Commitments and Contingencies | 5. Commitments and Contingencies On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before approving the Company’s lead product candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and on July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company’s favor. On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. In May 2017, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The appeal was fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in which it reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On October 11, 2018, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition. On December 3, 2018, the Sixth Circuit denied the Company's petition for en banc rehearing, and on December 11, 2018, the case was returned to the federal district court by mandate from the Sixth Circuit. On December 26, 2018, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint, and on March 28, 2019, the Company filed its amended answer to the amended complaint. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. On December 15, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Tim Mayleben, Roger Newton, Mary McGowan, Nicole Vitullo, Dov Goldstein, Daniel Janney, Antonio Gotto Jr., Mark McGovern, Gilbert Omenn, Scott Braunstein, and Patrick Enright. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company when they made or approved improper statements on August 17, 2015, regarding the Company’s lead product candidate’s path to FDA approval, and failed to ensure that reliable systems of internal controls were in place at the Company. On February 8, 2019, the Company and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the derivative lawsuit. On April 23, 2019, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss the derivative lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, any damages sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, including damages related to the above-referenced securities class action, an order directing the Company to take all necessary actions to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution from the defendants, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. On May 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, captioned Kevin Bailey v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 18-cv-11438) . An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2018, against the Company and certain directors and officers. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly making false and misleading statements and omissions about the safety and tolerability of bempedoic acid, and specifically facts and circumstances surrounding the Phase 3 trial results for bempedoic acid that the Company announced on May 2, 2018. On November 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and that motion was fully briefed on December 18, 2018. The lawsuit sought, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between February 22, 2017, and May 22, 2018, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 19, 2019, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company’s favor. There have been no other material changes to the Company’s contractual obligations and commitments and contingencies outside the ordinary course of business from those previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. |