COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Notes To Consolidated Financial Statement Abstract
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters The Company is currently party to various legal proceedings, including those noted in this section. Unless specifically noted below, any possible range of loss associated with the legal proceedings described below is not reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is engaged in numerous other legal actions not described below arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there can be no assurance, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on its operating results, liquidity or financial position. From time to time the Company may conclude it is in the best interests of its stockholders, employees and customers to settle one or more litigation matters, and any such settlement could include substantial payments; however, other than as noted below, the Company has not reached this conclusion with respect to any particular matter at this time. There are a variety of factors that influence the Company's decisions to settle and the amount the Company may choose to pay, including the strength of its case, developments in the litigation, the behavior of other interested parties, the demand on management time and the possible distraction of the Company's employees associated with the case and/or the possibility that the Company may be subject to an injunction or other equitable remedy. It is difficult to predict whether a settlement is possible, the amount of an appropriate settlement or when is the opportune time to settle a matter in light of the numerous factors that go into the settlement decision. Unless otherwise specified below, any settlement payment made pursuant to any of the completed settlement agreements described below is immaterial to the Company for financial reporting purposes. Stockholder Class Action Litigation On October 3, 10 and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of stockholders who purchased securities of the Company during the period between October 30, 2003 and approximately September 24, 2008. The Court consolidated these actions into a single proceeding and on May 18, 2009 an amended complaint was filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements in 2008. On December 2, 2009, the Court granted the Company's and other defendants' dismissal motions and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. On January 18, 2010 the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and on or about August 9, 2010, the Court denied the Company's and other defendants' related dismissal motions. On December 17, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the defendants filed an opposition to the motion on March 8, 2011. On June 6, 2011, the Company, certain of its current officers who are named in the complaint, and the Company's outside auditors entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the pending action. On September 21, 2011, the parties filed with the Court a motion for preliminary approval of a Settlement Stipulation (the “Class Action Stipulation”) setting forth the terms of the settlement. The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval on November 2, 2011, ordered that notice be given to class participants and set a hearing for final approval for February 23, 2012. At the hearing on February 23, 2012, the Court stated that it was granting final approval of the Class Action Stipulation. A written order by the Court was entered on February 28, 2012 dismissing the action with prejudice. Under the terms of the Class Action Stipulation, the Company's portion of the settlement will be paid entirely by insurance. The Company's outside auditors will contribute to the settlement. The Company itself is not required to make any payments to fund the settlement, and the Class Action Stipulation contains no admission of liability by the Company or the named individuals in the action, the allegations of which are expressly denied therein. Hyperion Arbitration On June 23, 2011, Hyperion Therapeutics, Inc. (“Hyperion”) filed a demand for arbitration before the American Arbitration Association for a determination of the rights and obligations of Hyperion and Ucyclyd Pharma, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company (“Ucyclyd”), under a collaboration agreement between the parties, dated August 23, 2007, as amended on or about November 24, 2008, June 29, 2009 and October 12, 2009 (as amended, the “Prior Collaboration Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Prior Collaboration Agreement, Ucyclyd granted rights to Hyperion, exercisable in the future, to purchase certain worldwide rights to Ucyclyd's existing on-market products, AMMONUL® and BUPHENYL® under certain conditions, as well as to develop and commercialize RavictiTM, a compound referred to as HPN-100 (and as previously referred to as GT4P in the Prior Collaboration Agreement) for the treatment of urea cycle disorder, hepatic encephalopathies and other indications. In its demand for arbitration, Hyperion requested a judgment regarding the rights of the parties in connection with the development activities relating to RavictiTM, including relating to the submission of a NDA to the FDA for RavictiTM for the treatment of urea cycle disorder. Ucyclyd responded to the demand for arbitration on July 28, 2011 denying the allegations and bringing counterclaims against Hyperion. Following additional responses and counterclaims made by the parties, and negotiations between them, on March 22, 2012, Ucyclyd and Hyperion entered into an Amended and Restated Collaboration Agreement (the “Amended Collaboration Agreement”), which amended and restated the Prior Collaboration Agreement with the Amended Collaboration Agreement, under which Hyperion will continue to have the right, exercisable no earlier than January 1, 2013, to purchase certain worldwide rights to AMMONUL® and BUPHENYL®, subject to Ucyclyd's right to elect to retain such rights to AMMONUL®, and an Asset Purchase Agreement of even date (the “APA”), under which Hyperion agreed to purchase Ucyclyd's rights to RavictiTM on the terms set forth therein. No payments were required by the parties under the Amended Collaboration Agreement upon signing of the same. The parties completed the sale of RavictiTM under the APA on March 22, 2012. Pursuant to the APA, Hyperion will pay Ucyclyd certain royalties and regulatory and sales milestones relating to RavictiTM and, pursuant to the terms of the Amended Collaboration Agreement, following exercise of its purchase rights, Hyperion will pay Ucyclyd certain royalties and regulatory and sales milestones relating to AMMUNOL® (but only if Ucyclyd does not elect to retain rights to AMMUNOL®) and BUPHENYL®. Ucyclyd will continue to be entitled to all revenue from the sale of AMMONUL® and BUPHENYL® until the exercise of the purchase rights by Hyperion. If Hyperion elects to purchase AMMONUL® and BUPHENYL®, but Ucyclyd elects to retain AMMONUL®, then AMMONUL® will remain an asset of Ucyclyd and Ucyclyd will continue to be entitled to all revenue from the sales of AMMONUL®. In addition to the matters discussed above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company is involved in a number of legal actions, both as plaintiff and defendant, and could incur uninsured liability in any one or more of them. Although the outcome of these actions is not presently determinable, it is the opinion of the Company's management, based upon the information available at this time, that the expected outcome of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition or cash flows of the Company.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Notes To Consolidated Financial Statement Abstract

17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

The Company is currently party to various legal proceedings, including those noted in this section. Unless specifically noted below, any possible range of loss associated with the legal proceedings described below is not reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is engaged in numerous other legal actions not described below arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there can be no assurance, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on its operating results, liquidity or financial position.

From time to time the Company may conclude it is in the best interests of its stockholders, employees and customers to settle one or more litigation matters, and any such settlement could include substantial payments; however, other than as noted below, the Company has not reached this conclusion with respect to any particular matter at this time. There are a variety of factors that influence the Company's decisions to settle and the amount the Company may choose to pay, including the strength of its case, developments in the litigation, the behavior of other interested parties, the demand on management time and the possible distraction of the Company's employees associated with the case and/or the possibility that the Company may be subject to an injunction or other equitable remedy. It is difficult to predict whether a settlement is possible, the amount of an appropriate settlement or when is the opportune time to settle a matter in light of the numerous factors that go into the settlement decision. Unless otherwise specified below, any settlement payment made pursuant to any of the completed settlement agreements described below is immaterial to the Company for financial reporting purposes.

Stockholder Class Action Litigation

On October 3, 10 and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of stockholders who purchased securities of the Company during the period between October 30, 2003 and approximately September 24, 2008. The Court consolidated these actions into a single proceeding and on May 18, 2009 an amended complaint was filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements in 2008. On December 2, 2009, the Court granted the Company's and other defendants' dismissal motions and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. On January 18, 2010 the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, and on or about August 9, 2010, the Court denied the Company's and other defendants' related dismissal motions. On December 17, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and the defendants filed an opposition to the motion on March 8, 2011.

On June 6, 2011, the Company, certain of its current officers who are named in the complaint, and the Company's outside auditors entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the pending action. On September 21, 2011, the parties filed with the Court a motion for preliminary approval of a Settlement Stipulation (the “Class Action Stipulation”) setting forth the terms of the settlement. The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval on November 2, 2011, ordered that notice be given to class participants and set a hearing for final approval for February 23, 2012. At the hearing on February 23, 2012, the Court stated that it was granting final approval of the Class Action Stipulation. A written order by the Court was entered on February 28, 2012 dismissing the action with prejudice. Under the terms of the Class Action Stipulation, the Company's portion of the settlement will be paid entirely by insurance. The Company's outside auditors will contribute to the settlement. The Company itself is not required to make any payments to fund the settlement, and the Class Action Stipulation contains no admission of liability by the Company or the named individuals in the action, the allegations of which are expressly denied therein.

Hyperion Arbitration

On June 23, 2011, Hyperion Therapeutics, Inc. (“Hyperion”) filed a demand for arbitration before the American Arbitration Association for a determination of the rights and obligations of Hyperion and Ucyclyd Pharma, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company (“Ucyclyd”), under a collaboration agreement between the parties, dated August 23, 2007, as amended on or about November 24, 2008, June 29, 2009 and October 12, 2009 (as amended, the “Prior Collaboration Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Prior Collaboration Agreement, Ucyclyd granted rights to Hyperion, exercisable in the future, to purchase certain worldwide rights to Ucyclyd's existing on-market products, AMMONUL® and BUPHENYL® under certain conditions, as well as to develop and commercialize RavictiTM, a compound referred to as HPN-100 (and as previously referred to as GT4P in the Prior Collaboration Agreement) for the treatment of urea cycle disorder, hepatic encephalopathies and other indications. In its demand for arbitration, Hyperion requested a judgment regarding the rights of the parties in connection with the development activities relating to RavictiTM, including relating to the submission of a NDA to the FDA for RavictiTM for the treatment of urea cycle disorder. Ucyclyd responded to the demand for arbitration on July 28, 2011 denying the allegations and bringing counterclaims against Hyperion. Following additional responses and counterclaims made by the parties, and negotiations between them, on March 22, 2012, Ucyclyd and Hyperion entered into an Amended and Restated Collaboration Agreement (the “Amended Collaboration Agreement”), which amended and restated the Prior Collaboration Agreement with the Amended Collaboration Agreement, under which Hyperion will continue to have the right, exercisable no earlier than January 1, 2013, to purchase certain worldwide rights to AMMONUL® and BUPHENYL®, subject to Ucyclyd's right to elect to retain such rights to AMMONUL®, and an Asset Purchase Agreement of even date (the “APA”), under which Hyperion agreed to purchase Ucyclyd's rights to RavictiTM on the terms set forth therein. No payments were required by the parties under the Amended Collaboration Agreement upon signing of the same. The parties completed the sale of RavictiTM under the APA on March 22, 2012. Pursuant to the APA, Hyperion will pay Ucyclyd certain royalties and regulatory and sales milestones relating to RavictiTM and, pursuant to the terms of the Amended Collaboration Agreement, following exercise of its purchase rights, Hyperion will pay Ucyclyd certain royalties and regulatory and sales milestones relating to AMMUNOL® (but only if Ucyclyd does not elect to retain rights to AMMUNOL®) and BUPHENYL®. Ucyclyd will continue to be entitled to all revenue from the sale of AMMONUL® and BUPHENYL® until the exercise of the purchase rights by Hyperion. If Hyperion elects to purchase AMMONUL® and BUPHENYL®, but Ucyclyd elects to retain AMMONUL®, then AMMONUL® will remain an asset of Ucyclyd and Ucyclyd will continue to be entitled to all revenue from the sales of AMMONUL®.

In addition to the matters discussed above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company is involved in a number of legal actions, both as plaintiff and defendant, and could incur uninsured liability in any one or more of them. Although the outcome of these actions is not presently determinable, it is the opinion of the Company's management, based upon the information available at this time, that the expected outcome of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition or cash flows of the Company.