LEGAL MATTERS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
LEGAL MATTERS
LEGAL MATTERS	11. 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. The Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss both plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action Complaint; by order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal was with prejudice and final judgment was entered 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. Briefing of the appeal is complete, and the parties are awaiting word on whether the Court of Appeals wishes to entertain oral argument. 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 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 Company is named as a nominal defendant in these actions, neither of which seeks any recovery from the Company. The parties have agreed to stay the derivative lawsuits pending the outcome of the appeal of the securities class action. The Company and its directors cannot predict the outcome of the various shareholder lawsuits, but they believe the various shareholder lawsuits are without merit and intend to continue vigorously defending them. On July 12, 2013, various current and former officers and directors of the Company were named as defendants in a separate shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County and captioned Ira J. Gaines IRA, et al. v. Leland F. Wilson, et al., Case No.1-13-CV-249436. The lawsuit generally alleges breaches of the fiduciary duty of care in connection with the launch of Qsymia, breaches of the duty of loyalty and insider trading by some defendants for selling Company stock while purportedly being aware that the Qsymia launch would be less successful than predicted and corporate waste. Again, the Company is named as a nominal defendant, and no recovery from the Company is sought. As with the other shareholder litigation, the Company does have certain indemnification obligations to the named defendants, including to advance defense costs to the individuals. The Company also maintains directors’ and officers’ liability insurance that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost of the proceedings, subject to the policies’ terms and conditions. The individual defendants deny the material allegations and have indicated an intention to defend them vigorously. Proxy Related Lawsuit On July 16, 2013, First Manhattan Co., or First Manhattan, the owner of approximately 9.9% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company, commenced an action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming the then-serving members of the board of directors of the Company as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The action was captioned First Manhattan Co. v. Leland F. Wilson, et al., C.A. No. 8731-VCL. In its verified complaint, First Manhattan alleged that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the board’s decision to adjourn the annual stockholders meeting from July 15, 2013 until July 18, 2013. The verified complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining the defendants from soliciting proxies, directing the inspector of elections to certify the election of directors based on votes that were present and prepared to be voted on July 15, 2013 before the annual stockholders meeting was adjourned, and prohibiting defendants from taking any actions as directors of the Company. The verified complaint did not seek damages from the Company or the defendant board members. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on July 18, 2013, and the action was dismissed with prejudice on July 19, 2013. As part of the settlement agreement with First Manhattan, the Company agreed to pay the reasonable and documented expenses incurred by First Manhattan in connection with its proxy contest, which First Manhattan has advised the Company are approximately $3.5 million.

11. 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. The Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss both plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action Complaint; by order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal was with prejudice and final judgment was entered 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. Briefing of the appeal is complete, and the parties are awaiting word on whether the Court of Appeals wishes to entertain oral argument.

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 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 Company is named as a nominal defendant in these actions, neither of which seeks any recovery from the Company. The parties have agreed to stay the derivative lawsuits pending the outcome of the appeal of the securities class action.

The Company and its directors cannot predict the outcome of the various shareholder lawsuits, but they believe the various shareholder lawsuits are without merit and intend to continue vigorously defending them.

On July 12, 2013, various current and former officers and directors of the Company were named as defendants in a separate shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County and captioned Ira J. Gaines IRA, et al. v. Leland F. Wilson, et al., Case No.1-13-CV-249436. The lawsuit generally alleges breaches of the fiduciary duty of care in connection with the launch of Qsymia, breaches of the duty of loyalty and insider trading by some defendants for selling Company stock while purportedly being aware that the Qsymia launch would be less successful than predicted and corporate waste. Again, the Company is named as a nominal defendant, and no recovery from the Company is sought. As with the other shareholder litigation, the Company does have certain indemnification obligations to the named defendants, including to advance defense costs to the individuals. The Company also maintains directors’ and officers’ liability insurance that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost of the proceedings, subject to the policies’ terms and conditions. The individual defendants deny the material allegations and have indicated an intention to defend them vigorously.

Proxy Related Lawsuit

On July 16, 2013, First Manhattan Co., or First Manhattan, the owner of approximately 9.9% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company, commenced an action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming the then-serving members of the board of directors of the Company as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The action was captioned First Manhattan Co. v. Leland F. Wilson, et al., C.A. No. 8731-VCL. In its verified complaint, First Manhattan alleged that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the board’s decision to adjourn the annual stockholders meeting from July 15, 2013 until July 18, 2013. The verified complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining the defendants from soliciting proxies, directing the inspector of elections to certify the election of directors based on votes that were present and prepared to be voted on July 15, 2013 before the annual stockholders meeting was adjourned, and prohibiting defendants from taking any actions as directors of the Company. The verified complaint did not seek damages from the Company or the defendant board members. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on July 18, 2013, and the action was dismissed with prejudice on July 19, 2013. As part of the settlement agreement with First Manhattan, the Company agreed to pay the reasonable and documented expenses incurred by First Manhattan in connection with its proxy contest, which First Manhattan has advised the Company are approximately $3.5 million.