Amarin accrues a liability for legal contingencies when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Amarin reviews these accruals and adjusts them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and Amarin’s views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations or legal proceedings change, changes in Amarin’s accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For the matters referenced below, the amount of liability is not probable nor can the amount be reasonably estimated; therefore, accruals have not been made. In addition, in accordance with the relevant authoritative guidance, for matters in which the likelihood of material loss is at least reasonably possible, Amarin provides disclosure of the possible loss or range of loss. If a reasonable estimate cannot be made, however, Amarin will provide disclosure to that effect.

Amarin intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to VASCEPA, but cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits described below, those lawsuits described in the Company's Form 10-K or any subsequently filed lawsuits. Except as described below, there have been no material updates to our litigation as reported in the Company’s Form 10-K.

As has been a practice in the generic pharmaceutical industry, on April 27, 2021 and February 21, 2023, Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma, respectively, filed complaints against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil action No. 21-cv-10309 and No. 23-cv-01016, alleging various antitrust violations stemming from alleged anticompetitive practices related to the supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient of VASCEPA. On March 28, 2024, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., or Teva, filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil action No. 24-cv-04341 alleging various antitrust violations analogous to those made by Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Teva complaint in May 2024, the motion remains pending. Further, on June 14, 2024, Apotex, Inc., or Apotex, filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Civil action No. 24-cv-07041 alleging various

antitrust violations analogous to those made by Dr. Reddy's, Hikma and Teva. The complaints also include a related state law tortious interference claim. Damages sought include recovery for alleged economic harm to Dr. Reddy’s, Hikma, Teva and Apotex, respectively, treble damages, other costs and fees and injunctive relief against the alleged violative activities. Amarin believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims. Such litigation can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt our business.

Amarin is named as a defendant in six antitrust class action lawsuits in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, as displayed in the table below. Each of the six antitrust class action lawsuits allege Amarin and its co-defendant suppliers violated state and federal antitrust laws by monopolizing and engaging in a conspiracy to restrain trade in the icosapent ethyl drug and API markets.


Lawsuits	Civil Action #	Direct/Indirect Purchasers
Uniformed Fire Officers Association Family Protection Plan Local 854 & Uniformed Fire Officers Association for Retired Fire Officers Family Protection Plan	21-12061	Indirect Purchaser
Board of Trustees of Heavy and General Laborers’ Local Unions 472 and 172 of N.J. Welfare Fund	12-14639	Indirect Purchaser
The International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R	21-12416	Indirect Purchaser
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc.	21-12747	Direct Purchaser
Local 464A United Food and Commercial Workers Union Welfare Service Benefit Fund	21-13009	Indirect Purchaser
Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity	21-13406	Indirect Purchaser

Such antitrust litigation, and antitrust investigations, can be lengthy, costly and could materially affect and disrupt the Company’s business. The Company cannot predict when these matters will be resolved, their outcome or their potential impact on the Company’s business. If a government determines that Amarin has violated antitrust law, the Company could be subject to significant civil fines and penalties.

On October 21, 2021, a purported investor in the Company's publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, the former chief executive officer and the former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Vincent Dang v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Michael W. Kalb, No. 1:21-cv-19212 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2021). A subsequent case, Dorfman v. Amarin Corporation plc, et al., No. 3:21-cv-19911 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2021), was filed in November 2021. In December 2021, several Amarin shareholders moved to consolidate the cases and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The complaints in these actions are nearly identical and allege that the Company misled investors by allegedly downplaying the risk associated with the Company's patent litigation related to its Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, that sought U.S. FDA approval for the sale of generic versions of VASCEPA, or ANDA litigation, and the risk that certain of the Company's patents related to the MARINE indication would be invalidated. Based on these allegations, plaintiff alleges that he purchased securities at an inflated share price and brings claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. In October 2022, the court consolidated the cases and appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class. On January 13, 2023, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that also named the former general counsel, and again alleged that the Company made false statements regarding the ANDA litigation as well as about the REDUCE-IT indication and VASCEPA’s financial prospects resulting from REDUCE-IT. All defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint and the motion remains pending. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with these claims.

On March 29, 2023, purported investors in the Company’s publicly traded securities filed a derivative lawsuit, naming as defendants the Company’s former general counsel, the Company’s trial counsel for the ANDA litigation, and the Company as nominal defendant, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, captioned Anne Abramson, John Lissandrello, Georgette Appiano, and Andrew Bondarowicz v. Amarin Corporation plc, Covington & Burling, LLP, Joseph T. Kennedy, and John Does A-Z, No. MON-L-000984-23 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Mar. 29, 2023). The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to exercise appropriate diligence and due care in their conduct of the ANDA litigation. Based on those allegations, the complaint alleged that the defendants committed legal malpractice and sought monetary damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 8, 2023, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case without prejudice.

On November 30, 2020, the Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Hikma for making, selling, offering to sell, and importing generic icosapent ethyl capsules in and into the United States in a manner that the Company alleges induced the infringement of patents covering the use of VASCEPA to reduce specified CV risk. On January 4, 2022, the district court for the District of Delaware granted a motion to dismiss the Company's lawsuit for failure to state a claim. Thereafter, the Company appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a decision reversing the district court, finding that the Company's allegations against Hikma plausibly state a claim alleging Hikma actively induced infringement of the asserted patents. The case will return to the district court and proceed accordingly.

On March 31, 2023, the Company’s former chief executive officer, Karim Mikhail, filed a complaint against the Company and certain of its affiliates in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division – Somerset County, captioned Mikhail v. Amarin Corporation, plc (Docket No. SOM-L-000366-23), concerning Mr. Mikhail’s alleged “constructive termination” from the Company. The complaint

seeks unspecified damages arising from claims for breaches of his employment agreement, Executive Severance and Change of Control Plan, and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On April 3, 2023, the case moved to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Civ. No. 3:23-cv-01856). On June 30, 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss this case without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. On March 4, 2024, the District Court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part, permitting the parties to pursue limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, and allowing defendants thereafter to refile a motion to dismiss. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with these claims.

In addition to the above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company is from time to time involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations, proceedings, and threats of litigation relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements and other matters.

The Company currently has long-term supply agreements with multiple API suppliers and encapsulators. The Company is relying on these suppliers to meet current and potential future global demand for VASCEPA. Certain supply agreements require annual minimum volume commitments by the Company and certain volume shortfalls may require payments for such shortfalls.

These agreements include requirements for the suppliers to meet certain product specifications and qualify their materials and facilities with applicable regulatory authorities, including the U.S. FDA. The Company has incurred certain costs associated with the qualification of product produced by these suppliers.

The Company continues to negotiate with contract suppliers to align its supply arrangements with current and future global demand, which may result in additional costs to the Company. As of the date of filing of this Quarterly Report, the Company has a total of approximately $29.0 million in future contractual purchase obligations without consideration to ongoing discussions with other suppliers. In addition, the Company has total obligations of $186.5 million, which excludes the contingency obligations described below, contingent on either certain suppliers obtaining regulatory approval in Europe or obtaining pricing reimbursement in certain European countries.

In addition to the above, the Company was unable to obtain pricing reimbursement in certain countries outlined within renegotiated supply agreements by June 30, 2024, triggering obligations up to $15.8 million. The Company continues to renegotiate supply agreements with a reasonable estimate of the liability amounting to $8.0 million; the Company had previously recorded an $8.0 million provision, in cost of goods sold - restructuring inventory on the condensed consolidated statement of operations. The ultimate resolution of the negotiations could result in up to an additional $7.8 million of the amount accrued.

Also, under the Laxdale agreement, upon receipt of a marketing approval in Europe for a further indication of VASCEPA (or further indication of any other product acquired from Laxdale in 2004), the Company must make an aggregate stock or cash payment (at the sole option of each such former shareholder) of £5.0 million (approximately $6.3 million as of June 30, 2024) for the potential market approval.

The Company has no provision for any of these obligations, except the $8.0 million provision noted above, since the amounts are either not paid or payable as of June 30, 2024.