Replies to post #364741 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[ziploc_1]

I think we are putting the cart before the horse in the rule 60/24 case.

The rule 60 case pertains to a "clearly and convincingly obvious" fraudulent misleading of the court...causing an error in the court's decision. EPADI definitely suffered a huge loss due to the fraud. EPEDI should be granted standing to sue to correct this flagrant fraud.

[north40000]

The cited case contributes little or nothing to the subject or concern about the issue of standing in the present shareholder case. Amarin has not assigned or licensed its patents to shareholders. Nor is the right to sue an accused infringer in question because of the terms and timing of such an assignment or exclusive license.