Replies to post #363948 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Meowza]

It's almost like Rule 60 should be updated to include grounds for application.

I don't see how you assert one concern in a vacuum, neglecting the very important concern of f r a u d upon the court.

"Dear Mr. Boof, while I understand your disgruntled request to reverse the charges to your credit cards as a result of identity theft, do you really expect me to do this for everyone who doesn't get their identity stolen?"

A real stumper, there

[Number sleven]

Bouf, Shouldn't we have standing under rule 24(a)(2).
Sleven,

[Laurent Maldague]

Bouf, that's a good devil's advocate question.

I'll go with three things as a response:
1.) Fraud

2.) Nature article published on August 5th apprising the public of the Mori error. (how often do you get Harvard/Duke professors to publish an article about a trial result?)

3.) severity of the stock value damage, and how critical it is to the company/shareholders. Don't take this from me, take it from Dr. Reddy's lawyer:




I think having all three elements above ensures the difficulty of replicating Marjac's intervention.