Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company has entered into a contract manufacturing agreement with a third party commercial manufacturing organization for the production of certain inventory supplies of NEXLETOL and NEXLIZET. The agreement has an initial term of three years and will renew automatically for successive periods of one year each unless terminated by either party. Under the agreement, the Company is obligated to purchase minimum order commitments on a rolling twelve-month period for the batches of inventory supplies produced. The Company estimates future minimum inventory purchase commitments of $19.1 million for 2021.

Legal Proceedings

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the Company 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 the Company’s 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, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company’s 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.  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, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals directed

plaintiffs to respond to that petition. On December 3, 2018, the Sixth Circuit denied the Company’s 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, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint, and on March 28, 2019, the Company filed its amended answer to the amended complaint. On September 15, 2020, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and on October 23, 2020, the parties filed oppositions to both motions for summary judgment. On November 20, 2020, the Company and plaintiffs filed replies in support of their respective motions. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is 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 the 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. The 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 the Company’s lead product candidate’s path to FDA approval, and failed to ensure that reliable systems of internal controls were in place at the Company. On February 8, 2019, the Company and 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 the Company filed a reply brief on May 15, 2019. On November 6, 2019, the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. On February 13, 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company’s favor. On March 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware. On June 1, 2020, the plaintiff filed his opening brief on appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware. On July 1, 2020, the Company and the defendants filed an answering brief, and on July 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed a reply brief. On October 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of Delaware held oral arguments on the appeal. On October 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued an order affirming the judgment of the Court of Chancery.