10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Purchase Commitments

The following table presents non-cancelable contractual obligations arising from arrangements that the Company has entered into from time to time for the provision of goods and services:


	As of June 30, 2015 (in thousands)
2015 (6 months)	$	27,236
2016		41,312
2017		23,940
2018		14,260
2019		5,705

Total purchase commitments	$	112,453

Litigation

In the normal course of business, the Company may from time to time be named as a party to various legal claims, actions and complaints, including matters involving securities, employment, intellectual property, effects from the use of therapeutics utilizing its technology, or others. For example, purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29, 2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action (Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that Sarepta and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company’s lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Pursuant to the court’s June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on August 18, 2014, and argument on the motion was held on March 12, 2015. On March 31, 2015, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Plaintiffs in the Corban suit have filed a motion for leave seeking to file a further amended complaint, which the Company has opposed. A hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for leave is scheduled for August 12, 2015.

Another complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 by William Kader, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Sarepta Therapeutics Inc., Christopher Garabedian, and Sandesh Mahatme (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318), asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, Christopher Garabedian and Sandesh Mahatme. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2015, alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding the sufficiency of the Company’s data for submission of an NDA for eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the NDA based on that data. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees. The Company received service of the complaint on January 5, 2015. Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 4, 2015, pursuant to the scheduling order entered on February 20, 2015, which plaintiffs have opposed. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss has not been scheduled.

In addition, two derivative suits were filed based upon the Company’s disclosures related to eteplirsen. On February 5, 2015, a derivative suit was filed against the Company’s Board of Directors in the 215th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas (David Smith, derivatively on behalf of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., v. Christopher Garabedian et. al, Cause No. 2015-06645). The claims allege that Sarepta’s directors caused Sarepta to disseminate materially false and/or misleading statements in connection with disclosures concerning the Company’s submission of the NDA for eteplirsen. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by the directors, and attorneys’ fees. On March 26, 2015, the parties agreed to abate the case pending the resolution of both suits pending in federal court in the District of Massachusetts, Corban and Kader. Additionally, on February 24, 2015, a derivative suit was filed against the Company’s Board of Directors with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Ira Gaines, and the Ira J. Gaines Revocable Trust U/A, on behalf of nominal defendant Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., vs. Goolsbee et. al., No. 10713). The claims allege that the defendants participated in making material misrepresentations or omissions during the period of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding the sufficiency of the Company’s data for submission of the NDA for eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the NDA based on that data. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys’ fees. On March 26, 2015, the parties agreed to stay the case pending the resolution of Kader, pending in federal court in the District of Massachusetts.

Additionally, on September 23, 2014, a derivative suit was filed against the Company’s Board of Directors with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Terry McDonald, derivatively on behalf of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., et. al vs. Goolsbee et. al., No. 10157). The claims allege, among other things, that (i) the Company’s non-employee directors paid themselves excessive compensation fees for 2013, (ii) that the compensation for the Company’s former CEO, Christopher Garabedian, was also excessive and such fees were the basis for Mr. Garabedian’s not objecting to or stopping the excessive fees for the non-employee directors and (iii) that the disclosure in the 2013 proxy statement was deficient. The relief sought, among others, includes disgorgement and rescindment of allegedly excessive or unfair payments and equity grants to Mr. Garabedian and the directors, unspecified damages plus interest, a declaration that the Company’s Amended and Restated 2011 Equity Plan at the 2013 annual meeting was ineffective and a revote for approved amendments, correction of misleading disclosures and plaintiff’s attorney fees. We have reached an agreement in principle with the parties in the McDonald suit and do not believe that disposition of the McDonald suit should have a material financial impact on the Company.