Section (b) Action

August 12, 2015,

two

16

1934,

’s common stock by the Platinum funds, and seeking disgorgement of the short-swing profits realized by the funds (the “Litigation”). The Company was named as a nominal defendant in the Litigation.

July 1, 2016.

6%

8.125%

July 1, 2016.

Sinotau Litigation

August 31, 2015,

Sinotau”) filed a suit for damages, specific performance, and injunctive relief against the Company in the United States 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 Company believed the suit was without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the action.  In the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  The Company filed its answer to the complaint and the case is currently in the discovery phase.  At this time it is possible to determine with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this legal proceeding, including making a determination of liability.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the case.

July 2016,

Cerveau”) as a designated party for the rights resulting from the relationship between Navidea and Sinotau.  The term sheet outlined the terms of a potential agreement between the parties to sublicense to Cerveau in return for license fees, milestone payments and royalties.  With the exception of certain provisions, the term sheet was non-binding and was subject to the agreement of AstraZeneca, from whom the Company has licensed the technology.  The Company had days to execute a definitive agreement, however definitive agreement was reached.  Discussions related to the potential licensure or divestiture of are ongoing.

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

414

$7

’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 agreed to post 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 Company and CRG also agreed that 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 would be released to the Company at closing of the Asset Sale.

March 3, 2017,

414

$7

March 7, 2017,

$12

The Texas hearing is currently set for See Notes and (b).

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 Section of 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 is seeking severance and other amounts claimed to be owed to him under his Employment Agreement. In addition, the Company filed counterclaims against Mr. Gonzalez alleging malfeasance by Mr. Gonzalez in his role as Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Gonzalez has withdrawn his claim for additional severance pursuant to his Employment Agreement, and the Company has withdrawn its counterclaims.

no

  A -person arbitration board has been chosen and a hearing is set for in Columbus, Ohio.

Former Director Litigation

August 12, 2016,

  The litigation was dismissed without prejudice 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.

August 31, 2017

  Discovery will commence within the next few weeks. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action.

Sinotau Litigation

February 1, 2017,

  The Company's complaint included claims seeking a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties to an agreement regarding rights for the Tc 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.  The Ohio case remains open because all issues raised in the complaint have been resolved.

414

February 2, 2017.

  On the Company and Cardinal Health moved to stay the case pending the outcome of the Ohio case.  The Court granted the motion on and the stay remains in effect.

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. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, in our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these actions will materially affect our financial position.