Replies to post #406983 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rosemountbomber]

Capt. Legal eagles are probably the ones who might have a better grip on what the term “change of control” means in our context, but my thoughts mirror yours.

In other words, it is not another business entity that took over control of Amarin. Simply a change in BOD members and that happens all the time.

[ziploc_1]

IMO, Unless "change of control" was a phrase, which appeared in KM's employment contract, KM's claim is without merit.

It was made clear in the proxy fight that was supported by KM...the COB would be replaced, but there never any mention that KM would be replaced...the only other mention was of the new board members, who remained free to vote on strategies as they thought best(as were the old board remaining board members).... KM feared the BOD would have strategies would differ from KM's strategy(but this was not guaranteed by anyone)...KM disagreed with a change in strategy and decided to resign before the BOD ever voted.

A win by KM would mean that anytime there is a board change the CEO could resign and claim severance pay.

[DAR53]

Capt, I agree. The change was due to the old BOD's resigning. That is not a COC as per normal agreements. Then KM resigned. He was not fired. That should be no difference in any employee 'quitting' versus being let go. If let go other than for cause, an individual would be entitled to some severance, etc. When quitting, you would not receive anything. You give up any rights. Period. JMO

[marjac]

Captain, my understanding of the term mirrors yours, but the question is whether "change of control" is a defined term in whatever contractual or governing documents applicable to KM's employment and compensation. It is also possible that there are cases out there defining the term it really should be defined in the applicable documents.