within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and (2) accumulated and communicated to our management, including our President and Chief Executive Officer, who is our principal executive officer, and our Chief Financial Officer, who is our principal financial officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
As of September 30, 2019, our management, with the participation of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934). Our management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives, and management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Our principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded based upon the evaluation described above that, as of September 30, 2019, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
During the three months ended September 30, 2019, we implemented certain additional controls in connection with the ongoing accounting for our revenue interest liability with Oberland.
PART II — OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of our company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against us and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that we 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 our 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, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in our 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, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit of Appeals directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition. On December 3, 2018, the Sixth Circuit denied our 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, we filed our answer to the amended complaint, and on March 28, 2019, we filed our amended answer to the amended complaint. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are 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 our 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. Our 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 our lead product candidate’s path to FDA approval, and failed to ensure that reliable systems of internal controls were in place at our company. On February 8, 2019, we and the 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, and we filed a reply brief on May 15, 2019. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, any damages sustained by us as a result of the defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, including damages related to the above-referenced securities class action, an order directing us to take all necessary actions to reform and improve our corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution from the defendants, and attorneys’ fees and costs. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome.