Sinotau Litigation

August 31, 2015,

Sinotau”) filed a suit for damages, specific performance, and injunctive relief against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging breach of a letter of intent for licensing to Sinotau of the Company’s product candidate and technology (the “Sinotau Litigation”).  In the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss.  The Company filed its answer to the complaint and on the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case for days pending settlement discussion.  On the Company executed a letter of intent with Sinotau and Cerveau Technologies, Inc. (“Cerveau”), outlining a plan to sublicense to Cerveau the worldwide rights to conduct research using as well as grant to Cerveau an exclusive license for the development, marketing and commercialization of in Australia, Canada, China and Singapore.  The letter of intent includes a provision stating that Sinotau will release all claims in the Sinotau Litigation upon the parties’ execution of a definitive agreement; the commercial rights agreement contemplated by the letter of intent would also include a release of such claims and a covenant to sue on such claims.

CRG Litigation

2016,

June 22, 2016,

one

’s primary bank accounts and took possession of million that was on deposit, applying million of the cash to various fees, including collection fees, a prepayment premium and an end-of-term fee. The remaining was applied to the principal balance of the debt. Multiple motions, actions and hearings followed over the remainder of and into

March 3, 2017,

414

February 22, 2017.

March 3, 2017,

$59

no

no

$47

no

$66

In addition, CRG agreed that Navidea had the right to assert all affirmative defenses to its claim of default.  In the underlying case the district court had entered summary judgment in favor of CRG finding unspecified events of default but refusing to consider affirmative defenses raised by Navidea as before the Court.  Subsequent to the settlement CRG moved again for entry of judgment in its favor; Navidea objected that the Settlement Agreement specifically allowed it to raise affirmative defenses and the district court agreed with Navidea setting the case for trial in CRG once again moved for summary judgment and the motion was heard by the Court on The Court did indicate when it intends to rule on the motion. The trial is currently scheduled for

oncurrently with the payment of the Deposit Amount and closing of the Asset Sale, (i) Cardinal Health posted a million letter of credit in favor of CRG (at the Company’s cost and expense to be deducted from the closing proceeds due to the Company, and subject to Cardinal Health indemnification rights under the Purchase Agreement) as security for the amount by which the High Payoff Amount exceeds the Deposit Amount in the event the Company is unable to pay all or a portion of such amount, and (ii) CRG posted a million letter of credit in favor of the Company as security for the amount by which the Deposit Amount exceeds the Low Payoff Amount. If, on the hand, it is finally determined by the Texas Court that the amount the Company owes to CRG under the Loan Documents exceeds the Deposit Amount, the Company will pay such excess amount, plus the costs incurred by CRG in obtaining CRG’s letter of credit, to CRG and if, on the other hand, it is finally determined by the Texas Court that the amount the Company owes to CRG under the Loan Documents is less than the Deposit Amount, CRG will pay such difference to the Company and reimburse Cardinal Health for the costs incurred by Cardinal Health in obtaining its letter of credit. Any payments owing to CRG arising from a final determination that the Final Payoff Amount is in excess of million shall be paid by the Company without resort to the letter of credit posted by Cardinal Health and such letter of credit shall only be a secondary resource in the event of failure of the Company to make payment to CRG. The Company will indemnify Cardinal Health for any costs it incurs in payment to CRG under the settlement, and the Company and Cardinal Health further agree that Cardinal Health can pursue all possible remedies, including offset against earnout payments (guaranteed or otherwise) under the Purchase Agreement, warrant exercise, or any other payments owed by Cardinal Health or any of its affiliates, to the Company, or any of its affiliates, if Cardinal Health incurs any cost associated with payment to CRG under the settlement. The million being held in escrow pursuant to court order in the Ohio case and the million being held in escrow pursuant to court order in the Texas case were released to the Company at closing of the Asset Sale. See Notes and

Former CEO Arbitration

May 12, 2016

’s then Chief Executive Officer, claiming that he was terminated without cause and, alternatively, that he resigned in accordance with Section of his Employment Agreement pursuant to a notice received by the Company on On the Company notified Mr. Gonzalez that his failure to undertake responsibilities assigned to him by the Board of Directors and otherwise work after being ordered to do so on multiple occasions constituted an effective resignation, and the Company accepted that resignation. The Company rejected the resignation of Mr. Gonzalez pursuant to certain provisions in his Employment Agreement. Also, the Company notified Mr. Gonzalez that, alternatively, his failure to return to work after the expiration of the cure period provided in his Employment Agreement constituted cause for his termination under his Employment Agreement. Mr. Gonzalez was seeking severance and other amounts claimed to be owed to him under his Employment Agreement. In response, the Company filed counterclaims against Mr. Gonzalez alleging malfeasance by Mr. Gonzalez in his role as Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Gonzalez withdrew his claim for additional severance pursuant to his Employment Agreement, and the Company withdrew its counterclaims. On the Company received a ruling in favor of Mr. Gonzalez finding that he was terminated by the Company without cause on Mr. Gonzalez was awarded salary, bonus, and benefits in the aggregate amount of plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. The arbitration award is final and binding on the parties. The Company paid an aggregate of to Mr. Gonzalez on

FTI Consulting, Inc. Litigation

October 11, 2016,

$782,600

$730,264

$52,337

’ fees, costs and expenses.  On the Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim denying the allegations of the Complaint and seeking damages on its Counterclaim, in an amount to be determined at trial, for intentional overbilling by FTI. On a preliminary conference was held by the Court at which time a scheduling order governing discovery was issued. On the Company and FTI entered into a settlement agreement. According to FTI, as of FTI was owed including interest charges and legal fees. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company paid an aggregate of to FTI on

Sinotau Litigation

February 1, 2017,

in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Company's complaint included claims seeking a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties to an agreement regarding rights for the tilmanocept product in China and other claims. The complaint sought a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction to prevent Sinotau from interfering with the Company’s Asset Sale to Cardinal Health On the Court granted the TRO and extended it until The Asset Sale closed on On the Court dissolved the TRO as moot. Sinotau also filed a suit against the Company and Cardinal Health in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on On the District of Delaware case was transferred to the Southern District of Ohio. On the Ohio Court determined that both cases in the Southern District of Ohio are related and the case was stayed for days pending settlement discussions. Both cases remain open because all issues raised in the complaints have been resolved but the parties have continued settlement discussions and the Court extended the stays in both cases.

Platinum-Montaur Life Sciences LLC

November 2, 2017,

$1,914,827

March 3, 2017,

fter.  The claims asserted are for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with funds received by the Company under the Platinum Loan Agreement (discussed above).  The Company has yet been served with process in the action.  Because the funds sought by Platinum-Montaur are subject to claims of competing ownership, the Company intends to defend itself in the action and seek a determination as to whether any funds are due and owing to the plaintiff.

450,

, we make a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In the case of the CRG litigation, we could still be required to pay up to an additional million to CRG depending upon the outcome of the Texas litigation, which would have a material negative impact on our financial position. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, in our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to any of these actions other than CRG will materially affect our financial position.