Supreme Court more than 85 years ago:

The purpose of the Sherman Act is to... preserve the right of freedom of trade. In the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the act does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal.

This remains a fundamental rule of federal antitrust law and draws a line between legal independent decision-making on the one hand and illegal joint or monopolistic activity on the other.