Replies to post #358230 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[ziploc_1]

Jasbg, "Personally I don't see why KM - given he has no part in Amarin decisions before Nevada ruling, can not send out a Press release, where he out of simple logic - points Out that Amarin naturally' supports the Rule60 case"

KM was recently employed by the Amarin BOD as CEO...This is a double edge sword...On the one hand,your statement that he had no part in Amarin decisions before the Nevada ruling is true....On the other hand, he can send out a Press release in support of the rule 60 case ONLY if the Board of Directors approves...Otherwise he could be fired.

[alm2]

Jasbg

No - the FC will not in my view reject this appeal in any way based on the fact that Amarin did not pursue Rule 60

These are litigation proceedings which are based on their facts and case law - as to standing - no court will in effect say oh Amarin did not bring so it has no merit -

we can only speculate as to why Amarin did not bring it - they actually could have thought it had huge merit but for other reasons not brought it (for example adversely affecting their appeal against Du decision- or opening flood gates as to Amarin it’s lawyers failings- who knows? Only Amarin )

But the court won’t get bogged down in speculation over this or even a debate over this

Does Rule 24 on the facts as to standing and on the case law as to standing (taken together )win the day.... or does it fail on its facts and or on case law ?

That is the question the FC should address - it’s nothing to do with Amarin not bringing it / or Amarin not supporting it(as the generics try to assert - in my view an argument which is pointless and wholly without merit

Ask it the other way round - if Amarin had in some way supported the Rule24 / Rule 60 would the generics just say .... oh that’s ok then .... we loose ???
Alm