2.2.0.7 false COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 11001 - Disclosure - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES true false false false 1 USD false false Unit12 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Unit13 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 0 Unit1 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Unit14 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 5 3 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> <p style="margin-top: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"><b>10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES </b></font></p> <p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 2%;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2"><b><i>Legal Proceedings </i></b></font></p> <p style="margin-top: 6px; text-indent: 4%; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2">Since November 2003, we have been defending a class action securities lawsuit purportedly brought on behalf of a class made up of all purchasers of our stock between July&nbsp;14 and October&nbsp;28, 2003. The lawsuit names Gilead and six current and former executives of Gilead as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, by making certain alleged false and misleading statements. On May&nbsp;12, 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the District Court) executed orders dismissing in its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. On August&nbsp;11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case to the District Court. On February&nbsp;6, 2009, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, requesting that the court review the judgment of the court of appeals. In April 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition. On February&nbsp;13, 2009, we filed a further motion to dismiss the fourth consolidated amended complaint on alternative grounds. On June&nbsp;3, 2009, the District Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss and gave plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On July&nbsp;10, 2009, plaintiffs filed a fifth consolidated amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the fifth consolidated amended complaint, which the District Court heard on October&nbsp;9, 2009. In an order dated October&nbsp;13, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss. On November&nbsp;16, 2009, we filed an answer to the fifth consolidated amended complaint. In March 2010, we agreed to settle the dispute. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss the action and release all claims against Gilead and each of the individual defendants. In exchange, we agreed to pay $<font class="_mt">8.25</font> million to the class members. The proposed settlement amount will be paid in full by our insurance carriers. Further, Gilead and the individual defendants continue to deny that they committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability and/or violation of law. On July&nbsp;7, 2010, the District Court issued an order granting preliminary approval to the settlement. The District Court will hold a hearing on November&nbsp;5, 2010 to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. </font></p> <p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 4%; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2">On August&nbsp;12, 2009, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requesting documents regarding the development, marketing and sales of Ranexa. We have been cooperating and will continue to cooperate with any related governmental inquiry. It is not possible to predict the outcome of this inquiry, and as such, no amounts have been accrued related to the outcome of this inquiry. </font></p> <p style="margin-top: 12px; text-indent: 4%; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font style="font-family: Times New Roman;" class="_mt" size="2">We are also a party to various other legal actions that arose in the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe that any of these other legal actions will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated business, financial position or results of operations. </font></p> <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font class="_mt" size="1"> </font>&nbsp;</p> </div> 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Since November 2003, we have been defending a class action securities lawsuit purportedly brought on false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 1 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true