Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	17. Commitments and Contingencies Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action lawsuits were filed 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 alleged 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 sought, 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. On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits into a single action entitled In re Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (C.A. # 3:15-cv-07350) and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 11, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the Company and other 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. Before the motion was decided, the lead plaintiff and defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 14, 2017. Thereafter, on June 29, 2017, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement. On November 9, 2017, the Court conducted a fairness hearing and on November 15, 2017, entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement. Among other provisions, the Settlement provides defendants with a release of all claims and involves the creation of a Settlement Fund for class members in the amount of $3.8 million. The majority of the amount was covered under insurance and any out of pocket expenses were immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements. 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 any litigation is necessarily uncertain and we could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these lawsuits, and we may not prevail.

17. Commitments and Contingencies

Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action lawsuits were filed 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 alleged 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 sought, 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. On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits into a single action entitled In re Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (C.A. # 3:15-cv-07350) and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 11, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the Company and other 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. Before the motion was decided, the lead plaintiff and defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 14, 2017. Thereafter, on June 29, 2017, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement. On November 9, 2017, the Court conducted a fairness hearing and on November 15, 2017, entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement. Among other provisions, the Settlement provides defendants with a release of all claims and involves the creation of a Settlement Fund for class members in the amount of $3.8 million. The majority of the amount was covered under insurance and any out of pocket expenses were immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

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 any litigation is necessarily uncertain and we could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these lawsuits, and we may not prevail.