Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	(9) Legal Proceedings On February 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its present and former officers, Michael Bailey, Matthew Dallas, and Keith Ehrlich, in the Southern District of New York for the District of New York, captioned David Hackel v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-01722-AT (the “2019 Class Action”). On April 12, 2019, the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:19-cv-10783-JCB). On May 6, 2019, the court appointed Andrej Hornak as lead plaintiff and approved Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and Andrews DeValerio LLP as liaison counsel. On July 24, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint also names Michael Needle as a defendant. The amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between May 4, 2017 through January 31, 2019. It generally alleges that the Company and its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose and/or making allegedly false and/or misleading statements about the estimated dates by which the Company would report the topline results from the TIVO-3 trial, the preliminary overall survival results from the TIVO-3 trial, the sufficiency of the overall survival data from the TIVO-3 trial, the timing of the NDA submission, and the risk of FDA approval. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. On September 27, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 4, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on January 15, 2020, the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. On July 8, 2019 and July 10, 2019, two derivative lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its present and former officers and its directors in the Suffolk Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, captioned Stephen Favre v. Michael P. Bailey, et al. 19-2169-BLS2 and Yu v. Michael P. Bailey, et al. 19-2188-BLS2, respectively. The complaints generally allege breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. On July 24, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the cases and stay the consolidated matter pending the dismissal of, or filing of an answer to, the complaint in the 2019 Class Action. On July 26, 2019, the court granted that motion. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits at this time. In June 2018, the Company settled a consolidated class action lawsuit (the “2013 Class Action”), In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, that had been filed in 2013 against the Company and certain of its former officers (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer, and Ronald DePinho) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “District Court”). The 2013 Class Action had been dismissed without prejudice in March 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, but which no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant. The Company moved to dismiss again, and the District Court ruled in the Company’s favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice in November 2015. The lead plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision and also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the District Court’s judgment. In January 2017, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal and judgment. In February 2017, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013 (the “2013 Class”) alleging claims similar to those alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the Company and certain of the Company’s former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company’s TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. In July 2017, the District Court entered an order referring the case to alternative dispute resolution. The parties mediated during the fall of 2017. On December 26, 2017, the parties entered into a binding memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”) to settle the 2013 Class Action. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company agreed to cause certain of the Company’s and the individual defendants’ insurance carriers to provide the 2013 Class with a cash payment of $15.0 million, which included the cash amount of any attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses that the District Court may award. Additionally, the Company agreed to issue to the 2013 Class the Settlement Warrants, for the purchase of 0.2 million shares of the Company’s common stock, which, subject to certain conditions, are exercisable from the date of issue until the expiration of a one-year period after the date of issue at an exercise price of $3.00 per share, equal to the closing price on December 22, 2017, the trading day prior to the execution of the MOU. On January 29, 2018, the parties entered into a definitive Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), which was filed with the District Court on February 2, 2018. On February 8, 2018, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the terms of the Stipulation. In February 2018, the insurance carriers funded the settlement escrow account for the $15.0 million cash settlement. On May 30, 2018, the District Court held the final approval hearing and approved the settlement and the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses, subject to the final judgment. Upon the conclusion of a standard 30-day appeal period, the effective date was deemed to be June 29, 2018. On July 16, 2018, the Company issued and delivered the Settlement Warrants in accordance with the Stipulation and filed a corresponding shelf registration statement to register the shares of common stock underlying the Settlement Warrants which was declared effective by the SEC on July 25, 2018. All 0.2 million Settlement Warrants expired on July 15, 2019 as none of the warrants had been exercised during the one-year exercise period. The Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings on a quarterly basis. The Company records an accrual for loss contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. In December 2017, upon entering into the MOU, the Company’s liability related to this settlement became estimable and probable. Accordingly, the Company recorded an estimated $17.1 million contingent liability, including $15.0 million for the cash portion of the settlement with a corresponding insurance recovery for the 100% portion to be paid directly by certain of the Company’s insurance carriers, and an approximate $2.1 million estimate for the warrant portion of the settlement with a corresponding non-cash charge to the Statement of Operations as a component of operating expenses. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, all claims against the Company were released upon the Effective Date. In addition, pursuant to the Stipulation, the Company has no interest in the settlement escrow account subsequent to the Effective Date. Accordingly, the Company reversed the $15.0 million cash portion of the settlement from both the contingent liability and the corresponding insurance recovery as of the Effective Date. In 2013, the SEC also served a subpoena on the Company for documents and information concerning tivozanib, including related communications with the FDA, investors and others. In September 2015, the SEC invited the Company to discuss the settlement of potential claims asserting that the Company violated federal securities laws by omitting to disclose to investors the recommendation by the staff of the FDA on May 11, 2012, that the Company conduct an additional clinical trial with respect to tivozanib. On March 29, 2016, the SEC filed a complaint against the Company and three of its former officers in the District Court alleging that the Company misled investors about its efforts to obtain FDA approval for tivozanib. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, the Company consented to the entry of a final judgment pursuant to which the Company paid the SEC a $4.0 million civil penalty to settle the SEC’s claims against it. As this settlement was probable and estimable as of December 31, 2015, the Company recorded an estimated settlement liability of $4.0 million and recorded a corresponding loss in the Statement of Operations as a component of operating expenses. On March 31, 2016, the District Court entered a final judgment which (i) approved the settlement; (ii) permanently enjoined the Company from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder; and (iii) ordered the Company to pay the agreed-to civil penalty. In September 2017 and October 2017, respectively, two of the Company’s former officers consented to entry of final judgment to settle the SEC’s claims against them. In November 2018, the District Court jury ruled against the remaining former officer. In April 2019, that individual moved for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial. In October 2019, the District Court denied the motion. In December 2019, the individual appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (No. 19-2264). The Company is not a party to the litigation between the SEC and the remaining former officer, and the Company can make no assurance regarding the outcome of that action or the SEC’s claims against that individual.

Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(9) Legal Proceedings

On February 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its present and former officers, Michael Bailey, Matthew Dallas, and Keith Ehrlich, in the Southern District of New York for the District of New York, captioned David Hackel v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-01722-AT (the “2019 Class Action”). On April 12, 2019, the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:19-cv-10783-JCB). On May 6, 2019, the court appointed Andrej Hornak as lead plaintiff and approved Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and Andrews DeValerio LLP as liaison counsel. On July 24, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint also names Michael Needle as a defendant. The amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company’s common stock between May 4, 2017 through January 31, 2019. It generally alleges that the Company and its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose and/or making allegedly false and/or misleading statements about the estimated dates by which the Company would report the topline results from the TIVO-3 trial, the preliminary overall survival results from the TIVO-3 trial, the sufficiency of the overall survival data from the TIVO-3 trial, the timing of the NDA submission, and the risk of FDA approval. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. On September 27, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 4, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on January 15, 2020, the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

On July 8, 2019 and July 10, 2019, two derivative lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its present and former officers and its directors in the Suffolk Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, captioned Stephen Favre v. Michael P. Bailey, et al. 19-2169-BLS2 and Yu v. Michael P. Bailey, et al. 19-2188-BLS2, respectively. The complaints generally allege breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. On July 24, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the cases and stay the consolidated matter pending the dismissal of, or filing of an answer to, the complaint in the 2019 Class Action. On July 26, 2019, the court granted that motion. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits at this time.

In June 2018, the Company settled a consolidated class action lawsuit (the “2013 Class Action”), In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, that had been filed in 2013 against the Company and certain of its former officers (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer, and Ronald DePinho) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “District Court”). The 2013 Class Action had been dismissed without prejudice in March 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, but which no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant. The Company moved to dismiss again, and the District Court ruled in the Company’s favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice in November 2015. The lead plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision and also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the District Court’s judgment. In January 2017, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal and judgment. In February 2017, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on behalf of stockholders who purchased common stock between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013 (the “2013 Class”) alleging claims similar to those alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the Company and certain of the Company’s former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company’s TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. In July 2017, the District Court entered an order referring the case to alternative dispute resolution. The parties mediated during the fall of 2017.

On December 26, 2017, the parties entered into a binding memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”) to settle the 2013 Class Action. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company agreed to cause certain of the Company’s and the individual defendants’ insurance carriers to provide the 2013 Class with a cash payment of $15.0 million, which included the cash amount of any attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses that the District Court may award. Additionally, the Company agreed to issue to the 2013 Class the Settlement Warrants, for the purchase of 0.2 million shares of the Company’s common stock, which, subject to certain conditions, are exercisable from the date of issue until the expiration of a one-year period after the date of issue at an exercise price of $3.00 per share, equal to the closing price on December 22, 2017, the trading day prior to the execution of the MOU. On January 29, 2018, the parties entered into a definitive Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”), which was filed with the District Court on February 2, 2018. On February 8, 2018, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the terms of the Stipulation. In February 2018, the insurance carriers funded the settlement escrow account for the $15.0 million cash settlement. On May 30, 2018, the District Court held the final approval hearing and approved the settlement and the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses, subject to the final judgment. Upon the conclusion of a standard 30-day appeal period, the effective date was deemed to be June 29, 2018. On July 16, 2018, the Company issued and delivered the Settlement Warrants in accordance with the Stipulation and filed a corresponding shelf registration statement to register the shares of common stock underlying the Settlement Warrants which was declared effective by the SEC on July 25, 2018. All 0.2 million Settlement Warrants expired on July 15, 2019 as none of the warrants had been exercised during the one-year exercise period.

The Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings on a quarterly basis. The Company records an accrual for loss contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. In December 2017, upon entering into the MOU, the Company’s liability related to this settlement became estimable and probable. Accordingly, the Company recorded an estimated $17.1 million contingent liability, including $15.0 million for the cash portion of the settlement with a corresponding insurance recovery for the 100% portion to be paid directly by certain of the Company’s insurance carriers, and an approximate $2.1 million estimate for the warrant portion of the settlement with a corresponding non-cash charge to the Statement of Operations as a component of operating expenses. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, all claims against the Company were released upon the Effective Date. In addition, pursuant to the Stipulation, the Company has no interest in the settlement escrow account subsequent to the Effective Date. Accordingly, the Company reversed the $15.0 million cash portion of the settlement from both the contingent liability and the corresponding insurance recovery as of the Effective Date.

In 2013, the SEC also served a subpoena on the Company for documents and information concerning tivozanib, including related communications with the FDA, investors and others. In September 2015, the SEC invited the Company to discuss the settlement of potential claims asserting that the Company violated federal securities laws by omitting to disclose to investors the recommendation by the staff of the FDA on May 11, 2012, that the Company conduct an additional clinical trial with respect to tivozanib. On March 29, 2016, the SEC filed a complaint against the Company and three of its former officers in the District Court alleging that the Company misled investors about its efforts to obtain FDA approval for tivozanib. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, the Company consented to the entry of a final judgment pursuant to which the Company paid the SEC a $4.0 million civil penalty to settle the SEC’s claims against it. As this settlement was probable and estimable as of December 31, 2015, the Company recorded an estimated settlement liability of $4.0 million and recorded a corresponding loss in the Statement of Operations as a component of operating expenses. On March 31, 2016, the District Court entered a final judgment which (i) approved the settlement; (ii) permanently enjoined the Company from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder; and (iii) ordered the Company to pay the agreed-to civil penalty. In September 2017 and October 2017, respectively, two of the Company’s former officers consented to entry of final judgment to settle the SEC’s claims against them. In November 2018, the District Court jury ruled against the remaining former officer. In April 2019, that individual moved for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial. In October 2019, the District Court denied the motion. In December 2019, the individual appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (No. 19-2264). The Company is not a party to the litigation between the SEC and the remaining former officer, and the Company can make no assurance regarding the outcome of that action or the SEC’s claims against that individual.