Sinotau Litigation

August 31, 2015,

’s product candidate and technology.  In the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss.  The Company filed its answer to the complaint and the parties have filed multiple joint motions to stay the case pending settlement discussion, which to date have been granted.  On the Company executed a letter of intent with Sinotau and 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,

on On CRG exercised control over of the Company’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

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, 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

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.

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 concluding that the Company owes CRG another million, however the Texas Court did expressly take the Company’s payment of million into account.  The Company believes that this million should be credited against the million; CRG disagrees.  On 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 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. 

’s management believes it is probable that the Company will be required to pay the million modified judgment requested in and as such we accrued a loss contingency for that amount as a current liability on the consolidated balance sheet. The loss contingency of million was recorded as an additional loss on extinguishment of the CRG Term Loan on the consolidated statement of operations for the year ended

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 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 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

between FTI and the Company, and (ii) in excess of for purported interest due on unpaid invoices, plus attorneys’ 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,

  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.  On Navidea and Sinotau executed an amendment to the agreement, modifying certain terms of the agreement and effectively resolving the legal dispute.  On Navidea and Sinotau executed a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, and on Navidea and Sinotau voluntarily dismissed their legal cases.

Platinum-Montaur Life Sciences LLC

November 2, 2017,

$1,914,827.22

March 3, 2017,

  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).  Said action was removed to the United States District of New York on An initial pretrial conference was held on 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 during which the Court set a briefing schedule and determined that Navidea’s motion to dismiss is due on The Court also referred the case to a settlement conference, which has been scheduled for 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. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, in our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these actions, other than the CRG litigation for which we have accrued a contingent liability, will materially affect our financial position.