Annual report pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d)

Note 2 - Liquidity

Note 2 - Liquidity
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Notes to Financial Statements  
Substantial Doubt about Going Concern [Text Block]
Prior to the Asset Sale to Cardinal Health
March 2017,
ll of our material assets were pledged as collateral for our borrowings under the CRG Loan Agreement. In addition to the security interest in our assets, the CRG Loan Agreement included covenants that imposed significant requirements on us. An event of default would have entitled CRG to accelerate the maturity of our indebtedness, increase the interest rate from
to the default rate of
per annum, and invoke other remedies available to it under the loan agreement and the related security agreement. During the course of
CRG alleged multiple claims of default on the CRG Loan Agreement, and filed suit in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “Texas Court”). On
June 22, 2016,
CRG exercised control over
of the Company’s primary bank accounts and took possession of
million that was on deposit. Multiple motions, actions and hearings followed over the remainder of
and into
March 3, 2017,
the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement with MT, CRG, and Cardinal Health
to effectuate the terms of the settlement previously entered into by the parties on
February 22, 2017.
In accordance with the Global Settlement Agreement, on
March 3, 2017,
the Company repaid
million Deposit Amount of its alleged indebtedness and other obligations outstanding under the CRG Term Loan. Concurrently with payment of the Deposit Amount, CRG released all liens and security interests granted under the CRG Loan Documents and the CRG Loan Documents were terminated and are of
further force or effect; provided, however, that, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company and CRG agreed to continue with their proceeding pending in the Texas Court to fully and finally determine the Final Payoff Amount. The Company and CRG further agreed that the Final Payoff Amount would be
less than
million and
more than
million. In addition, concurrently with the payment of the Deposit Amount and closing of the Asset Sale, (i) Cardinal Health
agreed to post 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 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
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. On
March 3, 2017,
Cardinal Health
posted a
million letter of credit, and on
March 7, 2017,
CRG posted a
million letter of credit, each as required by the Global Settlement Agreement.
The trial was held in Texas in
December 2017.
  The Texas Court ruled that the Company’s total obligation to CRG is in excess of
million, limited to
million under the Global Settlement Agreement.  The Texas Court acknowledged only the
million payment made in
March 2017,
concluding that the Company owes CRG another
million, however the Texas Court did
expressly take the Company’s
June 2016
payment of
million into account.  The Company believes that this
million should be credited against the
million; CRG disagrees.  On
January 16, 2018,
the Company filed an emergency motion to set supersedeas bond and to modify judgment, describing the Texas Court’s oversight of
explaining how to apply the
million payment, requesting that the judgment be modified to set the supersedeas amount at
million so that the Company can stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.  The Texas Court refused to rule on this motion, and the court of appeals entered an order compelling the Texas Court to set a supersedeas amount.  The Texas Court has scheduled a hearing on the issue for
March 26, 2018,
however it has
yet set the amount, and enforcement of the judgment is stayed until
days after the Texas Court does so.  We currently await further action by the Texas Court.  If we are ultimately required to pay an additional
million to CRG, such payment would have a significant adverse effect on our financial position and would likely force us to curtail our planned development activities.  See Note
In addition, the Company previously was a party to a Loan Agreement with Platinum-Montaur Life Sciences LLC (“Platinum-Montaur”), an affiliate of Platinum Management (NY) LLC, Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund L.P., Platinum Partners Liquid Opportunity Master Fund L.P., Platinum Liquid Opportunity Management (NY) LLC, and Montsant Partners LLC (collectively, “Platinum”) (the “Platinum Loan Agreement”) and a Third Amended and Restated Promissory Note (“Platinum Note”) given by Navidea in favor of Platinum-Montaur.
In connection with the closing of the Asset Sale to Cardinal Health
the Company repaid to PPCO an aggregate of approximately
million in partial satisfaction of the Company
’s liabilities, obligations and indebtedness under the Platinum Loan Agreement between the Company and Platinum-Montaur, which were transferred by Platinum-Montaur to PPCO.  The Company was informed by PPVA that it was the owner of additional amounts owed on the Platinum-Montaur loan.  PPVA claims a balance of approximately
million was due upon closing of the Asset Sale.  That amount is also subject to competing claims of ownership by Dr. Michael Goldberg, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer.  The Company has
yet paid the balance to anyone, as ownership is subject to dispute.
March 2, 2017,
PPCO provided the Payoff Letter.
  In the Payoff Letter, PPCO defined “Indebtedness” to include all amounts due under the Platinum Note, indicated that upon payment of the Payoff Amount, all “Indebtedness owed to Lender” shall have been satisfied in full, and that the “Loan Documents,” which included the Platinum Loan Agreement and the Platinum Note, “shall terminate and have
further force or effect.”  The letter also confirmed that as of the date that payment was made by Navidea, the Receiver was providing a release and indemnification in favor of Navidea based on any claims made by any affiliate of PPCO.  The Payoff Amount was paid pursuant to the Payoff Letter.  The remaining balance of the Platinum Note would have matured under its terms in
September 2017,
however the Company has
paid the balance as it is still subject to ongoing competing claims of ownership.  The Company intends to pay the balance of the debt if it is determined to be due and owing to PPVA or Dr. Goldberg.
November 2, 2017,
Platinum-Montaur commenced an action against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking damages in the amount of
purportedly due as of
March 3, 2017,
plus interest accruing thereafter.
  The claims asserted are for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with funds received by the Company under the Platinum Loan Agreement.  Said action was removed to the United States District of New York on
December 6, 2017. 
An initial pretrial conference was held on
January 26, 2018. 
At the conference the Court stayed the deadline for the Company to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.  The Court also directed the parties to engage in informal jurisdictional discovery and a follow up status conference was held on
March 9, 2018,
during which the Court set a briefing schedule and determined that Navidea’s motion to dismiss is due on
April 6, 2018. 
The Court also referred the case to a settlement conference, which has been scheduled for
April 30, 2018. 
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.
Following the completion of the Asset Sale to Cardinal Health
and the repayment of a majority of our indebtedness, we believe that substantial doubt about the Company
’s financial position and ability to continue as a going concern was alleviated.  Based on our current working capital and our projected cash burn, including our belief that the Company will be obligated to pay up to an additional
million to CRG, management believes that the Company will be able to continue as a going concern for at least
months following the issuance of this Annual Report on Form
-K.  Our projected cash burn also factors in certain cost cutting initiatives that have been implemented and approved by the board of directors, including reductions in the workforce and a reduction in facilities expenses.  Additionally, we have considerable discretion over the extent of development project expenditures and have the ability to curtail the related cash flows as needed.  The Company also has funds remaining under outstanding grant awards, and continues working to establish new sources of non-dilutive funding, including collaborations and additional grant funding that can augment the balance sheet as the Company works to reduce spending to levels that can be supported by our revenues.  We believe all of these factors are sufficient to alleviate substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.