COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for loss contingencies related to litigation when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed. On January 27, 2014 and January 29, 2014, purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current or former officers. The complaints were consolidated into a single action (Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No. 14-cv-10201) (“Corban”) 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 current or former officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen and sought damages in an unspecified amount. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Sarepta’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On August 12, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ April 30, 2015 motion for leave seeking to file a further amended complaint, and on September 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on September 29, 2015. On January 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court’s order denying leave to amend and dismissing the case, during the pendency of which the plaintiffs’ appeal was stayed. On April 21, 2016, the Court denied that motion. On May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Court denied that motion on May 20, 2016. A briefing schedule for the plaintiffs’ appeal has been set by the First Circuit. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Another purported class action complaint was filed on December 3, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318) (“Kader”), asserting that the Company and certain of its current or former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2015, alleged 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. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and fees. On April 5, 2016, the Court granted Sarepta’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to further amend the complaint, which Sarepta opposed on April 22, 2016. That motion remains pending. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. On February 5, 2015, a derivative suit was filed in the 215th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas against the Company’s Board of Directors (David Smith, derivatively on behalf of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., v. Christopher Garabedian et. al, Case 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. The parties have agreed to stay the case pending resolution of the Corban and Kader cases. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. On March 16, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company’s Board of Directors (Dawn Cherry, on behalf of nominal defendant Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., vs. Behrens et. al., 1:16-cv-10531). The claims allege that the defendants authorized the Company to make materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s business prospects in connection with its development of eteplirsen from July 10, 2013 to the present. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys’ fees. The parties have agreed to stay the case pending resolution of the Corban and Kader cases. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. 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. The parties have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the settlement terms and do not believe that disposition of the McDonald suit will have a material financial impact on the Company. The parties are now engaged in the confirmatory discovery process that, when complete, will allow plaintiffs’ counsel to represent to the court that the terms of the settlement are fair. Defendants have provided documents to plaintiffs, who are now in the process of reviewing the materials.

12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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. The Company records a liability in its consolidated financial statements for loss contingencies related to litigation when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a known or probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other, the minimum amount of the range is accrued. If a loss is reasonably possible but not known or probable, and can be reasonably estimated, the estimated loss or range of loss is disclosed.

On January 27, 2014 and January 29, 2014, purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current or former officers. The complaints were consolidated into a single action (Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No. 14-cv-10201) (“Corban”) 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 current or former officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen and sought damages in an unspecified amount. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Sarepta’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On August 12, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ April 30, 2015 motion for leave seeking to file a further amended complaint, and on September 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on September 29, 2015. On January 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court’s order denying leave to amend and dismissing the case, during the pendency of which the plaintiffs’ appeal was stayed. On April 21, 2016, the Court denied that motion. On May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Court denied that motion on May 20, 2016. A briefing schedule for the plaintiffs’ appeal has been set by the First Circuit. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Another purported class action complaint was filed on December 3, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318) (“Kader”), asserting that the Company and certain of its current or former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2015, alleged 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. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and fees. On April 5, 2016, the Court granted Sarepta’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to further amend the complaint, which Sarepta opposed on April 22, 2016. That motion remains pending. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

On February 5, 2015, a derivative suit was filed in the 215th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas against the Company’s Board of Directors (David Smith, derivatively on behalf of Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., v. Christopher Garabedian et. al, Case 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. The parties have agreed to stay the case pending resolution of the Corban and Kader cases. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

On March 16, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company’s Board of Directors (Dawn Cherry, on behalf of nominal defendant Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., vs. Behrens et. al., 1:16-cv-10531). The claims allege that the defendants authorized the Company to make materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s business prospects in connection with its development of eteplirsen from July 10, 2013 to the present. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys’ fees. The parties have agreed to stay the case pending resolution of the Corban and Kader cases. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

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. The parties have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the settlement terms and do not believe that disposition of the McDonald suit will have a material financial impact on the Company. The parties are now engaged in the confirmatory discovery process that, when complete, will allow plaintiffs’ counsel to represent to the court that the terms of the settlement are fair. Defendants have provided documents to plaintiffs, who are now in the process of reviewing the materials.