Legal Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Legal Matters
Legal Matters	Note 14. Legal Matters Securities Related Class Action Lawsuits The Company and two of its officers were defendants in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The action, filed in November 2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with the Company's clinical trials and NDA for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. In the Amended Class Action Complaint filed on April 4, 2011, the plaintiff alleged generally that the defendants misled investors regarding the prospects for Qsymia's NDA approval, and the drug's efficacy and safety. On June 3, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which, after briefing and argument was granted but extending plaintiff leave to amend. On November 9, 2011, plaintiff filed his Second Amended Class Action Complaint, again generally alleging that the defendants misled investors regarding the prospects for Qsymia's NDA approval, and Qsymia's efficacy and safety. On December 30, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Briefing concluded in late March 2012, and the motion was argued to the Court on April 18, 2012. On September 27, 2012, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and dismissed the action with prejudice. She entered final judgment for defendants the same day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed his opening appellate brief on February 19, 2013. Briefing is expected to continue into April 2013. Additionally, certain of the Company's officers and directors are defendants in a shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Turberg v. Logan, et al., Case No. CV-10-05271-PJH, pending in the same federal court. In the plaintiff's Verified Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint filed June 3, 2011, the plaintiff largely restated the allegations of the Kovtun action and alleged that the directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company by purportedly permitting the Company to violate the federal securities laws as alleged in the Kovtun action. The parties had agreed to stay the litigation pending resolution of the defendants' second motion to dismiss in the Kovtun action, but have now extended that stay through resolution of the appeal. The same individuals are also named defendants in consolidated shareholder derivative suits pending in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County under the caption In re VIVUS, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 11 0 CV188439. The allegations in the state court derivative suits are substantially similar to the other lawsuits. The parties have agreed to stay these consolidated actions on the same terms as the federal derivative litigation. Other Matters In the normal course of business, the Company receives claims and makes inquiries regarding patent and trademark infringement and other related legal matters. The Company believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses and intends to pursue any such matters vigorously. Additionally, the Company in the normal course of business may become involved in lawsuits and subject to various claims from current and former employees including wrongful termination, sexual discrimination and employment matters. Employees may be more likely to file employment-related claims following termination of their employment. Employment-related claims also may be more likely following a poor performance review. Although there may be no merit to such claims or legal matters, the Company may be required to allocate additional monetary and personnel resources to defend against these type of allegations. The Company believes the disposition of the current lawsuit and claims is not likely to have a material effect on its financial condition or liquidity. The Company and its directors believe that the various shareholder lawsuits are without merit, and they intend to vigorously defend the various actions.

Note 14. Legal Matters

Securities Related Class Action Lawsuits

The Company and two of its officers were defendants in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The action, filed in November 2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with the Company's clinical trials and NDA for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. In the Amended Class Action Complaint filed on April 4, 2011, the plaintiff alleged generally that the defendants misled investors regarding the prospects for Qsymia's NDA approval, and the drug's efficacy and safety. On June 3, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which, after briefing and argument was granted but extending plaintiff leave to amend. On November 9, 2011, plaintiff filed his Second Amended Class Action Complaint, again generally alleging that the defendants misled investors regarding the prospects for Qsymia's NDA approval, and Qsymia's efficacy and safety. On December 30, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Briefing concluded in late March 2012, and the motion was argued to the Court on April 18, 2012. On September 27, 2012, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and dismissed the action with prejudice. She entered final judgment for defendants the same day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff filed his opening appellate brief on February 19, 2013. Briefing is expected to continue into April 2013.

Additionally, certain of the Company's officers and directors are defendants in a shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Turberg v. Logan, et al., Case No. CV-10-05271-PJH, pending in the same federal court. In the plaintiff's Verified Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint filed June 3, 2011, the plaintiff largely restated the allegations of the Kovtun action and alleged that the directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company by purportedly permitting the Company to violate the federal securities laws as alleged in the Kovtun action. The parties had agreed to stay the litigation pending resolution of the defendants' second motion to dismiss in the Kovtun action, but have now extended that stay through resolution of the appeal. The same individuals are also named defendants in consolidated shareholder derivative suits pending in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County under the caption In re VIVUS, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 11 0 CV188439. The allegations in the state court derivative suits are substantially similar to the other lawsuits. The parties have agreed to stay these consolidated actions on the same terms as the federal derivative litigation.

Other Matters

In the normal course of business, the Company receives claims and makes inquiries regarding patent and trademark infringement and other related legal matters. The Company believes that it has meritorious claims and defenses and intends to pursue any such matters vigorously. Additionally, the Company in the normal course of business may become involved in lawsuits and subject to various claims from current and former employees including wrongful termination, sexual discrimination and employment matters. Employees may be more likely to file employment-related claims following termination of their employment. Employment-related claims also may be more likely following a poor performance review. Although there may be no merit to such claims or legal matters, the Company may be required to allocate additional monetary and personnel resources to defend against these type of allegations. The Company believes the disposition of the current lawsuit and claims is not likely to have a material effect on its financial condition or liquidity.

The Company and its directors believe that the various shareholder lawsuits are without merit, and they intend to vigorously defend the various actions.