AMRN Amarin Corp PLC

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking information based on our current expectations. Because our actual results may differ materially from any forward-looking statements that we make or that are made on our behalf, this section includes a discussion of important factors that could affect our actual future results, including, but not limited to, our ability to successfully commercialize Vascepa, our capital resources, the progress and timing of our clinical programs, the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, risks associated with regulatory filings, the potential clinical benefits and market potential of our product candidates, commercial market estimates, future development efforts, patent protection, effects of healthcare reform, reliance on third parties, and other risks set forth below.

Risks Related to the Commercialization and Development of Vascepa

We are substantially dependent upon sales of Vascepa in the United States.

As a result of our reliance on a single product, Vascepa ^® (icosapent ethyl) capsules, and our primary focus on the U.S. market in the near-term, much of our near-term results and value as a company depends on our ability to execute our commercial strategy for Vascepa in the United States. If commercialization efforts for Vascepa are not successful, our business will be materially and adversely affected.

Even if we are able to successfully develop Vascepa outside the United States or develop additional products from our research and development efforts, the development time cycle for products typically takes several years. This restricts our ability to respond to adverse business conditions for Vascepa. If we are not successful with development, or if there is not adequate demand for Vascepa or the market for such product develops less rapidly than we anticipate, we may not have the ability to effectively shift our resources to the development of alternative products or do so in a timely manner without suffering material adverse effects on our business. As a result, the lack of alternative markets and products we develop could constrain our ability to generate revenues and achieve profitability.

The uncertain effect of Vascepa on its ultimate targeted clinical benefit makes it more difficult to achieve a level of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

In January 2013, we launched Vascepa based on FDA approval of our MARINE indication, for use as an adjunct to diet to reduce triglyceride levels in adult patients with severe (TG ³ 500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia. Approximately 4.0 million people in the United States have severely high triglyceride levels (TG ³ 500 mg/dL), commonly known as very high triglyceride levels. Guidelines for the management of very high triglyceride levels suggest that reducing triglyceride levels is the primary goal in patients to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis. A secondary goal for this patient population is to reduce cardiovascular risk. The effect of Vascepa on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, or the risk for pancreatitis, in patients with hypertriglyceridemia has not been determined and our FDA-approved labeling and promotional efforts state these facts.

In August 2015, based on a federal court order, we also began communicating promotional information beyond the MARINE indication to healthcare professionals in the United States for the treatment of patients with high (TG ³ 200 mg/dL and <500 mg/dL) triglyceride levels who are also on statin therapy for elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or LDL-C, levels, based on results from the ANCHOR study of Vascepa. It is estimated that approximately 40 million adults in the United States have high triglyceride levels (TG ³ 200 mg/dL), and many patients with high triglycerides also have other lipid level abnormalities such as high cholesterol and are on statin therapy. FDA did not approve Vascepa for use in this population due to the uncertain effect of pharmaceutically induced triglyceride reduction in this patient population on cardiovascular risk reduction, the ultimate targeted clinical benefit. Our promotional efforts disclose this fact and what we view as truthful and non-misleading information on the current state of research on both triglyceride reduction and the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, in Vascepa, EPA, as each relate to the potential of Vascepa to reduce cardiovascular risk.

31

Table of Contents

The uncertainties around the ultimate clinical benefit of Vascepa make it more difficult for Vascepa to gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. If Vascepa does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate product revenues sufficient to become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of Vascepa for the MARINE indication and in ANCHOR patients and any future approved indications will depend on a number of factors, including:

Our current and planned commercialization efforts may not be successful in increasing sales of Vascepa.

Since late 2013, our sales team has consisted of approximately 150 sales professionals, including sales representatives and their managers. This sales team promotes Vascepa to a limited group of physicians and other healthcare professionals in select geographies in the United States. This sales team is not large enough to call upon all physicians. In January 2013, when we initially began selling Vascepa in the United States through our own then newly established sales and marketing teams and through a newly established third-party commercial distribution infrastructure, our sales team was larger. In October 2013, following an FDA advisory committee recommendation against approval for the ANCHOR indication, we implemented a plan to reduce our workforce and our team of sales professionals by half.

In May 2014 we began co-promoting Vascepa in the United States with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. under a co-promotion agreement we entered into in March 2014. Under the agreement, no less than 250 Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. sales representatives devote a substantial portion of their time to promoting Vascepa with our approximately 150 sales professionals, including sales representatives and their managers, based on a plan designed to focus on select sales territories that we believe have demonstrated the greatest potential for Vascepa sales growth and increase both the number of sales targets reached and the frequency of sales calls on existing sales targets. However, the commercialization of pharmaceutical products is a complex undertaking, and we have very limited experience as a company operating in this area and co-promoting a pharmaceutical product with a partner. In addition, if the results of the REDUCE-IT outcomes study are successful, we plan to expand our promotion of Vascepa, including increasing the size of our team. We will need to overcome challenges associated with rapidly hiring and training personnel and managing larger teams of people. Furthermore, our agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. is designed such that their co-promotion of Vascepa ceases after 2018. If we do not extend this co-promotion agreement, enter into a co-promotion agreement with an equally capable company or hire equally capable sales representatives, our sales may be negatively impacted by the end of co-promotion under this agreement.

32

Table of Contents

Outside of the United States, we have expanded our commercialization activities through partnering arrangements in certain territories. In February 2015, we entered into a Development, Commercialization and Supply Agreement (the “DCS Agreement”) with Eddingpharm (Asia) Macao Commercial Offshore Limited (“Eddingpharm”) related to the development and commercialization of Vascepa in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, or the China Territory. Under the DCS Agreement, Eddingpharm is solely responsible for development and commercialization activities in the China Territory and associated expenses. Additionally, Eddingpharm is required to conduct clinical trials in the China Territory to secure regulatory approval. Significant commercialization of Vascepa in the China Territory is several years away, if at all. If Eddingpharm is not able to effectively develop and commercialize Vascepa in the China Territory, we may not be able to generate revenue from the DCS Agreement resulting from the sale of Vascepa in the China Territory.

We have limited experience working with partners outside the United States, such as Eddingpharm, to develop and market our products in non-U.S. jurisdictions. In order for Eddingpharm, or us, to market and sell Vascepa in any country outside of the United States for any indication, it will be necessary to obtain regulatory approval from the appropriate regulatory authorities. The requirements and timing for regulatory approval, which may include conducting clinical trials, vary widely from country to country and may in some cases be different than or more rigorous than requirements in the United States. Any failure by us or Eddingpharm to obtain approval for Vascepa in non-U.S. jurisdictions in a timely manner may limit the commercial success of Vascepa and our ability to grow our revenues.

In March 2016, we entered into an agreement with Biologix FZCo (“Biologix”), a company incorporated under the laws of United Arab Emirates, to register and commercialize Vascepa in several Middle Eastern and North African countries. Under the terms of the distribution agreement, we granted to Biologix a non-exclusive license to use our trademarks in connection with the importation, distribution, promotion, marketing and sale of Vascepa in the Middle East and North Africa territory. Commercialization across the region, as in China, is several years away in most jurisdictions and subject to similar risks. We continue to assess other partnership opportunities for licensing Vascepa to partners outside of the United States.

Factors related to building and managing a sales and marketing organization that can inhibit our efforts to successfully commercialize Vascepa include:

If we are not successful in our efforts to market and sell Vascepa, our anticipated revenues will be materially and negatively affected, and we may not obtain profitability, may need to cut back on research and development activities or need to raise additional funding that could result in substantial dilution.

33

Table of Contents

We expect final positive results from the REDUCE-IT outcomes study will be required for FDA-approved label expansion for Vascepa.

Since January 2013, we have marketed Vascepa for use in the FDA-approved MARINE indication in the United States.

In April 2015, we received a Complete Response Letter, or CRL, from the FDA on our supplemental new drug application, or sNDA, that sought approval for the use of Vascepa in patients with high triglyceride levels (TG ³ 200 mg/dL and <500 mg/dL) who are also on statin therapy, which we refer to as the ANCHOR indication. In regulatory communications, the FDA acknowledged that the results of the ANCHOR trial as we presented them to FDA were valid and truthful in that, for example, Vascepa reduced triglyceride levels compared to placebo in patients treated in the ANCHOR study. The clinical rationale for reducing serum triglycerides with Vascepa and modifying other lipid/lipoprotein parameters shown in ANCHOR among statin-treated patients with triglycerides 200-499 mg/dL is to reduce cardiovascular risk. In not approving our ANCHOR sNDA, the FDA concluded that, for regulatory approval purposes, there were insufficient data to support a drug-induced change in serum triglycerides as a surrogate for reducing cardiovascular risk in the ANCHOR population. The FDA did not determine that the drug-induced effects of Vascepa, which go beyond triglyceride-lowering, would not actually reduce cardiovascular risk in this population.

In August 2015, based on a federal court order, we began communicating promotional information beyond the MARINE indication to healthcare professionals in the United States through use of a set of qualified statements that reflect the state of research related to this use. In March 2016, we settled the litigation related to this court order under terms by which the FDA and the U.S. government agreed to be bound by the conclusions from the federal court order that we may engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use of Vascepa and that certain statements and disclosures that we proposed to make to healthcare professionals were truthful and non-misleading. An FDA-approved indication for this patient population has not been granted. If new clinical information is demonstrated which changes what we understand today to be truthful and non-misleading, our promotion of Vascepa will need to be modified to ensure that our promotion remains truthful and non-misleading. Our ability to reach full potential in the commercialization of Vascepa in the United States is dependent upon marketing claims associated with Vascepa that are granted with the approval of an indication statement by the FDA.

Based on our communications with the FDA, we expect that final positive results from the REDUCE-IT outcomes study will be required for FDA approval of a new indication or other label expansion for Vascepa. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, further expansion of our marketing approval rights with an FDA approval could prevent us from growing revenue at all or greater than our current pace and could therefore have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial condition, including our ability to reach profitability. Even if we obtain additional regulatory approvals for Vascepa, the timing or scope of any approvals may prohibit or reduce our ability to commercialize the product successfully. For example, if the approval process for any expanded indication takes too long, we may miss market opportunities and give other companies the ability to develop competing products or establish market dominance. If the FDA does not approve any expanded indication at all, it could have a material impact on our future results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, the terms of any approvals beyond the approval received from the FDA in July 2012 for the MARINE indication may prove to not have the scope or breadth needed for us to successfully commercialize Vascepa or become profitable.

Our off-label promotion of Vascepa could subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny and present unforeseen risks.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, has been interpreted by the FDA to make it illegal for pharmaceutical companies to promote their FDA approved products for uses that have not been approved by the FDA. Companies that market drugs for off-label uses or indications have been subject to related costly litigation, criminal penalties and civil liability under the FDCA and the False Claims Act.

34

Table of Contents

In May 2015, we and a group of independent physicians filed a lawsuit against the FDA seeking a federal court declaration that would permit us and our agents to promote to healthcare professionals the use of Vascepa in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and promote on the potential of Vascepa to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease so long as the promotion is truthful and non-misleading. This use of Vascepa at issue reflects recognized medical practice but was not approved by the FDA and is thus not covered by current FDA-approved labeling for the drug. Promotion of an off-label use is considered by the FDA to be illegal under the FDCA. The lawsuit, captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al. v. Food  & Drug Administration, et al. , 119 F. Supp. 3d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the lawsuit, we contended principally that FDA regulations limiting off-label promotion of truthful and non-misleading information are unconstitutional under the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as applied in the case of our proposed promotion of Vascepa. The physicians in the suit regularly treat patients at risk of cardiovascular disease and, as the complaint contended, have First Amendment rights to receive truthful and non-misleading information from Amarin. The suit was based on the principle that better informed physicians make better treatment decisions for their patients. The FDA opposed this lawsuit but did not dispute the veracity of the subject ANCHOR clinical trial data, the safety data from which is already in FDA-approved labeling of Vascepa, or the peer-reviewed research related to Vascepa and the potential for cardiovascular risk reduction.

In connection with this litigation, the FDA sent a detailed letter to us on June 5, 2015 that confirmed the validity of the ANCHOR trial results. The letter also sought to clarify how, in the FDA’s view, applicable law and FDA policies apply to the communications proposed in our complaint. The FDA stated in this letter that it did not have concerns with much of the information we proposed to communicate and provided us with guidance on the FDA’s view of lawful, but limited paths for the dissemination and communication to healthcare professionals of the effects of Vascepa demonstrated in the ANCHOR clinical trial and use of peer-reviewed scientific publications in the context of appropriate disclaimers.

In August 2015, we were granted preliminary relief in this lawsuit through the court’s declaratory judgment that confirmed we may engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use of Vascepa to healthcare professionals, i.e., to treat patients with persistently high triglycerides, and that such speech may not form the basis of a misbranding action under the FDCA. In August 2015, we began to communicate promotional information beyond the MARINE indication to healthcare professionals in the United States as permitted by this court declaration. The FDA did not appeal the court’s ruling. In March 2016, we settled this litigation under terms by which the FDA and the U.S. government agreed to be bound by the conclusions from the federal court order that we may engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use of Vascepa and that certain statements and disclosures that we proposed to make to healthcare professionals were truthful and non-misleading.

While we believe we are now permitted under applicable law to more broadly promote Vascepa, the FDA-approved labeling for Vascepa did not change as a result of this litigation and settlement, and neither government nor other third-party coverage or reimbursement to pay for the off-label use of Vascepa promoted under the court declaration was required. Based on our communications with the FDA, we expect that final positive results from the REDUCE-IT outcomes study will be required for label expansion for Vascepa.

Even though we have the benefit of a final settlement in this litigation, our promotion is still subject to a high, perhaps abnormally high, degree of scrutiny to ensure that our promotion remains within the scope covered by the settlement. For example, under the settlement, we remain responsible for ensuring our speech is truthful and non-misleading. Federal and state governments may also seek to find other means to prevent our promotion of unapproved truthful and non-misleading information about Vascepa. If our promotional activities or other operations are found to be in violation of any law or governmental regulation through existing or new interpretations, we may be subject to prolonged litigation, penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

35

Table of Contents

We may not be able to compete effectively against our competitors’ pharmaceutical products.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are highly competitive. There are many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities and research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of products that may be similar to our products. It is probable that the number of companies seeking to develop products and therapies similar to our products will increase. Many of these and other existing or potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market products. These companies may develop and introduce products and processes competitive with or superior to ours. In addition, other technologies or products may be developed that have an entirely different approach or means of accomplishing the intended purposes of our products, which might render our technology and products noncompetitive or obsolete.

Our competitors both in the United States and Europe include large, well-established pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical sales and marketing companies, and specialized cardiovascular treatment companies. GlaxoSmithKline plc, which currently sells Lovaza ^® , a prescription-only omega-3 fatty acid indicated for patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia was approved by FDA in 2004 and has been on the market in the United States since 2005. As described below, multiple generic versions of Lovaza are now available in the United States. Other large companies with competitive products include AbbVie, Inc., which currently sells Tricor ^® and Trilipix ^® for the treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia and Niaspan ^® , which is primarily used to raise HDL-C but is also used to lower triglycerides. Generic versions of Tricor, Trilipix, and Niaspan are also now available in the United States. In addition, in May 2014, Epanova ^® (omega-3-carboxylic acids) capsules, a free fatty acid form of omega-3 (comprised of 55% EPA and 20% DHA), was approved by the FDA for patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia. Epanova was developed by Omthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and is now owned by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZeneca). Also, in April 2014, Omtryg, another omega-3-acid fatty acid composition developed by Trygg Pharma AS, received FDA approval for severe hypertriglyceridemia. Neither Epanova nor Omtryg have been commercially launched, but could launch at any time. Each of these competitors, other than potentially Trygg, has greater resources than we do, including financial, product development, marketing, personnel and other resources.

Currently, six manufacturers have launched generic versions of Lovaza. In April 2014, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., or Teva, launched a generic version of Lovaza after winning its patent litigation against Pronova BioPharma Norge AS, now owned by BASF, which owns such patent rights. In June 2014 and September 2014, Par Pharmaceutical Inc., or Par, and Apotex Inc., or Apotex, respectively, received FDA approval of their respective versions of generic Lovaza. Par launched a generic version of Lovaza in July 2014. In March 2011, Pronova/BASF entered into an agreement with Apotex to settle its patent litigation in the United States related to Lovaza. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Apotex launched a generic version of Lovaza in January 2015. Prasco Labs launched a generic version of Lovaza in March 2015 and AvKARE, Inc., or AvKARE, launched its version in May 2015. AvKARE supplies government agencies and does not participate in the commercial marketplace. Amneal Pharmaceuticals launched a generic version of Lovaza in January 2016. In December 2016, Golden State Medical Supply launched a generic version of Lovaza. Like AvKARE, Golden State Medical Supply only supplies products to government agencies and does not participate in the commercial marketplace.

In addition, we are aware of other pharmaceutical companies that are developing products that, if approved and marketed, would compete with Vascepa. We understand that Acasti Pharma, or Acasti, a subsidiary of Neptune Technologies & Bioresources Inc., announced in December 2015 that it intends to pursue a regulatory pathway under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA for its omega-3 prescription drug candidate, CaPre ^® , derived from krill oil, for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In September 2016, Acasti announced positive results from its pivotal bioavailability bridging study comparing CaPre to Lovaza, establishing a scientific bridge between the two that is expected to support the feasibility of a 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. Acasti intends to complete long-term toxicity studies in the next 6-9 months and follow these with a Phase 3 clinical program to assess the safety and efficacy of CaPre in patients with very high ( ³ 500 mg/dL) triglycerides. We believe Sancilio & Company, or

36

Table of Contents

Sancilio, is also developing potential treatments for hypertriglyceridemia based on omega-3 fatty acids. To our knowledge, Sancilio is pursuing a regulatory pathway under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA for its product and submitted an Investigational New Drug Application, or IND, in July 2015. Sancilio completed two pharmacokinetic studies and Phase 2 bioavailability studies (FASTR I&II), with one comparing SC401 to Lovaza. We expect the company to initiate a pivotal clinical Phase 3 study as the next step in development.

In addition, we are aware that Matinas BioPharma, Inc. is developing an omega-3-based therapeutic for the treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia and mixed dyslipidemia. Matinas BioPharma, Inc. has filed an IND with the FDA to conduct a human study in the treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia. Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals (formerly Isis Pharmaceuticals), or Akcea/Ionis, announced favorable Phase 3 results of volanesorsen (formerly ISIS-APOCIII _Rx ), a drug candidate administered through weekly subcutaneous injections, in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia (COMPASS trial). Phase 2 trials are currently ongoing studying volanesorsen in patients with familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS) and familial partial lipodystrophy (FPL) with data expected in 2017 and 2019. In January 2017, Akcea/Ionis announced a strategic collaboration and option agreement with Novartis whereby Novartis will help develop (including funding cardiovascular outcomes studies) and commercialize products emerging from this collaboration, including volanesorsen. Madrigal Pharmaceuticals has completed Phase 1 clinical testing of MGL-3196 for the treatment of high triglycerides and various lipid parameters in patients. Finally, Gemfire Therapeutics announced favorable results from a Phase 2 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gemcabene, an oral, once-daily pill, in the treatment of patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) on stable lipid-lowering therapy. The novel mechanism of action of gemcabene may support multiple indications including a potential severe triglyceride reduction. Three Phase 2b trials of gemcabene are ongoing in patients with HoFH on stable lipid-lowering therapy, in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia, and in patients with hypercholesterolemia on a high-intensity stable statin therapy with or without ezetimibe.

Generic company competitors are seeking FDA approval of generic versions of Vascepa and we are now engaged in related patent litigation.

The FDCA, as amended by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, as amended, or the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, permits the FDA to approve ANDAs for generic versions of brand name drugs like Vascepa. We refer to the process of generic drug applications as the “ANDA process.” The ANDA process permits competitor companies to obtain marketing approval for a drug product with the same active ingredient, dosage form, strength, route of administration, and labeling as the approved brand name drug, but without having to conduct and submit clinical studies to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed generic product. In place of such clinical studies, an ANDA applicant needs to submit data demonstrating that its product is bioequivalent to the brand name product, usually based on pharmacokinetic studies.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments require an applicant for a drug product that relies, in whole or in part, on the FDA’s prior approval of Vascepa, to notify us of its application, a “paragraph IV” notice, if the applicant is seeking to market its product prior to the expiration of the patents that claim Vascepa. A bona fide paragraph IV notice may not be given under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments until after the generic company receives from the FDA an acknowledgement letter stating that its ANDA is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review.

The paragraph IV notice is required to contain a detailed factual and legal statement explaining the basis for the applicant’s opinion that the proposed product does not infringe our patents, that our patents are invalid, or both. After receipt of a valid notice, we would have the option of bringing a patent infringement suit in federal district court against any generic company seeking approval for its product within 45 days from the date of receipt of each notice. If such a suit is commenced within this 45 day period, we will be entitled to receive a 30 month stay on FDA’s ability to give final approval to any of the proposed products that reference Vascepa that begins on the date we receive the paragraph IV notice. The stay may be shortened or lengthened if either party fails to cooperate in the litigation and it may be terminated if the court decides the case in less than 30 months. If the litigation is resolved in favor of the applicant before the expiration of the 30 month period, the stay will be

37

Table of Contents

immediately lifted and the FDA’s review of the application may be completed. Such litigation is often time-consuming and costly, and may result in generic competition if such patents are not upheld or if the generic competitor is found not to infringe such patents.

In the first half of 2014, we received six paragraph IV notices notifying us of accepted ANDAs to Vascepa under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. These ANDAs were submitted and accepted by FDA under the regulatory scheme adopted under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments based on the FDA’s determination that we were entitled to three, and not five-year exclusivity. As a result from the first half of 2014 until June 2015, we were engaged in costly litigation with the ANDA applicants to protect our patent rights.

Based on the May 28, 2015, District of Columbia court order granting our motion for summary judgment in the NCE litigation, on June 26, 2015, the parties to the related Vascepa patent litigation that followed acceptance by FDA of ANDAs to Vascepa based on a three-year regulatory exclusivity determination, agreed to a full stay of proceeding in that patent litigation.

Following the May 28, 2015 District of Columbia court order setting aside FDA’s denial of NCE exclusivity for Vascepa, FDA notified the ANDA filers that FDA had changed the status of their ANDAs to submitted, but no longer accepted, and notified ANDA filers that FDA had ceased review of the pending ANDAs. In rescinding acceptance of the ANDAs, the statutory basis for the patent litigation (accepted ANDAs) no longer existed. Thus, on July 24, 2015, we moved to dismiss the pending patent infringement lawsuits against each of the Vascepa ANDA applicants in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On January 22, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted our motion to dismiss all patent infringement litigation related to the 2014 acceptance by the FDA of ANDAs to Vascepa. An appeal of the court’s dismissal was filed by one ANDA filer and, after FDA’s May 2016 grant of Vascepa NCE exclusivity, that appeal was withdrawn by the ANDA filer. This dismissal and terminated appeal ended this patent litigation related to Vascepa.

On May 31, 2016, in a reversal that FDA and we view as consistent with the court’s May 28, 2015 summary judgment motion, FDA determined that Vascepa is eligible for five-year, NCE marketing exclusivity. This determination provides Vascepa with the benefits of NCE exclusivity afforded by statute. NCE exclusivity for Vascepa runs from its date of FDA approval on July 26, 2012 and extends until July 26, 2017. The statutory 30-month stay triggered by patent litigation following generic application submissions permitted on July 26, 2016 would continue until January 26, 2020, seven-and-a-half years from FDA approval, unless such patent litigation was resolved against us sooner.

It is possible that FDA’s NCE determination could be challenged by interested parties. If challenged, we plan to vigorously support FDA’s determination. Any such challenge could have a negative impact on our company and create uncertainty around the continued benefits associated with a five-year exclusivity status.

In September and October 2016, we received paragraph IV certification notices from four companies contending to varying degrees that certain of our patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of a generic form of Vascepa as described in those companies’ ANDAs. These certifications were expected given the eligibility for submission of ANDAs under the NCE regulatory structure, after the expiration of four years from the July 2012 approval of Vascepa.

We filed patent infringement lawsuits against three of these four ANDA applicants. In October 2016, Amarin filed a lawsuit against Roxane Laboratories, Inc. and related parties (collectively, “Roxane”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case against Roxane is captioned  Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. et al.,  Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02525 (D. Nev.). In November 2016, Amarin filed a lawsuit against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, “DRL”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case against DRL is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Dr.  Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. et al. , Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02562 (D. Nev.). In November 2016, Amarin filed a lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited (collectively,

38

Table of Contents

“Teva”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case against Teva is captioned Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. , Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-02658. In all three  lawsuits, we are seeking, among other remedies, an order enjoining each defendant from marketing generic versions of Vascepa before the last to expire of the asserted patents in 2030. The three lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings, and are in their early stages. As a result of the statutory stay associated with the filing of these lawsuits under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA cannot grant final approval to Roxane, DRL, or Teva’s respective ANDA before January 2020, unless there is an earlier court decision holding that the subject patents are not infringed and/or are invalid.

The fourth ANDA applicant referenced above is Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”), which sent Amarin a paragraph IV certification notice in September 2016. The notice reflected that Apotex made a paragraph IV notice as to some, but not all, of the patents listed in the Orange Book for Vascepa. Because Apotex did not make a paragraph IV certification as to all listed patents, Apotex cannot market a generic version of Vascepa before the last to expire of the patents for which Apotex did not make a paragraph IV certification, which is in 2030. At a later date, Apotex may elect to amend its ANDA in order to make a paragraph IV certification as to additional listed patents. If and when Apotex does make such an amendment, it would be required to send Amarin an additional paragraph IV certification notice, and Amarin would then have the ability to file a lawsuit against Apotex pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act.

We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to Vascepa, but we cannot predict the outcome of the  Roxane, DRL or Teva  lawsuits or any subsequently filed lawsuits.

If an ANDA filer is ultimately successful in patent litigation against us, it meets the requirements for a generic version of Vascepa to the satisfaction of the FDA under its ANDA (after the applicable regulatory exclusivity period and the litigation-related 30-month stay period ends), and is able to supply the product in significant commercial quantities, the generic company could introduce a generic version of Vascepa. Such a market entry would likely limit our U.S. sales, which would have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations. In addition, even if a competitor’s effort to introduce a generic product is ultimately unsuccessful, the perception that such development is in progress and/or news related to such progress could materially affect the perceived value of our company and our stock price.

Vascepa’s five-year, new chemical entity, or NCE, regulatory exclusivity from the FDA and related 30-month stay that is scheduled to expire in January 2020 could be challenged by companies seeking to make generic versions of Vascepa.

The timelines and conditions under the abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, process that permit the start of patent litigation and allow the FDA to approve generic versions of brand name drugs like Vascepa differ based on whether a drug receives three-year, or five-year, new chemical entity, or NCE, marketing exclusivity. In May 2016, after significant litigation, FDA determined that Vascepa is eligible for NCE marketing exclusivity. Accordingly, a related 30-month stay is currently in place and is scheduled to continue until January 26, 2020, seven-and-a-half years from FDA approval of Vascepa, unless related patent litigation is resolved against us sooner.

The FDA typically makes a determination on marketing exclusivity in connection with an NDA approval of a drug for a new indication. FDA marketing exclusivity is separate from, and in addition to, patent protection, trade secrets and manufacturing barriers to entry which also help protect Vascepa against generic competition.

We applied to the FDA for five-year, NCE marketing exclusivity for Vascepa in connection with the NDA for our MARINE indication, which NDA was approved by the FDA on July 26, 2012. On February 21, 2014, in connection with the July 26, 2012 approval of the MARINE indication, the FDA denied a grant of five-year NCE marketing exclusivity to Vascepa and granted three-year marketing exclusivity. Under applicable regulations, such three-year exclusivity would have extended through July 25, 2015 and would have been supplemented by a 30-month stay triggered by patent litigation that would have extended into September 2016, unless such patent litigation was resolved against us sooner.

39

Table of Contents

NCE marketing exclusivity precludes approval during the five-year exclusivity period of certain 505(b)(2) applications and ANDAs submitted by another company for another version of the drug. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. In this case, Amarin, as a pioneer drug company, is afforded the benefit of a 30-month stay against the launch of such a competitive product that extends from the end of the five-year exclusivity period. A pioneer company could also be afforded extensions to the stay under applicable regulations, including a six-month pediatric exclusivity extension or a judicial extension if applicable requirements are met. A drug sponsor could also gain a form of marketing exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments if such company can, under certain circumstances, complete a human clinical trial process and obtain regulatory approval of its product.

In contrast, a three-year period of exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments is generally granted for a drug product that contains an active moiety that has been previously approved, such as when the application contains reports of new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) conducted by the sponsor that were essential to approval of the application. Accordingly, we expect to receive three-year exclusivity in connection with any future regulatory approvals of Vascepa, such as an approval sought based on positive REDUCE-IT outcomes study results. Such three-year exclusivity protection precludes the FDA from approving a marketing application for an ANDA, a product candidate that the FDA views as having the same conditions of approval as Vascepa (for example, the same indication and/or other conditions of use), or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted to the FDA with Vascepa as the reference product, for a period of three years from the date of FDA approval. The FDA may accept and commence review of such applications during the three-year exclusivity period. Such three-year exclusivity grant does not prevent a company from challenging the validity of patents at any time, subject to any prior four-year period pending from a grant of five-year exclusivity. This three-year form of exclusivity may also not prevent the FDA from approving an NDA that relies only on its own data to support the change or innovation.

On February 27, 2014, we sued the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the agency’s denial of five-year NCE exclusivity for Vascepa, based on our reading of the relevant statute, our view of FDA’s inconsistency with its past actions in this area and the retroactive effect of what we believe is a new policy at FDA as it relates to our situation. On May 28, 2015, the court granted our motion for summary judgment. The decision vacated the FDA’s denial of our claim for such exclusivity and remanded to the FDA for proceedings consistent with the decision. On July 22, 2015, Watson Laboratories Inc., the purported first Vascepa ANDA filer, sought to intervene and appeal the court’s decision. We and FDA opposed this intervention effort. The applicable courts denied Watson the relief sought and appeal periods have expired.

On May 31, 2016, in a reversal that FDA and we view as consistent with the court’s May 28, 2015 summary judgment motion, FDA determined that Vascepa is eligible for five-year, NCE marketing exclusivity. This determination provides Vascepa with the benefits of NCE exclusivity afforded by statute. NCE exclusivity for Vascepa runs from its date of FDA approval on July 26, 2012 and extends until July 26, 2017. The statutory 30-month stay triggered by patent litigation following generic application submissions permitted on July 26, 2016 would continue until January 26, 2020, seven-and-a-half years from FDA approval, unless such patent litigation was resolved against us sooner.

It is possible that FDA’s NCE determination could be challenged by interested parties. If challenged, we plan to vigorously support FDA’s determination. Any such challenge could have a negative impact on our company and create uncertainty around the continued benefits associated with a five-year, NCE exclusivity status.

Vascepa is a prescription-only omega-3 fatty acid product. Omega-3 fatty acids are also marketed by other companies as non-prescription dietary supplements. As a result, Vascepa is subject to non-prescription competition and consumer substitution.

Our only product, Vascepa, is a prescription-only omega-3 fatty acid in ethyl ester form. Mixtures of omega-3 fatty acids in triglyceride form are naturally occurring substances contained in various foods, including

40

Table of Contents

fatty fish. Omega-3 fatty acids are also marketed by others as non-prescription dietary supplements. We cannot be sure physicians will view the pharmaceutical grade purity and tested efficacy and safety of Vascepa as having a superior therapeutic profile to untested and largely unregulated omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements. In addition, the FDA has not enforced what we view as illegal drug claims made by certain omega-3 fatty acid supplement manufacturers to the extent we believe appropriate under applicable law and regulations, for example, claims that such supplements reduce triglyceride levels. Also, for more than a decade now, the FDA has expressly permitted dietary supplement manufacturers that sell supplements containing the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and/or DHA to make the following qualified health claim directly to consumers: Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. As a result of our First Amendment litigation and settlement, we may now make this claim to healthcare professionals subject to certain qualifications. These factors enable dietary supplements to effectively compete with Vascepa. In addition, to the extent the net price of Vascepa after insurance and offered discounts is significantly higher than the prices of commercially available omega-3 fatty acids marketed by other companies as dietary supplements (through that lack of coverage by insurers or otherwise), physicians and pharmacists may recommend these commercial alternatives instead of writing or filling prescriptions for Vascepa or patients may elect on their own to take commercially available omega-3 fatty acids. While Vascepa is highly price-competitive for patients when covered by insurance—cheaper in many cases—either of these outcomes may adversely impact our results of operations by limiting how we price our product and limiting the revenue we receive from the sale of Vascepa due to reduced market acceptance.

We may not be successful in our Vascepa co-promotion effort with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc.

In March 2014, we entered into a co-promotion agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. to co-promote Vascepa in the United States under which no less than 250 Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. sales representatives devote a substantial portion of their time to promoting Vascepa with our approximately 150 sales professionals, including sales representatives and their managers. Co-promotion under the agreement commenced in May 2014 based on a plan designed to substantially increase both the number of sales targets reached and the frequency of sales calls on existing sales targets. While our agreement provides for minimum performance criteria, we have little control over Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and it may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to promote Vascepa effectively. If that were to occur, depending on Vascepa revenues, we may have to curtail the continued development of Vascepa for approval for additional indications or increase our planned expenditures and undertake additional development or commercialization activities at our own expense. Or, we may seek to terminate the agreement and search for another commercialization partner. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, depending on Vascepa’s revenues, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all, or which may not be possible due to our other financing arrangements. If we do not generate sufficient funds from the sale of Vascepa or, to the extent needed to supplement funds generated from product revenue, cannot raise sufficient funds, we may not be able to devote resources sufficient to market and sell Vascepa on our own in a manner required to realize the full market potential of Vascepa.

The commercial value to us of current and sought marketing rights may be smaller than we anticipate.

There can be no assurance as to the adequacy for commercial success of the scope and breadth of the marketing rights we currently have or, if approved, an indication based on a successful outcome of the REDUCE-IT study. Even if we obtain marketing approval for additional indications, the FDA may impose restrictions on the product’s conditions for use, distribution or marketing and in some cases may impose ongoing requirements for post-market surveillance, post-approval studies or clinical trials. Also, the number of actual patients with conditions within the scope of our marketing efforts may be smaller than we anticipate. If any such marketing right or approved indication is narrower than we anticipate, the market potential for our product would suffer.

41

Table of Contents

Our special protocol assessment, or SPA, agreement for ANCHOR was rescinded and our SPA agreement for REDUCE-IT is not a guarantee of FDA approval of Vascepa for the proposed REDUCE-IT indication.

A SPA is an evaluation by the FDA of a protocol with the goal of reaching an agreement that the Phase 3 trial protocol design, clinical endpoints, and statistical analyses are acceptable to support regulatory approval of the drug product candidate with respect to effectiveness for the indication studied. The ANCHOR trial was, and the REDUCE-IT trial is, being conducted under a SPA agreement with the FDA. In each case, the FDA agreed that, based on the information we submitted to the agency, the design and planned analysis of the trial is adequate to support use of the conducted study as the primary basis for approval with respect to effectiveness. A SPA agreement is not a guarantee of approval. A SPA agreement is generally binding upon the FDA except in limited circumstances, such as if the FDA identifies a substantial scientific issue essential to determining safety or efficacy after the study begins, or if the study sponsor fails to follow the protocol that was agreed upon with the FDA. The FDA reserves the right of final determinations for approval based on its review of the entire data presented in a marketing application.

In October 2013, the FDA notified us that it rescinded the ANCHOR study SPA agreement because the FDA determined that a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the effectiveness of Vascepa in the studied population was identified after testing began. In April 2015, we received a CRL from the FDA stating that the FDA determined not to approve label expansion reflecting the ANCHOR clinical trial efficacy data at this time.

Thus, even though we have received regulatory approval of Vascepa for the MARINE indication under a SPA agreement, our ANCHOR SPA agreement was rescinded. There is no assurance that the FDA will not rescind our REDUCE-IT SPA agreement.

In August 2016, we announced an amendment to our REDUCE-IT SPA agreement with FDA that reaffirmed FDA concurrence on key elements of the study, defined details of the statistical analysis plan for the study, expanded to greater than 30 the pre-specified secondary and tertiary endpoints in the study, and added a second interim efficacy and safety analysis by the independent data monitoring committee (DMC) at approximately 80% of the target aggregate number of primary cardiovascular events. In this amended REDUCE-IT SPA agreement, FDA agreed that, based on the information submitted to the agency, the critical elements of the revised REDUCE-IT protocol and analysis plans adequately address the objectives necessary to support a regulatory submission. However, secondary and/or tertiary endpoints, their ordering in the statistical hierarchy, their clinical significance, or whether any would yield results appropriate for labeling are considered review issues and are not intended to be a binding component of the REDUCE-IT SPA agreement. Further, matters such as endpoint adjudication procedures (including potential endpoint ascertainment, adjudication process, and detailed definitions) were specified by FDA as issues to be reviewed by the agency as part of a drug approval application. Consistent with the May 2016 FDA SPA draft guidance, FDA stated that the SPA agreement does not necessarily indicate the agency’s agreement with every detail of a protocol; instead, such an agreement indicates FDA’s concurrence with the elements critical to ensuring that the trial conducted under the protocol would have the potential to form the primary basis of an efficacy claim in a marketing application. In September 2016, we announced that the DMC completed its review of the first pre-specified interim efficacy analysis and, consistent with previously stated expectations, recommended that the trial continue as planned without modification.

The inability to obtain marketing approval in the ANCHOR or REDUCE-IT indications has prevented, and would continue to prevent, us from growing revenue more significantly, and it has had, and could continue to have, a material adverse effect on our operations and financial condition, including our ability to reach profitability.

42

Table of Contents

The REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes trial may fail to show that Vascepa can reduce major cardiovascular events in an at-risk patient population on statin therapy, and the long-term clinical results of Vascepa may not be consistent with the clinical results we observed in our Phase 3 clinical trial, in which case our sales of Vascepa may then suffer.

In accordance with the SPA agreements for our MARINE and ANCHOR trials, efficacy was evaluated in these trials compared to placebo at twelve weeks. No placebo-controlled studies have been conducted regarding the long-term effect of Vascepa on lipids, and no outcomes study has been conducted evaluating Vascepa. The REDUCE-IT study, which commenced in 2011 and completed patient enrollment and randomization of 8,175 individual patients in 2016, is designed to evaluate the efficacy of Vascepa in reducing major cardiovascular events in an at-risk patient population with high triglyceride levels despite being on statin therapy.

Outcomes studies of certain other lipid-modifying therapies have failed to achieve the endpoints of such studies, even though they reduced triglyceride levels and showed other favorable effects on parameters relevant to cardiovascular health in studied patients. For example, in 2010, the results of the ACCORD-Lipid trial were published. This trial studied the effect of adding fenofibrate onto open-label simvastatin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes. The addition of fenofibrate did not show any treatment benefit on cardiovascular outcomes over simvastatin monotherapy in this study. In 2011, the results of the AIM-HIGH trial were published. This trial studied the effect of adding a second lipid-altering agent, extended-release niacin, to simvastatin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in people at high risk for cardiovascular events. No significant incremental treatment benefit with extended-release niacin was observed.

Outcomes studies of certain other lipid-modifying therapies included results which, after review of information not fully available to the sponsors during the conduct of the trials, modified initial reports of the trial results. Two examples are the AIM-HIGH trial and the IMPROVE-IT trial. When the AIM-HIGH trial was stopped, there were initial reports of certain safety concerns which, upon further and more detailed subsequent review, were concluded to not be associated with the study therapy. After the IMPROVE-IT trial was completed, initial reports on the effect of adding ezetimibe to statin therapy in subjects with acute coronary syndrome suggested greater benefit on cardiovascular outcomes than was considered to be the case after later reassessment and further evaluation of study data. In 2015, the results of the IMPROVE-IT trial were published. Based on the published results, the addition of ezetimibe showed incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. This result was statistically significant but less than ten percent. Further evaluation of the IMPROVE-IT results suggested that the outcomes benefit may have been lower after factoring in and making certain assumptions regarding complicating factors such as a high number of patients who discontinued the study drug, withdrew consent, or were lost to follow-up. FDA approval of a new indication for ezetimibe based on the IMPROVE-IT results was denied after a negative FDA advisory committee recommendation that followed examination of the study results.

In addition, in September 2012, researchers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA, the results of a retrospective meta-analysis of twenty previously conducted studies regarding the use of omega-3 supplements across various patient populations. This meta-analysis suggested that the use of such supplements was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, cardiac death, sudden death, heart attack, or stroke. These facts illustrate categories of challenges faced in demonstrating favorable results in complex clinical studies like REDUCE-IT and in seeking to apply those results in support of regulatory approvals.

Data from clinical trials are invariably complex. It is also not typically possible to reliably extrapolate results from one trial to predict results from another. For instance, the outcomes studies for fenofibrates and niacin were conducted in patient populations in which the majority of patients studied had triglycerides below 200 mg/dL and fenofibrates and niacin are believed to work differently than Vascepa in the body and do not have as favorable a side-effect profile, and nineteen of the twenty studies included in the JAMA meta-analysis involved the use of omega-3 supplements containing a mixture of EPA and DHA, and most were evaluated at relatively lower doses. In addition, in May 2013, The New England Journal of Medicine published the results of an outcomes study of 1 gram per day of an omega-3 acid ethyl ester composition. In that study, the composition

43

Table of Contents

failed to show a benefit in reducing the rate of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes when administered to patients with cardiovascular risk factors under different study conditions than in the REDUCE-IT study. Vascepa is comprised of highly-pure ethyl-EPA, and has been approved by the FDA for use in adult patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia at a dose of 4 grams per day and is being studied in REDUCE-IT at 4 grams per day.

The only other outcomes study involving the use of a highly-pure formulation of ethyl-EPA, called the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), suggested that use of a highly-pure formulation of ethyl-EPA in Japan, when used in conjunction with statins, reduced cardiovascular events by 19% compared to the use of statins alone. However, there are several limitations to the JELIS study. First, the patient population was exclusively Japanese, the majority of the participants were women, and at baseline patients had a much higher LDL, limiting its generalizability to the intended target population. Also, a low dose of statins was used. It is unknown whether the positive treatment effects would have persisted if these patients had been optimally treated with statins using contemporary LDL targets in the United States. In addition, JELIS was an open-label trial, which could influence patient and physician behavior and reporting of symptoms, decisions regarding hospitalization, and referral of events for adjudication. This may be particularly relevant since hospitalization for unstable angina was a primary contributor of the overall positive result, and is considered a softer endpoint than fatal cardiovascular events.

Further, FDA determined that JELIS results could not be used as support for or against the use of triglyceride levels as a surrogate for cardiovascular risk reduction. Patients treated with EPA and statin in JELIS achieved triglyceride levels that were only 5% lower, on average, than those achieved among patients treated with statin alone; however, the reduction in cardiovascular risk in the primary endpoint analysis was 19%. Likewise, within the primary and secondary prevention sub-analyses, triglyceride levels were lowered only 5% on average in the EPA plus statin group compared with the statin alone group; however, the relative risk reduction was 53% in the primary prevention population with elevated triglyceride ( ³ 150 mg/dL) and low HDL-C ( £ 40 mg/dL) levels and 23% in the secondary prevention population with established coronary artery disease. These large differences in magnitude between triglyceride reduction and risk reduction in JELIS suggest that the effects of EPA on triglyceride levels alone may not be responsible for, or predict, the observed differences in cardiovascular events between treatment groups in JELIS. JELIS was not designed to evaluate primary and secondary prevention populations. It is possible that the putative cardioprotective effects of EPA observed in JELIS are due not to a single mode of action, such as triglyceride lowering, but rather to multiple mechanisms working together, such as purported beneficial effects on multiple atherosclerosis processes, including endothelial function, oxidative stress, foam cell formation, inflammation/cytokines, plaque formation/progression, platelet aggregation, thrombus formation, and plaque rupture. The REDUCE-IT study is needed to determine the clinical benefit, if any, of EPA therapy in statin-treated patients with elevated triglyceride levels.

There can be no assurance that the REDUCE-IT study will be completed successfully, that the endpoints of the REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes study will be achieved, that the results will support regulatory approvals, or that the lipid-modifying effects of Vascepa in REDUCE-IT or any other study of Vascepa will not be subject to variation beyond twelve weeks. If the REDUCE-IT trial is not successful or if the results of this long-term study are not consistent with the 12-week clinical results, it could prevent us from expanding the labeled approval of Vascepa or even call into question the currently understood efficacy and safety profile of Vascepa. In any such case, the market potential for Vascepa would suffer and our business would be materially affected.

The commercial value to us of sales of Vascepa outside the United States, such as under the DCS Agreement with Eddingpharm, may be smaller than we anticipate.

There can be no assurance as to the adequacy for commercial success of Vascepa outside the United States. For example, even if we and Eddingpharm obtain marketing approval in countries within the China Territory, applicable regulatory agencies may impose restrictions on the product’s conditions for use, distribution or marketing and in some cases may impose ongoing requirements for post-market surveillance, post-approval

44

Table of Contents

studies or clinical trials. Also, there is a degree of unpredictability with regard to the eventual pricing and reimbursement levels of medications in markets outside the United States. If the pricing and reimbursement levels of Vascepa are lower than we anticipate, then affordability of, and market access to, Vascepa may be adversely affected and thus market potential in these territories would suffer. Furthermore, with regard to any indications for which we may gain approval in territories outside the United States, the number of actual patients with the condition included in such approved indication may be smaller than we anticipate. If any such approved indication is narrower than we anticipate, the market potential in these countries for our product would suffer.

Our products and marketing efforts are subject to extensive post-approval government regulation.

Once a product candidate receives FDA marketing approval, numerous post-approval requirements apply. Among other things, the holder of an approved NDA is subject to periodic and other monitoring and reporting obligations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, including obligations to monitor and report adverse events and instances of the failure of a product to meet the specifications in the approved application. Application holders must also submit advertising and other promotional material to regulatory authorities and report on ongoing clinical trials.

With respect to sales and marketing activities including direct-to-healthcare provider and direct-to-consumer advertising and promotional activities involving the internet, advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules in addition to other applicable federal and local laws in the United States and in other countries. The result of our First Amendment litigation and settlement may cause the government to scrutinize our promotional efforts or otherwise monitor our business more closely. Industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities also must comply with FDA and other requirements. In the United States, the distribution of product samples to physicians must comply with the requirements of the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act. Manufacturing facilities remain subject to FDA inspection and must continue to adhere to the FDA’s pharmaceutical current good manufacturing practice requirements, or cGMPs. Application holders must obtain FDA approval for product and manufacturing changes, depending on the nature of the change.

We also are subject to the new federal transparency requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the PPACA, enacted in March 2010,which require manufacturers of certain drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals and physician ownership and investment interests. We may also be subject, directly or indirectly through our customers and partners, to various fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, U.S. False Claims Act, and similar state laws, which impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing, and scientific/educational grant programs. If we participate in the U.S. Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, the Federal Supply Schedule of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or other government drug programs, we will be subject to complex laws and regulations regarding reporting and payment obligations. We must also comply with requirements to collect and report adverse events and product complaints associated with our products. For example, in September 2014, we participated in a routine inspection from the FDA in which the FDA made observations on perceived deficiencies related to our processes for collection and processing of adverse events. We have responded to FDA with respect to these observations and continue to work with FDA to show that we have improved related systems and, given we received communication from the FDA that it considers this matter to be closed, we believe that we have demonstrated to FDA that we have adequately responded to these observations. Our activities are also potentially subject to U.S. federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws. Similar requirements exist in many of these areas in other countries.

Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet these post-approval requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of pre-marketing product approvals, or refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. We may also be held responsible for the non-compliance of our

45

Table of Contents

partners, such as Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. In addition, even if we comply with FDA and other requirements, new information regarding the safety or effectiveness of a product could lead the FDA to modify or withdraw a product approval. Adverse regulatory action, whether pre- or post-approval, can potentially lead to product liability claims and increase our product liability exposure. We must also compete against other products in qualifying for coverage and reimbursement under applicable third-party payment and insurance programs. In addition, all of the above factors may also apply to any regulatory approval for Vascepa obtained within the China Territory under the DCS agreement with Eddingpharm and in other territories outside the United States. Given our inexperience with marketing and commercializing products outside the United States, we will need to rely on third parties, such as Eddingpharm in China, to assist us in dealing with any such issues.

Legislative or regulatory reform of the healthcare system in the United States and foreign jurisdictions may affect our ability to profitably sell Vascepa.

Our ability to commercialize our future products successfully, alone or with collaborators, will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for the products will be available from government and health administration authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors. The continuing efforts of the U.S. and foreign governments, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce healthcare costs may adversely affect our ability to set prices for our products which we believe are fair, and our ability to generate revenues and achieve and maintain profitability.

Specifically, in both the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our products profitably. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the PPACA, enacted in March 2010, substantially changes the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among other cost-containment measures, PPACA establishes:

We expect further federal and state proposals and healthcare reforms to continue to be proposed by legislators, which could limit the prices that can be charged for the products we develop and may limit our commercial opportunity. It appears likely that the Affordable Care Act will continue the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Legislative changes to the Affordable Care Act remain possible, and appear likely in the 115th United States Congress and under the Trump Administration.

The continuing efforts of government and other third-party payors to further contain or reduce the costs of healthcare through various means may limit our commercial opportunity. It will be time consuming and expensive for us to go through the process of seeking coverage and reimbursement from Medicare and private payors. Our products may not be considered cost effective, and government and third-party private health insurance coverage and reimbursement may not be available to patients for any of our future products or sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a competitive and profitable basis. Our results of operations could be adversely affected by PPACA and by other healthcare reforms that may be enacted or adopted in the future. In addition, increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States will continue to put pressure on the pricing of pharmaceutical products. Cost control initiatives could decrease the price that we or any potential collaborators could receive for any of our future products and could adversely affect our profitability.

46

Table of Contents

In some foreign countries, including major markets in the European Union and Japan, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take 6 to 12 months or longer after the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a pharmacoeconomic study that compares the cost-effectiveness of Vascepa to other available therapies. Such pharmacoeconomic studies can be costly and the results uncertain. Our business could be harmed if reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products. If we or our partners are found to have improperly promoted uses of Vascepa, we may become subject to significant fines and other liability. The government may seek to find means to prevent our promotion of truthful and non-misleading information beyond the current court ruling and litigation settlement.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products. In particular, in general, the U.S. government’s position has been that a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. Even though we received FDA marketing approval for Vascepa for the MARINE indication and we believe the First Amendment court ruling and litigation settlement affords us a degree of protection for other promotional efforts, physicians may still prescribe Vascepa to their patients for use in the treatment of conditions that are not included as part of the indication statement in our FDA-approved Vascepa label or our settlement. If we are found to have promoted Vascepa outside the terms of the litigation settlement or in violation of what federal or state government may determine to be acceptable, we may become subject to significant government fines and other related liability, such as under the FDCA, the False Claims Act, or other theories of liability. Government may also seek to hold us responsible for the non-compliance of our co-promotion partner, Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., or our commercialization partner outside the United States, Eddingpharm. For example, the Federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

In addition, incentives exist under applicable laws that encourage competitors, employees and physicians to report violations of rules governing promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. These incentives could lead to so-called “whistleblower lawsuits” as part of which such persons seek to collect a portion of moneys allegedly overbilled to government agencies due to, for example, promotion of pharmaceutical products beyond labeled claims. These incentives could also lead to suits that we have mischaracterized a competitor’s product in the marketplace and we may, as a result, be sued for alleged damages to our competitors. Such lawsuits, whether with or without merit, are typically time-consuming and costly to defend. Such suits may also result in related shareholder lawsuits, which are also costly to defend.

Even though we have a final settlement in our litigation related to promotion beyond FDA-approved labeling, our promotion would still be subject to a high, perhaps abnormally high, degree of scrutiny to ensure that our promotion remains within the permitted scope. Likewise, federal or state government may seek to find other means to prevent our promotion of truthful and non-misleading information.

47

Table of Contents

The prospective 80% interim efficacy and safety analysis of the REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes trial may not be completed in the contemplated timeframe and may not demonstrate to the independent committee monitoring the study a sufficient benefit risk result to warrant the independent committee recommending stopping the study early for overwhelming efficacy. The independent monitoring committee may, at its discretion, also recommend that the study be stopped for safety or related concerns.

In September 2016, we announced that the DMC completed its review of the first pre-specified interim efficacy analysis upon reaching approximately 60% of the target aggregate number of cardiovascular events in accordance with the SPA agreement for our REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes trial and, consistent with previously stated expectations, recommended that the trial continue as planned without modification. The second planned interim analysis of efficacy results will be triggered by the onset of approximately 80% of the target aggregate number of primary cardiovascular events in the study. Based on historical event rates, we anticipate that the onset of approximately 80% of events will occur in the first half of 2017, with the second pre-specified interim efficacy and safety analysis by the DMC expected in or about the third quarter of 2017. The interim efficacy analysis will be accompanied by an interim safety analysis by the DMC. It may actually take longer than anticipated for the DMC assessment of data for the interim analysis.

Further, as is typical of interim analyses, the statistical threshold for defining overwhelming efficacy on the primary endpoint that would call for stopping the study early in connection with such analysis is considerably higher than the threshold for defining statistical significance after the expected completion of the study near the end of 2017. We do not expect the study to be stopped due to overwhelming efficacy at the next interim look. We have requested the DMC to not recommend stopping the study early based only upon the achievement of statistical significance for the primary endpoint, but to ensure that supportive trends of benefit are also consistently observed in certain secondary endpoints and subpopulations before recommending that the study be stopped early for overwhelming efficacy. For example, even if the appropriate studied cardiovascular events in the trial occur at sufficiently low rates in the active, Vascepa, group as compared to the placebo group such that the study would be a success at completion, the more rigorous statistical analysis applied by the DMC at the interim analysis may not warrant stoppage of the study for overwhelming efficacy in connection with the interim analysis. The study may also be stopped pursuant to recommendation by the DMC at this interim analysis due to low likelihood of obtaining a favorable result at completion. Despite no formal futility analysis or boundary being pre-specified in the protocol, it is within the purview of the DMC to weigh all available information and recommend study stoppage or continuation.

Moreover, it is the DMC that will make the formal recommendation as to whether to stop the study early or to continue as planned. We are blinded to the interim analysis results and are informed by the DMC of the recommendation to stop the study or to continue as planned. The DMC may consider factors outside the pre-specified statistical analysis plan when assessing whether to recommend continuing the study as planned. For example, even if study results are sufficiently positive at the interim analysis to demonstrate overwhelming efficacy, the DMC at its discretion may recommend continuation of the study as planned with the goal of arriving at more robust results at the planned study completion if it believes that waiting for more robust results outweighs the potential medical benefit of stopping and unblinding the study early.

The DMC has multiple times per year assessed safety data generated in the ongoing study and has thus far recommended to continue the study as planned. Thus, multiple safety reviews to date have not warranted study stoppage. Nevertheless, the study may be stopped at any time based on recommendations of the DMC due to safety concerns identified by the DMC during its ongoing and regularly scheduled safety data assessments.

We may not be successful in developing or marketing future products if we cannot meet the extensive regulatory requirements of the FDA and other regulatory agencies for quality, safety and efficacy.

The success of our research and development efforts is dependent in part upon our ability, and the ability of our partners or potential partners, to meet regulatory requirements in the jurisdictions where we or our partners or

48

Table of Contents

potential partners ultimately intend to sell such products once approved. The development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and elsewhere. In the United States, the FDA generally requires preclinical testing and clinical trials of each drug to establish its safety and efficacy and extensive pharmaceutical development to ensure its quality before its introduction into the market. Regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions impose similar requirements. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals is lengthy and expensive and the issuance of such approvals is uncertain. The commencement and rate of completion of clinical trials and the timing of obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities may be delayed by many factors, including:

Even if we obtain positive results from early stage preclinical studies or clinical trials, we may not achieve the same success in future trials. Clinical trials that we or potential partners conduct may not provide sufficient safety and efficacy data to obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for product candidates. The failure of clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy for our desired indications could harm the development of that product candidate as well as other product candidates, and our business and results of operations would suffer. For example, the efficacy results of our Vascepa Phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of Huntington’s disease were negative. As a result, we stopped development of that product candidate, revised our clinical strategy and shifted our focus to develop Vascepa for use in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Questions can also arise on the quality of study data or its reliability. For example, during the public advisory committee meeting held by FDA as part of its review of our ANCHOR sNDA, a discussion regarding observed, nominally statistically significant changes from baseline in an adverse direction, while on background statin therapy, in certain lipid parameters, including triglycerides, in the placebo group, raised questions about the possibility that the mineral oil placebo used in the ANCHOR trial (and in the REDUCE-IT trial) might not be biologically inert and might be viewed as artificially exaggerating the clinical effect of Vascepa when measured against placebo in the ANCHOR trial. Ultimately, no strong evidence for biological activity of mineral oil was identified by the FDA before its approval of Vascepa after review of the MARINE and ANCHOR trials and consideration of other data regarding mineral oil. It was ultimately concluded that the between-group differences likely provided the most appropriate descriptions of the treatment effect of Vascepa and that whatever factor(s) led to the within-group changes over time in the placebo group were likely randomly distributed to all treatment groups. Thus, the FDA approved Vascepa for use in the MARINE indication in July 2012, FDA did not dispute the veracity of the ANCHOR trial data and, in connection with the March 2016 agreement we reached with the FDA allowing us to promote the results of the ANCHOR study, the FDA did not require that we include any qualification related to this earlier question regarding the mineral oil placebo. The FDA, early on in the course of the REDUCE-IT trial, directed the DMC for REDUCE-IT to periodically review unblinded lipid data to monitor for signals that the placebo might

49

Table of Contents

not be inert. After each such quarterly unblinded safety analysis and review meeting to date, the DMC has recommended to continue the REDUCE-IT study as planned. Each of these DMC recommendations has been shared with FDA. Amarin and FDA remain blinded to such study data. Despite the currently positive disposition of this matter, it illustrates that concerns such as this may arise in the future that could affect our product development, regulatory review or the public perception of our products and our future prospects.

Any approvals that are obtained may be limited in scope, may require additional post-approval studies or may require the addition of labeling statements focusing on product safety that could affect the commercial potential for our product candidates. Any of these or similar circumstances could adversely affect our ability to gain approval for new indications and affect revenues from the sale of our products. Even in circumstances where products are approved by a regulatory body for sale, the regulatory or legal requirements may change over time, or new safety or efficacy information may be identified concerning a product, which may lead to the withdrawal of a product from the market or similar use restrictions. The discovery of previously unknown problems with a clinical trial or product, or in connection with the manufacturer of products, may result in regulatory issues that prevent past or proposed future approvals of a product and/or restrictions on that product or manufacturer, including withdrawal of an indication or the product from the market, which would have a negative impact on our potential revenue stream.

As we continue to evolve from a company primarily involved in research and development to a company also focused on establishing an infrastructure for commercializing Vascepa, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

The process of establishing a commercial infrastructure is difficult, expensive and time-consuming. We have a relatively small sales organization consisting of approximately 150 sales professionals, including sales representatives and their managers. As our operations expand with the anticipated growth of our product sales, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various collaborative partners, suppliers and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain and integrate additional employees. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize Vascepa and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage our future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts effectively, and hire, train, integrate and retain additional management, administrative and sales and marketing personnel. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing our company.

Risks Related to our Reliance on Third Parties

Our supply of product for the commercial market and clinical trials is dependent upon relationships with third-party manufacturers and key suppliers.

We have no in-house manufacturing capacity and rely on contract manufacturers for our clinical and commercial product supply. We cannot ensure that we will successfully manufacture any product we may develop, either independently or under manufacturing arrangements, if any, with our third-party manufacturers. Moreover, if any manufacturer should cease doing business with us or experience delays, shortages of supply or excessive demands on their capacity, we may not be able to obtain adequate quantities of product in a timely manner, or at all.

Any manufacturing problem, natural disaster affecting manufacturing facilities, or the loss of a contract manufacturer could be disruptive to our operations and result in lost sales. Any reliance on suppliers may involve several risks, including a potential inability to obtain critical materials and reduced control over production costs, delivery schedules, reliability and quality. Any unanticipated disruption to future contract manufacture caused by problems at suppliers could delay shipment of products, increase our cost of goods sold and/or result in lost sales. If our suppliers were unable to supply us with adequate volumes of active pharmaceutical ingredient (drug substance) or encapsulated bulk product (drug product), it would have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue to commercialize Vascepa.

50

Table of Contents

We initially purchased all of our supply of the bulk compound (ethyl-EPA), or Vascepa API, from a single supplier, Nisshin Pharma, Inc., or Nisshin, located in Japan. Nisshin was approved by the FDA as a Vascepa API supplier as part of our FDA NDA for the MARINE indication in July 2012. In April 2013, we announced the approval by the FDA of an NDA supplement for Chemport, Inc. and BASF (formerly Equateq Limited) as additional Vascepa API suppliers. We terminated our agreement with BASF due to its inability to meet the agreement requirements, may enter into a new development and supply agreement with BASF, and may purchase API from BASF as it remains an NDA-approved supplier. In 2014, we obtained sNDA approval for a fourth supplier of API, which includes the manufacturing facility of Finorga SAS (Novasep). We currently purchase and use commercial supply from Novasep, Chemport, and Nisshin. Each of the API manufacturers obtains supply of the key raw material to manufacture API from other qualified third-parties.

While we have contractual freedom to source the API for Vascepa and have entered into supply agreements with multiple suppliers who also rely on other third-party suppliers to manufacture the API for Vascepa, Novasep, Nisshin and Chemport currently supply all of our API for Vascepa. Our strategy in adding API suppliers beyond Nisshin has been to expand manufacturing capacity, maintain competitive advantages, and mitigate the risk of reliance on any single supplier.

Expanding manufacturing capacity and qualifying such capacity is difficult and subject to numerous regulations and other operational challenges. The resources of our suppliers vary and are limited; costs associated with projected expansion and qualification can be significant. For example, Chemport, which was approved as one of our API suppliers in April 2013, is a privately-held company and their commitment to Vascepa supply has required them to seek additional resources. There can be no assurance that the expansion plans of any of our suppliers will be successful. Our aggregate capacity to produce API is dependent upon the qualification of our API suppliers. Each of our API suppliers has outlined plans for potential further capacity expansion. If no additional API supplier is approved by the FDA as part of an sNDA, our API supply will be limited to the API we purchase from previously approved suppliers. If our third-party manufacturing capacity is not expanded and/or compliant with applicable regulatory requirements, we may not be able to supply sufficient quantities of Vascepa to meet anticipated demand. We cannot guarantee that we can contract with any future manufacturer on acceptable terms or that any such alternative supplier will not require capital investment from us in order for them to meet our requirements. Alternatively, our purchase of supply may exceed actual demand for Vascepa.

We currently have encapsulation agreements with three commercial API encapsulators for the encapsulation of Vascepa: Patheon, Inc. (formerly Banner Pharmacaps), Catalent Pharma Solutions, and Capsugel Plöermel SAS. These companies have qualified and validated their manufacturing processes and are capable of manufacturing Vascepa. There can be no guarantee that additional other suppliers with which we have contracted to encapsulate API will be qualified to manufacture the product to our specifications or that these and any future suppliers will have the manufacturing capacity to meeting anticipated demand for Vascepa.

We may purchase too much or not enough supply to satisfy actual demand, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial results and financial condition.

Certain of our agreements with our suppliers include minimum purchase obligations and limited exclusivity provisions. These purchases are generally made on the basis of rolling twelve-month forecasts which in part are binding on us and the balance of which are subject to adjustment by us subject to certain limitations. Certain of our agreements also include contractual minimum purchase commitments regardless of the rolling twelve-month forecasts. We may not purchase sufficient quantities of Vascepa to meet actual demand or our purchase of supply may exceed actual demand. In either case, such event could have a material adverse effect on our financial results and financial condition.

51

Table of Contents

The manufacture, packaging and distribution of pharmaceutical products such as Vascepa are subject to FDA regulations and those of similar foreign regulatory bodies. If we or our third-party manufacturers fail to satisfy these requirements, our product development and commercialization efforts may be materially harmed.

The manufacture, packaging and distribution of pharmaceutical products, such as Vascepa, are regulated by the FDA and similar foreign regulatory bodies and must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s pharmaceutical current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, and comparable requirements of foreign regulatory bodies. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under these cGMPs and International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, or ICH, regulations who are both capable of manufacturing Vascepa and willing to do so. Failure by us or our third-party manufacturers to comply with applicable regulations, requirements, or guidelines could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, failure of regulatory authorities to grant marketing approval of our products, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or voluntary recalls of product, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect our business. If we are not able to manufacture Vascepa to required specifications through our current and potential API suppliers, we may be delayed in successfully supplying the product to meet anticipated demand and our anticipated future revenues and financial results may be materially adversely affected.

Changes in the manufacturing process or procedure, including a change in the location where the product is manufactured or a change of a third-party manufacturer, may require prior FDA review and pre-approval of the manufacturing process and procedures in accordance with the FDA’s cGMPs. Any new facility may be subject to a pre-approval inspection by the FDA and would again require us to demonstrate product comparability to the FDA. There are comparable foreign requirements under ICH guidelines. This review may be costly and time consuming and could delay or prevent the launch of a product.

Furthermore, the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies require that we be able to consistently produce the API and the finished product in commercial quantities and of specified quality on a repeated basis, including demonstrated product stability, and document our ability to do so. This requirement is referred to as process validation. This includes stability testing, measurement of impurities and testing of other product specifications by validated test methods. If the FDA does not consider the result of the process validation or required testing to be satisfactory, the commercial supply of Vascepa may be delayed, or we may not be able to supply sufficient quantities of Vascepa to meet anticipated demand.

The FDA and similar foreign regulatory bodies may also implement new requirements, or change their interpretation and enforcement of existing requirements, for manufacture, packaging or testing of products at any time. If we or our approved suppliers are unable to comply, we may be subject to regulatory, civil actions or penalties which could significantly and adversely affect our business.

We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet established deadlines for the completion of such clinical trials.

Our reliance on third parties for clinical development activities reduces our control over these activities. However, if we sponsor clinical trials, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trials. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with requirements, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of these responsibilities and requirements. Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be delayed in obtaining regulatory approvals for our product candidates and may be delayed in our efforts to successfully commercialize our product candidates for targeted diseases.

52

Table of Contents

We are dependent upon our collaboration with Eddingpharm and others to commercialize Vascepa in certain regions outside of the United States, and if such third parties fail to successfully fulfill their obligations, or are ineffective in their commercialization of Vascepa, or if our collaborations are terminated, our plans to commercialize Vascepa outside of the United States may be adversely affected.

In February 2015, we entered into the DCS Agreement with Eddingpharm, under which we granted exclusive rights to Eddingpharm to develop and commercialize Vascepa in the China Territory. We are dependent on Eddingpharm for certain regulatory filings outside of the United States with respect to Vascepa, which may require conducting clinical trials in the China Territory to secure regulatory approval, as well as the commercialization of Vascepa outside of the United States. If Eddingpharm fails to perform its obligations under the DCS Agreement or is ineffective in its commercialization of Vascepa in the China Territory or if we fail to effectively manage our relationship with Eddingpharm, our ability to and the extent to which we commercialize and obtain certain regulatory approvals of Vascepa outside of the United States would be significantly harmed.

In addition, Eddingpharm has the right to terminate the agreement under certain conditions. If Eddingpharm terminates the DCS Agreement, we would be required to either enter into alternative arrangements with third parties to commercialize Vascepa in the China Territory, which we may be unable to do, or to increase our internal infrastructure, both of which would likely result in significant additional expense and delay or termination of our Vascepa clinical development programs outside of the United States.

We also have an agreement with Biologix, entered into in March 2016, to register and commercialize Vascepa in countries within the Middle East and North Africa. Commercialization across the region, as in China, is subject to similar third party risk.

Risks Related to our Intellectual Property

We are dependent on patents, proprietary rights and confidentiality to protect the commercial potential of Vascepa.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our drug candidates, technology and know-how, and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. Our ability to successfully implement our business plan and to protect our products with our intellectual property will depend in large part on our ability to:

We have prosecuted, and are currently prosecuting, multiple patent applications to protect the intellectual property developed during the Vascepa development program. As of the date of this report, we had 51 patent applications in the United States that have been either issued or allowed and more than 30 additional patent applications are pending in the United States. Such 51 allowed and issued applications include the following:

53

Table of Contents

A Notice of Allowance is issued after the USPTO makes a determination that a patent can be granted from an application. A Notice of Allowance does not afford patent protection until the underlying patent is issued by the USPTO. No assurance can be given that applications with issued notices of allowance will be issued as patents or that any of our pending patent applications will issue as patents. No assurance can be given that, if and when issued, our patents will prevent competitors from competing with Vascepa. For example, we may choose to not assert all issued patents in patent litigation and patents or claims within patents may be determined to be invalid.

We are also pursuing patent applications related to Vascepa in multiple jurisdictions outside the United States. We may be dependent in some cases upon third-party licensors to pursue filing, prosecution and maintenance of patent rights or applications owned or controlled by those parties. It is possible that third parties will obtain patents or other proprietary rights that might be necessary or useful to us. In cases where third parties are first to invent a particular product or technology, or first to file after various provisions of the America Invents Act of 2011 went into effect on March 16, 2013, it is possible that those parties will obtain patents that will be sufficiently broad so as to prevent us from utilizing such technology or commercializing our current and future products.

Although we intend to make reasonable efforts to protect our current and future intellectual property rights and to ensure that any proprietary technology we acquire or develop does not infringe the rights of other parties, we may not be able to ascertain the existence of all potentially conflicting claims. Therefore, there is a risk that third parties may make claims of infringement against our current or future products or technologies. In addition, third parties may be able to obtain patents that prevent the sale of our current or future products or require us to obtain a license and pay significant fees or royalties in order to continue selling such products.

We may in the future discover the existence of products that infringe patents that we own or that have been licensed to us. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to stop such an infringement, such proceedings could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. No assurances can be given that we would prevail, and it is possible that, during such a proceeding, our patent rights could be held to be invalid, unenforceable or both. Although we intend to protect our trade secrets and proprietary know-how through confidentiality agreements with our manufacturers, employees and consultants, we may not be able to prevent parties subject to such confidentiality agreements from breaching these agreements or third parties from independently developing or learning of our trade secrets.

We anticipate that competitors may from time to time oppose our efforts to obtain patent protection for new technologies or to submit patented technologies for regulatory approvals. Competitors may seek to oppose our patent applications to delay the approval process or to challenge our granted patents, for example, by requesting a reexamination of our patent at the USPTO, or by filing an opposition in a foreign patent office, even if the opposition or challenge has little or no merit. For example, one of our patents was revoked in an opposition proceeding in Europe due to a determination of improper claim amendments under a provision of law not applicable in the United States. Such proceedings are generally highly technical, expensive, and time consuming,

54

Table of Contents

and there can be no assurance that such a challenge would not result in the narrowing or complete revocation of any patent of ours that was so challenged.

Our issued patents may not prevent competitors from competing with Vascepa, even if we seek to enforce our patent rights.

We plan to vigorously defend our rights under issued patents. For example, in March 2014, we filed a patent infringement suit against Omthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its parent company, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. The suit sought injunctive relief and monetary damages for infringement of our U.S. Patent No. 8,663,662. The complaint alleged infringement of the patent arising from the expected launch of Epanova, a product that is expected to compete with Vascepa in the United States. The patent covers methods of lowering triglycerides by administering a pharmaceutical composition that includes amounts of EPA as free acid, and no more than about 30% DHA. In November 2014, based on a representation from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP that the commercial launch of Epanova was not imminent, the court dismissed our complaint, without prejudice (i.e., preserving our ability to later re-file the suit). The court required the defendant to notify us before any product launch. We intend to pursue this litigation vigorously and aggressively protect its intellectual property rights. However, patent litigation is a time-consuming and costly process. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in enforcing this patent or that it will not be successfully challenged and invalidated. Even if we are successful in enforcing this patent, the process could take years to reach conclusion.

Other drug companies may challenge the validity, enforceability, or both of our patents and seek to design its products around our issued patent claims and gain marketing approval for generic versions of Vascepa or branded competitive products based on new clinical studies. The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and many of our competitors have greater experience and resources than we have. Any such competition could undermine sales, marketing and collaboration efforts for Vascepa, and thus reduce, perhaps materially, the revenue potential for Vascepa.

Even if we are successful in enforcing our issued patents, we may incur substantial costs and divert management’s time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Patent litigation is costly and time consuming, and we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

There can be no assurance that any of our pending patent applications relating to Vascepa or its use will issue as patents.

We have filed and are prosecuting numerous families of patent applications in the United States and internationally with claims designed to protect the proprietary position of Vascepa. For certain of these patent families, we have filed multiple patent applications. Collectively the patent applications include numerous independent claims and dependent claims. Several of our patent applications contain claims that are based upon what we believe are unexpected and favorable findings from the MARINE and ANCHOR trials. If granted, many of the resulting granted patents would expire in 2030 or beyond. However, no assurance can be given that these additional MARINE and ANCHOR patents or any of our pending patent applications intended to cover an indication based on future results from the REDUCE-IT clinical trial will be granted or, if they grant, that they will prevent competitors from competing with Vascepa.

Securing patent protection for a product is a complex process involving many legal and factual questions. The patent applications we have filed in the United States and internationally are at varying stages of examination, the timing of which is outside our control. The process to getting a patent granted can be lengthy and claims initially submitted are often modified in order to satisfy the requirements of the patent office. This process includes written and public communication with the patent office. The process can also include direct discussions with the patent examiner. There can be no assurance that the patent office will accept our arguments with respect to any patent application or with respect to any claim therein. The timing of the patent review

55

Table of Contents

process is independent of and has no effect on the timing of the FDA’s review of our NDA or sNDA submissions. We cannot predict the timing or results of any patent application. In addition, we may elect to submit, or the patent office may require, additional evidence to support certain of the claims we are pursuing. Furthermore, third parties may attempt to submit publications for consideration by the patent office during examination of our patent applications. Providing such additional evidence and publications could prolong the patent office’s review of our applications and result in us incurring additional costs. We cannot be certain what commercial value any granted patent in our patent estate will provide to us.

Despite the use of confidentiality agreements and/or proprietary rights agreements, which themselves may be of limited effectiveness, it may be difficult for us to protect our trade secrets.

In addition to our patent portfolio and strategy, we will also rely upon trade secrets and know-how to help protect our competitive position. We rely on trade secrets to protect technology in cases when we believe patent protection is not appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. While we require certain of our academic collaborators, contractors and consultants to enter into confidentiality agreements, we may not be able to adequately protect our trade secrets or other proprietary information.

Risks Related to our Business

If the estimates we make, or the assumptions on which we rely, in preparing our projected guidance prove inaccurate, our actual results may vary from those reflected in our projections and accruals.

In January 2017, we issued financial and business guidance, including expected fiscal year 2017 total net revenue and expectations regarding improved cash flow from commercial operations and timing of the REDUCE-IT outcomes trial. All such guidance is based on estimates and the judgment of management. Because of the inherent nature of estimates, there could be significant differences between our estimates and the actual amount of product demand. If, for any reason, we are unable to realize our currently projected 2017 revenue, we may not realize our publicly announced financial guidance. If we fail to realize or if we change or update any element of our publicly disclosed financial guidance or other expectations about our business, our stock price could decline in value.

We and certain of our current and former executive officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit that could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention.

The market price of our American Depositary Shares, or ADSs, declined significantly after the October 2013 decision by the FDA Advisory Committee to recommend against approval of Vascepa in the ANCHOR indication. We and certain of our current and former executive officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit that generally alleged that we and certain of our current and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements or material omissions concerning the ANCHOR sNDA and related FDA regulatory approval process in an effort to lead investors to believe that Vascepa would receive approval from the FDA in the ANCHOR indication. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs.

We engaged in a vigorous defense of this lawsuit. On June 29, 2015, the court granted our first motion to dismiss the class action litigation without prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and plaintiffs were given 30 days to refile an amended complaint.

On July 29, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and we again moved to dismiss. On April 26, 2016, the court granted a second motion to dismiss, again without prejudice, with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On May 24, 2016, plaintiffs notified the court they would not file another amended complaint and on September 21, 2016, filed a brief in support of their appeal of the most recent dismissal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We plan to continue with our vigorous defense in connection with this appeal.

56

Table of Contents

We are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter at this time. While we expect insurance to cover any financial exposure from this litigation, the conclusion of this matter in a manner adverse to us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and business. For example, we could incur substantial costs not covered by our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, suffer a significant adverse impact on our reputation and divert management’s attention and resources from other priorities, including the execution of business plans and strategies that are important to our ability to grow our business, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, any of these matters could require payments that are not covered by, or exceed the limits of, our available directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results or financial condition.

Potential technological changes in our field of business create considerable uncertainty.

We are engaged in the biopharmaceutical field, which is characterized by extensive research efforts and rapid technological progress. New developments in research are expected to continue at a rapid pace in both industry and academia. We cannot assure you that research and discoveries by others will not render some or all of our programs or product candidates uncompetitive or obsolete. Our business strategy is based in part upon new and unproven technologies to the development of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health. We cannot assure you that unforeseen problems will not develop with these technologies or applications or that any commercially feasible products will ultimately be developed by us.

We are subject to potential product liability.

Following the commercial launch of Vascepa, we will be subject to the potential risk of product liability claims relating to the manufacturing and marketing of Vascepa. Any person who is injured as a result of using Vascepa may have a product liability claim against us without having to prove that we were at fault.

In addition, we could be subject to product liability claims by persons who took part in clinical trials involving our current or former development stage products. A successful claim brought against us could have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot guarantee that a product liability claim will not be asserted against us in the future.

We may become subject to liability in connection with the wind-down of our EN101 program.

In 2007, we purchased Ester Neurosciences Limited, an Israeli pharmaceutical company, and its lead product candidate, EN101, an AChE-R mRNA inhibitor for the treatment of myasthenia gravis, or MG, a debilitating neuromuscular disease. In connection with the acquisition, we assumed a license to certain intellectual property assets related to EN101 from the Yissum Research Development Company of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In keeping with our 2009 decision to re-focus our efforts on developing improved treatments for cardiovascular disease and cease development of all product candidates outside of our cardiovascular disease focus, we amended the terms of our acquisition agreement with the original shareholders of Ester.

Following our decision to cease development of EN101, Yissum terminated its license agreement with us. In June 2011, Yissum announced that it had entered into a license agreement with BiolineRX Ltd for the development of EN101 in a different indication, inflammatory bowel disease.

In 2011 and early 2012, but not after, we received several communications on behalf of the former shareholders of Ester asserting that we are in breach of our agreement with them as it relates to alleged rights to share in the value of EN101 due to the fact that Yissum terminated its license. We do not believe the circumstances presented constitute a breach of the agreement. If the dispute arises again, we plan to defend our position vigorously, but there can be no assurance as to the outcome of this dispute.

57

Table of Contents

A change in our tax residence could have a negative effect on our future profitability.

Under current UK legislation, a company incorporated in England and Wales, or which is centrally managed and controlled in the UK, is regarded as resident in the UK for taxation purposes. Under current Irish legislation, a company is regarded as resident for tax purposes in Ireland if it is centrally managed and controlled in Ireland, or, in certain circumstances, if it is incorporated in Ireland. Where a company is treated as tax resident under the domestic laws of both the UK and Ireland then the provisions of article 4(3) of the Double Tax Convention between the UK and Ireland provides that such enterprise shall be treated as resident only in the jurisdiction in which its place of effective management is situated. We have sought to conduct our affairs in such a way so as to be resident only in Ireland for tax purposes by virtue of having our place of effective management situated in Ireland. Trading income of an Irish company is generally taxable at the Irish corporation tax rate of 12.5%. Non-trading income of an Irish company (e.g., interest income, rental income or other passive income) is taxable at a rate of 25%.

However, we cannot assure you that we are or will continue to be resident only in Ireland for tax purposes. It is possible that in the future, whether as a result of a change in law or the practice of any relevant tax authority or as a result of any change in the conduct of our affairs, we could become, or be regarded as having become resident in a jurisdiction other than Ireland. Our and our subsidiaries’ income tax returns are periodically examined by various tax authorities. We are currently under audit by the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the years 2012 to 2013. Although the outcome of tax audits is always uncertain and could result in significant cash tax payments, we do not believe the outcome of these audits will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. The ultimate resolution may result in a payment that is materially different from our current estimate of the tax liabilities. Should we cease to be an Irish tax resident, we may be subject to a charge to Irish capital gains tax on our assets. Similarly, if the tax residency of any of our subsidiaries were to change from their current jurisdiction for any of the reasons listed above, we may be subject to a charge to local capital gains tax charge on the assets.

The loss of key personnel could have an adverse effect on our business.

We are highly dependent upon the efforts of our senior management. The loss of the services of one or more members of senior management could have a material adverse effect on us. As a small company with a streamlined management structure, the departure of any key person could have a significant impact and would be potentially disruptive to our business until such time as a suitable replacement is hired. Furthermore, because of the specialized nature of our business, as our business plan progresses we will be highly dependent upon our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific, technical and key management personnel. As we evolve from a development stage company to a commercial stage company we may experience turnover among members of our senior management team. We may have difficulty identifying and integrating new executives to replace any such losses. There is intense competition for qualified personnel in the areas of our activities. In this environment, we may not be able to attract and retain the personnel necessary for the development of our business, particularly if we do not achieve profitability. The failure to recruit key scientific, technical and management personnel would be detrimental to our ability to implement our business plan.

We could be adversely affected by our exposure to customer concentration risk.

A significant portion of our sales are to wholesalers in the pharmaceutical industry. Our top three customers accounted for 95% of gross product sales for each of the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 and represented 96% and 95% of the gross accounts receivable balance as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. There can be no guarantee that we will be able to sustain our accounts receivable or gross sales levels from our key customers. If, for any reason, we were to lose, or experience a decrease in the amount of business with our largest customers, whether directly or through our distributor relationships, our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively affected.

58

Table of Contents

Risks Related to our Financial Position and Capital Requirements

We have a history of operating losses and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for an indefinite period of time.

We have not yet reached profitability. For the fiscal years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, we reported losses of approximately $86.4 million, $149.1 million, and $56.4 million, respectively, and we had an accumulated deficit as of December 31, 2016 of $1.2 billion. Substantially all of our operating losses resulted from costs incurred in connection with our research and development programs, from general and administrative costs associated with our operations, and costs related to the commercialization of Vascepa. Additionally, as a result of our significant expenses relating to research and development and to commercialization, we expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for an indefinite period. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products, we are unable to predict the magnitude of these future losses. Our historic losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our cash resources, shareholders’ deficit and working capital.

Although we began generating revenue from Vascepa in January 2013, we may never be profitable.

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenue. We have been generating product revenue from sales of Vascepa since January 2013, but we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to attain profitability. Our ability to generate profits on sales of Vascepa is subject to the market acceptance and commercial success of Vascepa and our ability to manufacture commercial quantities of Vascepa through third parties at acceptable cost levels, and may also depend upon our ability to effectively market and sell Vascepa through our strategic collaborations.

Even though Vascepa has been approved by the FDA for marketing in the United States in the MARINE indication, it may not gain market acceptance or achieve commercial success and it may never be approved for the ANCHOR indication or any other indication. In addition, we anticipate continuing to incur significant costs associated with commercializing Vascepa. We may not achieve profitability in the near term due to high costs associated with our REDUCE-IT study and commercialization efforts, for example. If we are unable to continue to generate robust product revenues, we will not become profitable in the near term, if ever, and may be unable to continue operations without continued funding.

Our historical financial results do not form an accurate basis for assessing our current business.

As a consequence of the many years developing Vascepa for commercialization and the commercial launch of Vascepa in 2013 in the United States, our historical financial results do not form an accurate basis upon which investors should base their assessment of our business and prospects. In addition, we expect that our costs will increase substantially as we continue to commercialize Vascepa in the MARINE indication and with ANCHOR data and seek to obtain additional regulatory approval of Vascepa from continuation of the REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes study. Accordingly, our historical financial results reflect a substantially different business from that currently being conducted and from that expected in the future. In addition, we have a limited history of obtaining regulatory approval for, and no demonstrated ability to successfully commercialize, a product candidate. Consequently, any predictions about our future performance may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

Our operating results are unpredictable and may fluctuate. If our operating results are below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, the trading price of our stock could decline.

Our operating results are difficult to predict and will likely fluctuate from quarter to quarter and year to year, and Vascepa prescription figures will likely fluctuate from month to month. Vascepa sales are difficult to predict from period to period and as a result, you should not rely on Vascepa sales results in any period as being indicative of future performance, and sales of Vascepa may be below the expectation of securities analysts or

59

Table of Contents

investors in the future. We believe that our quarterly and annual results of operations may be affected by a variety of factors, including:

We may require substantial additional resources to fund our operations. If we cannot find additional capital resources, we will have difficulty in operating as a going concern and growing our business.

We currently operate with limited resources. We believe that our cash and cash equivalents balance of $98.3 million as of December 31, 2016 will be sufficient to fund our projected operations through the results of the REDUCE-IT study, which we anticipate will be available mid-2018. Depending on the level of cash generated from operations, additional capital may be required to sustain operations, fund debt obligations or expand promotion of Vascepa as contemplated following anticipated successful results of the REDUCE-IT study. We anticipate that quarterly net cash outflows in future periods will be variable.

In order to fully realize the market potential of Vascepa, we may need to enter into a new strategic collaboration or raise additional capital. We may also need additional capital to fully complete our REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes trial.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

60

Table of Contents

If we require additional funds and adequate funds are not available to us in amounts or on terms acceptable to us or on a timely basis, or at all, our commercialization efforts for Vascepa may suffer materially, and we may need to delay the advancement of the REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes trial.

We have substantial net operating loss carryforwards for tax purposes, the majority of which are from operations in Ireland. The potential future benefit of such net operating loss carryforwards could be lost if tax regulations change or if we are deemed to not have active operations in Ireland.

Amarin developed Vascepa, known during development as AMR101, in and from Ireland. In recent years, particularly since 2013 when commercial sale of Vascepa commenced in the United States, the majority of Amarin’s consolidated operations have been in the United States. Ownership to Vascepa continues to reside with Amarin’s wholly-owned Ireland-based subsidiary, Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd., and oversight and operations of that entity are structured to be maintained in Ireland. In order to effectively utilize Amarin’s accumulated net operating loss carryforwards for tax purposes in Ireland, Amarin operations, particularly for this subsidiary, need to be active in Ireland. In addition, utilization of these accumulated net operating loss carryforwards assume that tax treaties between Ireland and other countries, particularly the United States, do not change in a manner which limit Amarin’s future ability to offset earnings with these operating loss carryforwards for tax purposes.

Continued negative economic conditions would likely have a negative effect on our ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms.

While we may seek additional funding through public or private financings, we may not be able to obtain financing on acceptable terms, or at all. There can be no assurance that we will be able to access equity or credit markets in order to finance our current operations or expand development programs for Vascepa, or that there will not be a further deterioration in financial markets and confidence in economies. We may also have to scale back or further restructure our operations. If we are unable to obtain additional funding on a timely basis, we may be required to curtail or terminate some or all of our research or development programs or our commercialization strategies.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights.

To the extent we are permitted under our Purchase and Sale Agreement with BioPharma Secured Debt Fund II Holdings Cayman LP, or BioPharma, we may seek additional capital through a combination of private and public equity offerings, debt financings and collaboration, strategic and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a shareholder.

In January 2012, Corsicanto Designated Activity Company (formerly Corsicanto Limited), or Corsicanto, issued $150.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 3.5% exchangeable senior notes due 2032, or the 2012 Notes. In May 2014, we entered into separate, privately negotiated exchange agreements with certain holders of the 2012 Notes pursuant to which Corsicanto exchanged $118.7 million in aggregate principal amount of the existing 2012 Notes for $118.7 million in aggregate principal amount of new 3.5% May 2014 Exchangeable Senior Notes due 2032, or the 2014 Notes. In November 2015, we issued $31.3 million in aggregate principal

61

Table of Contents

amount of 3.5% exchangeable senior notes due 2032, or the 2015 Notes, and used $16.2 million of the proceeds to repay a portion of the 2012 Notes, such that $15.1 million of 2012 Notes remained outstanding. In September 2016, we mandatorily exchanged the entirety of the 2014 Notes and 2015 Notes, in accordance with their respective terms, into 60,311,188 ADSs. In January 2017, approximately $15.0 million of the 2012 Notes were put to us, such that $0.1 million of the 2012 Notes currently remains outstanding. We have initiated the process to redeem the $0.1 million of outstanding principal amount of 2012 Notes, which we expect will be completed in the first quarter of 2017. In the event of physical settlement, the remaining $0.1 million of 2012 Notes would be exchangeable into a total of 15,092 ADSs.

In January 2017, Corsicanto II Designated Activity Company, or Corsicanto II, issued $30.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 3.5% exchangeable senior notes due 2047, or the 2017 Notes. In the event of physical settlement, the 2017 Notes would be exchangeable into a total of 7,716,048 ADSs.

Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaboration, strategic alliance and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, Vascepa or product candidates beyond the rights we have already relinquished, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

Potential business combinations or other strategic transactions may disrupt our business or divert management’s attention.

On a regular basis, we explore potential business combination transactions, including an acquisition of us by a third party, exclusive licenses of Vascepa or other strategic transactions or collaborations with third parties. For example, in March 2014, we entered into a co-promotion agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. related to the commercialization of Vascepa in the United States. The consummation and performance of any such future transactions or collaborations will involve risks, such as:

As a result of these risks, we may not be able to achieve the expected benefits of any such transaction or collaboration or deliver the value thereof to our shareholders. If we are unsuccessful in consummating any such transaction or collaboration, we may be required to reevaluate our business only after we have incurred substantial expenses and devoted significant management time and resources.

Risks Related to Ownership of our ADSs and Common Shares

The price of our ADSs and common shares may be volatile.

The stock market has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that may be unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. In addition, the market prices of the securities of many pharmaceutical and medical technology companies have been especially volatile in the past, and this trend is expected to continue in the future.

As of February 20, 2017 we had 272,061,557 common shares outstanding including 269,369,455 shares held as ADSs and 2,692,102 held as common shares (which are not held in the form of ADSs). There is a risk

62

Table of Contents

that there may not be sufficient liquidity in the market to accommodate significant increases in selling activity or the sale of a large block of our securities. Our ADSs have historically had limited trading volume, which may also result in volatility. If any of our large investors, such as the participants in our March 2015 private placement, seek to sell substantial amounts of our ADSs, particularly if these sales are in a rapid or disorderly manner, or other investors perceive that these sales could occur, the market price of our ADSs could decrease significantly.

The market price of our ADSs and common shares may also be affected by factors such as:

The number of our ordinary shares, or ADSs representing such ordinary shares, outstanding may increase substantially as a result of our March 2015 private placement and the later consolidation and redesignation of the Series A Preference Shares represented by Preference ADSs issued thereunder, and some of the investors may then beneficially own significant blocks of our ordinary shares; the ordinary shares and Series A Preference Shares resulting from the private placement will be generally available for resale in the public market upon registration under the Securities Act.

In March and July 2015, we completed a private placement of American Depositary Shares in two tranches representing 352,150,790 and 38,867,180 Series A Preference Shares, respectively, each ten (10) of which may be consolidated and redesignated into one (1) ordinary share in our capital. During the three months ended June 30, 2015, 62,833,330 preferred shares were converted, resulting in the issuance of 6,283,333 ordinary shares. The consolidation and redesignation of the Series A Preference Shares currently outstanding would result in an additional 32,818,464 ordinary shares outstanding, resulting in substantial dilution to shareholders who held our ordinary shares or ADSs representing such ordinary shares prior to the private placement. Although the Series A Preference Shares do not have voting rights, in general, upon consolidation and redesignation into ordinary shares some of the investors in the private placement could then have significant influence over the outcome of any shareholder vote, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combination transactions.

Pursuant to the securities subscription agreements that we entered into with the investors in the private placement, we agreed to file with the SEC a registration statement to register the resale of the Series A Preference Shares represented by American Depositary Shares issued in the private placement and the ordinary shares issuable upon the consolidation and consolidation and redesignation of such Series A Preference Shares. Upon such registration and subsequent consolidation and redesignation, these securities will become generally available for immediate resale in the public market. The market price of our ordinary shares could fall as a result of an increase in the number of shares available for sale in the public market.

63

Table of Contents

Failure to comply with our obligations under the March 2015 securities subscription agreements could result in our becoming liable for damages to certain investors under these agreements, including specified liquidated damages, which could be material in amount.

Under the terms of the March 2015 securities subscription agreements, we are subject to various obligations, failure to comply with which could result in our becoming liable to certain investors under these agreement for damages, which could be material in amount.

For example, under each of these agreements we have agreed to file and maintain the effectiveness of certain resale registration statements for ADSs representing the ordinary shares underlying the Series A Preference shares we issued and sold under these agreements. Specifically, we have agreed to pay liquidated damages to the investors in the respective private placements if (a) the applicable resale registration statements we are required to file are not declared effective within 120 days after the closing of the applicable private placement, or (b) after effectiveness and subject to certain specified exceptions, we suspend the use of the applicable registration statement or the registration statement ceases to remain continuously effective as to all the securities for which it is required to be effective. We refer to each of these events as a registration default. Subject to the specified exceptions, for each 30-day period or portion thereof during which a registration default remains uncured, we are obligated to pay liquidated damages to each investor in cash in an amount equal to 1% of the aggregate subscription price paid by each such investor in the private placement, up to a maximum of 8% of such aggregate subscription price. These amounts could be material, and any liquidated damages we are required to pay could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

In addition, under the securities subscription agreement dated as of March 5, 2015, we are required to offer to certain investors party to that agreement an opportunity to participate in future equity and debt financings we may conduct from time to time, and to not publicly disclose the identity of the investors party to that agreement, subject to certain exceptions for disclosures required in securities filings and under applicable law. If we fail to comply with these obligations we could become liable to these investors for damages, including specified liquidated damages. For example, following certain public statements made by us on a quarterly conference call concerning the 2015 private placement, we agreed to specified liquidated damages in the event we are found to have violated the confidentiality provisions of the subscription agreement in the future.

A share price of less than $1.00 may impact our NASDAQ listing.

If our closing bid price is less than $1.00 for 30 consecutive trading days, we would receive a NASDAQ staff deficiency letter indicating that we are not in compliance with the minimum bid price requirement for continued listing. Such a letter would trigger an automatic 180 calendar day period within which the company could regain compliance. Compliance is regained at any time during this period if the Amarin closing bid price is $1.00 per share or more for a minimum of 10 consecutive trading days. If we do not regain compliance during this period, our ADSs could be delisted from The NASDAQ Global Market, transferred to a listing on The NASDAQ Capital Market, or delisted from the NASDAQ markets altogether. The failure to maintain our listing on The NASDAQ Global Market could harm the liquidity of our ADSs and could have an adverse effect on the market price of our ADSs.

Actual or potential sales of our common shares by our employees, including members of our senior management team, pursuant to pre-arranged stock trading plans could cause our stock price to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons, and actual or potential sales by such persons could be viewed negatively by other investors.

In accordance with the guidelines specified under Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and our policies regarding stock transactions, a number of our directors and employees, including members of our senior management team, have adopted and may continue to adopt pre-arranged stock trading plans to sell a portion of our common stock. Generally, sales under such plans by members of our senior management team and

64

Table of Contents

directors require public filings. Actual or potential sales of our ADSs by such persons could cause the price of our ADSs to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons. For example, a substantial amount of our ADSs becoming available (or being perceived to become available) for sale in the public market could cause the market price of our ADSs to fall or prevent it from increasing. Also, actual or potential sales by such persons could be viewed negatively by other investors.

We may be a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, which would result in adverse U.S. federal tax consequences to U.S. investors.

Amarin Corporation plc and certain of our subsidiaries may be classified as “passive foreign investment companies,” or PFICs, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The tests for determining PFIC status for a taxable year depend upon the relative values of certain categories of assets and the relative amounts of certain kinds of income. The application of these factors depends upon our financial results, which are beyond our ability to predict or control, and which may be subject to legal and factual uncertainties.

We believe it is prudent to assume that we were classified as a PFIC in 2012. We do not believe that we were classified as a PFIC in 2013 through 2016. Our status as a PFIC is subject to change in 2017 and future years.

If we are a PFIC, U.S. holders of notes, ordinary shares or ADSs would be subject to adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences, such as ineligibility for any preferred tax rates on capital gains or on actual or deemed dividends, interest charges on certain taxes treated as deferred, and additional reporting requirements under U.S. federal income tax laws and regulations. Whether or not U.S. holders of our ADSs make a timely “QEF election” or “mark-to-market election” may affect the U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders with respect to the acquisition, ownership and disposition of Amarin ADSs and any distributions such U.S. holders may receive. A QEF election and other elections that may mitigate the effect of our being classified as a PFIC are unavailable with respect to the notes. Investors should consult their own tax advisors regarding all aspects of the application of the PFIC rules to the notes, ordinary shares and ADSs.

Failure to meet our obligations under our Purchase and Sale Agreement with BioPharma could adversely affect our financial results and liquidity.

Pursuant to our December 2012 Purchase and Sale Agreement with BioPharma, we are obligated to make payments to BioPharma based on the amount of our net product sales of Vascepa and any future products based on ethyl-EPA, or covered products, subject to certain quarterly caps.

Pursuant to this agreement, we may not, among other things: (i) incur indebtedness greater than a specified amount, which we refer to as the Indebtedness Covenant; (ii) pay a dividend or other cash distribution, unless we have cash and cash equivalents in excess of a specified amount after such payment; (iii) amend or restate our memorandum and articles of association unless such amendments or restatements do not affect BioPharma’s interests under the transaction; (iv) encumber any of the collateral securing our performance under the agreement; and (v) abandon certain patent rights, in each case without the consent of BioPharma.

Upon a transaction resulting in a change of control of Amarin, as defined in the agreement, BioPharma will be automatically entitled to receive any amounts not previously paid, up to our maximum repayment obligation. As defined in the agreement, “change of control” includes, among other things, (i) a greater than 50 percent change in the ownership of Amarin, (ii) a sale or disposition of any collateral securing our debt with BioPharma and (iii), unless BioPharma has been paid a certain amount under the indebtedness, certain licensings of Vascepa to a third party for sale in the United States. The acceleration of the payment obligation in the event of a change of control transaction may make us less attractive to potential acquirers, and the payment of such funds out of our available cash or acquisition proceeds would reduce acquisition proceeds for our shareholders.

65

Table of Contents

To secure our obligations under the agreement, we granted BioPharma a security interest in our rights in patents, trademarks, trade names, domain names, copyrights, know-how and regulatory approvals related to the covered products, all books and records relating to the foregoing and all proceeds of the foregoing, which we refer to as the collateral. If we (i) fail to deliver a payment when due and do not remedy that failure within specific notice period, (ii) fail to maintain a first-priority perfected security interest in the collateral in the United States and do not remedy that failure after receiving notice of such failure or (iii) become subject to an event of bankruptcy, then BioPharma may attempt to collect the maximum amount payable by us under this agreement (after deducting any payments we have already made).

There can be no assurance that we will not breach the covenants or other terms of, or that an event of default will not occur under, this agreement and, if a breach or event of default occurs, there can be no assurance that we will be able to cure the breach within the time permitted. Any failure to pay our obligations when due, any breach or default of our covenants or other obligations, or any other event that causes an acceleration of payment at a time when we do not have sufficient resources to meet these obligations, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and future viability.

Our existing indebtedness could adversely affect our financial condition.

Our existing indebtedness consists of $0.1 million in aggregate principal amount of 3.5% exchangeable senior notes due 2032, or the 2012 Notes, and $30.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 3.5% exchangeable senior notes due 2047, or the 2017 Notes. The 2012 Notes contain a provision for such notes to be put to us by the holders for repayment in cash on each of January 19, 2022 and January 19, 2027. The 2017 Notes contain a provision for such notes to be put to us by the holders for repayment in cash on January 19, 2022.

Our indebtedness and the related annual debt service requirements may adversely impact our business, operations and financial condition in the future. For example, they could:

The accounting for convertible debt securities that may be settled in cash, such as our 2012 Notes and 2017 Notes, could have a material effect on our reported financial results.

Under the FASB Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, we are required to separately account for the liability and equity components of the convertible debt instruments that may be settled entirely or partially in cash upon conversion in a manner that reflects the issuer’s economic interest cost. The effect of ASC on the accounting for our outstanding convertible notes may be that the equity component is required to be included in the additional paid-in capital section of stockholders’ equity on our consolidated balance sheets and the value of the equity component would be treated as original issue discount for purposes of accounting for the debt component of the notes. As a result, we are required to record non-cash interest expense as a result of the amortization of the discounted carrying value of the notes to their face amount over the term of the notes. We may be required to report higher interest expense in our financial results because ASC may require interest to include both the current period’s amortization of the debt discount and the instrument’s coupon interest, which could adversely affect our reported or future financial results and the trading price of our ADSs.

66

Table of Contents

Servicing our debt may require a significant amount of cash, and we may not have sufficient cash flow from our business to provide the funds sufficient to pay our substantial debt.

Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal, to pay interest on or to refinance our indebtedness, including the notes, depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not continue to generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt and make necessary capital expenditures. If we are unable to generate such cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations, including the notes, and have a material adverse effect on the trading price of our ADSs.

We may be able to incur substantial additional debt in the future, subject to the restrictions contained in our future debt instruments, if any, which would intensify the risks discussed above.

We do not intend to pay cash dividends on the ordinary shares in the foreseeable future.

We have never paid dividends on ordinary shares and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on the ordinary shares in the foreseeable future. Under English law, any payment of dividends would be subject to relevant legislation and our Articles of Association, which requires that all dividends must be approved by our Board of Directors and, in some cases, our shareholders, and may only be paid from our distributable profits available for the purpose, determined on an unconsolidated basis.

The rights of our shareholders may differ from the rights typically offered to shareholders of a U.S. corporation.

We are incorporated under English law. The rights of holders of ordinary shares and, therefore, certain of the rights of holders of ADSs, are governed by English law, including the provisions of the Companies Act 2006, and by our Articles of Association. These rights differ in certain respects from the rights of shareholders in typical U.S. corporations. The principal differences include the following:

67

Table of Contents

U.S. shareholders may not be able to enforce civil liabilities against us.

We are incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, and our subsidiaries are incorporated in various jurisdictions, including foreign jurisdictions. A number of the officers and directors of each of our subsidiaries are non-residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of the assets of such persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for investors to affect service of process within the United States upon such persons or to enforce against them judgments obtained in U.S. courts predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States. We have been advised by our English solicitors that there is doubt as to the enforceability in England in original actions, or in actions for enforcement of judgments of U.S. courts, of civil liabilities to the extent predicated upon the federal securities laws of the United States.

U.S. holders of the ADSs or ordinary shares may be subject to U.S. federal income taxation at ordinary income tax rates on undistributed earnings and profits.

There is a risk that we will be classified as a controlled foreign corporation, or CFC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If we are classified as a CFC, any ADS holder or shareholder that is a U.S. person that owns directly, indirectly or by attribution, 10% or more of the voting power of our outstanding shares may be subject to U.S. income taxation at ordinary income tax rates on all or a portion of our undistributed earnings and profits attributable to “subpart F income.” Such 10% holder may also be taxable at ordinary income tax rates on any gain realized on a sale of ordinary shares or ADS, to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits attributable to such shares. The CFC rules are complex and U.S. holders of the ordinary shares or ADSs are urged to consult their own tax advisors regarding the possible application of the CFC rules to them in their particular circumstances.