XML 27 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court for New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the regulatory approval path for migalastat. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages for purchasers of the Company’s Common Stock during different periods, all of which fall between March 19, 2015 and October 1, 2015. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with respect to similar matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as defendants. On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits into a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 11, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in response to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. This motion to dismiss was fully briefed on October 28, 2016. Lead plaintiff and defendants have reached an agreement in principal to fully and finally settle all claims asserted in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The settlement is immaterial to the Company’s consolidated financial statements and is subject to court approval. The settlement amount is expected to be fully covered under insurance. On or about March 3, 2016, a derivative lawsuit was filed by an Amicus shareholder purportedly on Amicus’ behalf in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Chancery Division, against various officers and directors of the Company. Amicus itself is named as a nominal defendant. The derivative lawsuit alleges similar facts and circumstances as the three purported securities class action lawsuits described above and further alleges claims for breach of state law fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement based on allegedly false and misleading statements made by Amicus related to the regulatory approval path for migalastat HCl. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to require the Amicus Board to take certain actions to reform its corporate governance procedures, including greater shareholder input and a provision to permit shareholders to nominate candidates for election to the Board, along with restitution, costs of suit and attorney’s fees. On February 7, 2017, the complaint was dismissed by the Court without prejudice. These lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual cost will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of the litigation is necessarily uncertain and we could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these suits, and we may not prevail.