COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	15. 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. 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. Plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, and Chris Garabedian, Sandy Mahatme, and Ed Kaye (“Individual Defendants,” and collectively with the Company, the “Corban Defendants”), and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the Corban Defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period of July 24, 2013 through November 12, 2013, regarding a data set for a Phase 2b study of eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the Company’s new drug application for eteplirsen for review based on that data set. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and fees. On August 18, 2014, the Corban Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on March 31, 2015. Plaintiffs subsequently sought leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Corban Defendants opposed. On September 2, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend as futile. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 29, 2015, seeking review of the Court’s March 31, 2015 order dismissing the case and the Court’s September 2, 2015 order denying leave to amend. On January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed in the district court a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), arguing that the FDA Briefing Document published on or about January 15, 2016, was material and would have changed the Court’s ruling. On February 26, 2016, the First Circuit stayed the appeal pending the district court’s ruling on the 60(b)(2) motion. Defendants opposed the 60(b)(2) motion, and on April 21, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the April 21, 2016 order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). On May 20, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, and Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s April 21, 2016 denial of their 60(b)(2) motion and May 20, 2016 denial of their 59(e) motion. On June 13, 2016, the First Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the two appeals. Oral argument took place on March 7, 2017. A decision has not yet been issued by the First Circuit. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Another complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 styled 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). On March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, and Chris Garabedian and Sandy Mahatme (“Individual Defendants,” and collectively with the Company, the “Kader Defendants”), and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the Kader 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 sought compensatory damages and fees. The Kader Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on May 11, 2015. On April 5, 2016, following oral argument on March 29, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 8, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which Defendants opposed. On January 6, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2017. A briefing schedule was set on March 13, 2017. Appellants’ brief was filed April 24, 2017. Appellee’s brief is due May 24, 2017. 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., 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, a derivative suit was filed 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., v. Behrens et al., No. 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 through the date of the complaint. 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. v. 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 Chief Executive Officer, 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. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

15. 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. 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. Plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, and Chris Garabedian, Sandy Mahatme, and Ed Kaye (“Individual Defendants,” and collectively with the Company, the “Corban Defendants”), and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the Corban Defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period of July 24, 2013 through November 12, 2013, regarding a data set for a Phase 2b study of eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the Company’s new drug application for eteplirsen for review based on that data set. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and fees. On August 18, 2014, the Corban Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on March 31, 2015. Plaintiffs subsequently sought leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Corban Defendants opposed. On September 2, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend as futile. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 29, 2015, seeking review of the Court’s March 31, 2015 order dismissing the case and the Court’s September 2, 2015 order denying leave to amend. On January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed in the district court a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), arguing that the FDA Briefing Document published on or about January 15, 2016, was material and would have changed the Court’s ruling. On February 26, 2016, the First Circuit stayed the appeal pending the district court’s ruling on the 60(b)(2) motion. Defendants opposed the 60(b)(2) motion, and on April 21, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the April 21, 2016 order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). On May 20, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, and Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s April 21, 2016 denial of their 60(b)(2) motion and May 20, 2016 denial of their 59(e) motion. On June 13, 2016, the First Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the two appeals. Oral argument took place on March 7, 2017. A decision has not yet been issued by the First Circuit. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Another complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 styled 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). On March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, and Chris Garabedian and Sandy Mahatme (“Individual Defendants,” and collectively with the Company, the “Kader Defendants”), and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the Kader 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 sought compensatory damages and fees. The Kader Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on May 11, 2015. On April 5, 2016, following oral argument on March 29, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 8, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which Defendants opposed. On January 6, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2017. A briefing schedule was set on March 13, 2017. Appellants’ brief was filed April 24, 2017. Appellee’s brief is due May 24, 2017. 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., 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, a derivative suit was filed 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., v. Behrens et al., No. 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 through the date of the complaint. 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. v. 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 Chief Executive Officer, 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. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.