Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies
Contingencies	NOTE 11 — CONTINGENCIES In March 2010, the first of three putative securities class action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits are largely identical and allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants disseminated false and misleading statements about the effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of their costs and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock in the Company between September 21, 2006 and March 2, 2010. In September 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the actions, and in April 2011 the court entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund L.P. and its attorneys as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On May 9, 2011, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated, amended complaint. On June 8, 2011, the Company and those of its officers who have been served in the action filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is scheduled to be heard by the Court on August 12, 2011. This lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual cost will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of the litigation is necessarily uncertain, the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of the suit and it may not prevail. The Company has not established any reserve for any potential liability relating to this lawsuit. The Company's management believes that the Company has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The Company believes it is entitled to coverage under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a $350,000 retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient. As of June 30, 2011, the Company had incurred an aggregate of $282,000 in expenses chargeable against that retention.

NOTE 11 — CONTINGENCIES

In March 2010, the first of three putative securities class action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits are largely identical and allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants disseminated false and misleading statements about the effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of their costs and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock in the Company between September 21, 2006 and March 2, 2010. In September 2010, the court entered an order consolidating the actions, and in April 2011 the court entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund L.P. and its attorneys as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On May 9, 2011, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated, amended complaint. On June 8, 2011, the Company and those of its officers who have been served in the action filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is scheduled to be heard by the Court on August 12, 2011. This lawsuit is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual cost will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of the litigation is necessarily uncertain, the Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of the suit and it may not prevail. The Company has not established any reserve for any potential liability relating to this lawsuit. The Company's management believes that the Company has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The Company believes it is entitled to coverage under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a $350,000 retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient. As of June 30, 2011, the Company had incurred an aggregate of $282,000 in expenses chargeable against that retention.