COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation In the normal course of business, the Company may from time to time be named as a party to various legal claims, actions and complaints, including matters involving securities, employment, intellectual property, effects from the use of therapeutics utilizing its technology, or others. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for loss contingencies related to litigation when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. On January 27, 2014 and January 29, 2014, purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current or former officers. The complaints were consolidated into a single action (Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No. 14-cv-10201) (“Corban”) by order of the court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that Sarepta and certain of its current or former officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen and sought damages in an unspecified amount. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Sarepta’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On August 12, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ April 30, 2015 motion for leave seeking to file a further amended complaint, and on September 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on September 29, 2015. On January 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court’s order denying leave to amend and dismissing the case, during the pendency of which the plaintiffs’ appeal was stayed. On April 21, 2016, the Court denied that motion. On May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Court denied that motion on May 20, 2016. A briefing schedule for the plaintiffs’ appeal has been set by the First Circuit. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Another purported class action complaint was filed on December 3, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ( Kader v. Sarepta et.al On February 5, 2015, a derivative suit was filed in the 215th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas against the Company’s Board of Directors ( David Smith, derivatively on behalf of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., v. Christopher Garabedian et. al, Case No. 2015-06645 On March 16, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company’s Board of Directors ( Dawn Cherry, on behalf of nominal defendant Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., vs. Behrens et. al., 1:16-cv-10531 Additionally, on September 23, 2014, a derivative suit was filed against the Company’s Board of Directors with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ( Terry McDonald, derivatively on behalf of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., et. al vs. Goolsbee et. al., No. 10157 |