We are subject to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. In accordance with ASC Topic , 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.

 

 

As disclosed in the notes to the financial statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form -K, the Company has been engaged in ongoing litigation with CRG, in its capacity as a lender and as control agent for other affiliated lenders party to the CRG Loan Agreement (collectively, the “CRG Lenders”), in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “Texas Court”) relating to CRG's claims of default under the terms the CRG Loan Agreement. Following a trial in the Texas Court ruled that the Company's total obligation to CRG was in excess of million, limited to million under the Global Settlement Agreement dated The Texas Court acknowledged only the million payment made in concluding that the Company owed CRG another million, however the Texas Court did expressly take the Company's payment of million into account and awarded, as part of the million, amounts that had already been paid as part of the million. The Company believes that this  million should be credited against the million and has appealed the Texas Court's judgment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Company's appeal without reaching the merits due to a contractual waiver of appeal.

 

On CRG drew approximately million on the Cardinal Health LLC (“Cardinal Health ) letter of credit.  These were funds to which Navidea would otherwise have been entitled. This was in addition to the million and the million that Navidea had previously paid to CRG.

 

The Company has also been engaged in ongoing litigation with CRG in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio related to Navidea's claims that the CRG Lenders fraudulently induced Navidea to enter into a settlement agreement and breached the terms of the same through certain actions taken by the CRG Lenders in connection with the Global Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which Navidea agreed to pay up to million to the CRG Lenders, as well as through actions and misrepresentations by CRG after the Global Settlement Agreement was executed.  The claims in that suit are for breach of contract, conversion and unjust enrichment against the CRG Lenders for their collection of more than million, the maximum permitted under the Global Settlement Agreement, and their double recovery of amounts paid as part of the million paid in and recovered again as part of the million. CRG's double recovery and recovery of more than million are due to CRG drawing the entire million on the Cardinal Health letter of credit. The CRG Lenders sought a Writ of Prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court to prevent this case from moving forward, which was denied, and proceedings resumed in front of the Ohio Court. Following an unsuccessful mediation on Navidea moved for summary judgment on On the Ohio Court found that when CRG collected more than million, they took an excess recovery and breached the Global Settlement Agreement. The Ohio Court awarded approximately million to Navidea, plus statutory interest from the date CRG drew on the Cardinal Health letter of credit. The Ohio Court also found that there was unjust enrichment or conversion by CRG since this was a matter of contract and only contract damages were appropriate. The decision was a final appealable order and terminated the case before the Ohio Court. On CRG filed a notice of appeal with Ohio's District Court of Appeals regarding the judgment in favor of Navidea. The briefing of the appeal concluded on and oral argument on the appeal was held on On Ohio's District Court of Appeals issued a decision which reversed the Ohio Court's ruling that CRG breached the Global Settlement Agreement and its award of million plus statutory interest to Navidea. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the Ohio Court did have jurisdiction to adjudicate Navidea's claims and therefore did rule on the factual merits of Navidea's claims regarding CRG's recovery in excess of the contractually agreed maximum amount. On Navidea filed a notice of appeal of the Ohio Court of Appeals' decision to the Ohio Supreme Court along with a memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  The Ohio Supreme Court has discretion to accept or accept the appeal and the outcome of their decision with respect to acceptance remains unknown.

 

CRG filed another lawsuit in the Texas Court in This suit seeks a declaratory judgment that CRG did breach the Global Settlement Agreement by drawing the entire million on the Cardinal Health letter of Credit. CRG also alleges that the Company breached the Global Settlement Agreement by appealing the Texas Court's judgment and by filing the suit in Franklin County, Ohio. The Company moved to dismiss CRG's claims under the Texas Citizens' Participation Act. The Texas Court denied the motion to dismiss. The Company filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of its motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Texas Court's refusal to dismiss CRG's claim on The Company has filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court seeking to reverse the Texas Court's ruling. The Texas Supreme Court denied the Company's petition on and litigation resumed in the Texas Court on See Note

 

 

In Platinum-Montaur commenced an action against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “New York Supreme Court”), seeking damages of approximately million purportedly due as of plus interest accruing thereafter.  The claims asserted were for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with funds received by the Company under the Platinum Loan Agreement.  The action was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On the District Court granted judgment for Navidea and dismissed all claims in the case.  The District Court stated that Platinum-Montaur had standing to assert any contractual interest in funds that might be due under the Platinum Loan Agreement.  The District Court also disagreed with Platinum-Montaur's claim of unjust enrichment on similar grounds and found that Platinum-Montaur lacked any sufficient personal stake to maintain claims against Navidea.  The claims against Navidea were dismissed without prejudice on the grounds of lack of standing to pursue the claims asserted.

 

On Platinum-Montaur filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) claiming that the District Court erred in dismissing Platinum-Montaur's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On Platinum-Montaur filed its brief in the Second Circuit, asking the Second Circuit to reverse the District Court and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit held oral argument in this matter on On the Second Circuit issued a decision which remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration of whether the District Court had jurisdiction over the case following removal from the New York Supreme Court. The Second Circuit did address the merits of Platinum-Montaur's allegations against Navidea. By agreement of the parties, the case was remanded from the District Court to the New York Supreme Court. A preliminary conference was set for but was cancelled due to the COVID- pandemic. After a delay due to the New York Supreme Court accepting non-emergency filings due to the pandemic, Navidea filed a Motion to Dismiss on On the New York Supreme Court granted the Motion to Dismiss. Platinum-Montaur filed a Notice of Appeal of the New York Supreme Court's decision on and the appeal is now docketed with the Appellate Department-First Division. However, Platinum-Montaur has yet perfected that appeal. Until Platinum-Montaur perfects the appeal, a timeline for resolution of the appeal, including briefing and potential oral argument, is unknown. See Note

 

 

In Dr. Michael Goldberg resigned from his positions as an executive officer and a director of Navidea. In connection with Dr. Goldberg's resignation, Navidea and Dr. Goldberg entered into the Goldberg Agreement, with the intent of entering into or more additional Definitive Agreements, which set forth the terms of the separation from service. Among other things, the Goldberg Agreement provided that Dr. Goldberg would be entitled to shares of our Common Stock, representing in part payment of accrued bonuses and payment of the balance of the Platinum debt. A portion of the shares to be issued to Dr. Goldberg would be held in escrow for up to months in order to reimburse Navidea in the event that Navidea is obligated to pay any portion of the Platinum debt to a party other than Dr. Goldberg. Further, the Goldberg Agreement provided that the Company's subsidiary, MT, would redeem all of Dr. Goldberg's preferred stock and issue to Dr. Goldberg super voting common stock equal to of the outstanding shares of MT. In the Company issued shares of our Common Stock to Dr. Goldberg, of which were placed in escrow in accordance with the Goldberg Agreement.

 

On Dr. Goldberg represented to the MT Board that he had, without MT Board or shareholder approval, created a subsidiary of MT, transferred all of the assets of MT into the subsidiary, and then issued himself stock in the subsidiary. On Navidea notified MT that it was terminating the sublicense in accordance with its terms, effective due to MT's insolvency. On the MT Board removed Dr. Goldberg as President and Chief Executive Officer of MT and from any other office of MT to which he have been appointed or in which he was serving. Dr. Goldberg remains a member of the MT Board, together with Michael Rice and Dr. Claudine Bruck. Mr. Rice and Dr. Bruck remain members of the board of directors of Navidea. The MT Board then appointed Jed A. Latkin to serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of MT. On or about the Joint Official Liquidators and Foreign Representatives of Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund L.P. sent a letter to MT directing that Dr. Goldberg be removed from the MT Board. The MT Board has taken action in response.

 

 

On Navidea filed a complaint against Dr. Goldberg in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, alleging breach of the Goldberg Agreement, as well as a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and to obtain a declaratory judgment that Navidea's performance under the Goldberg Agreement is excused and that Navidea is entitled to terminate the Goldberg Agreement as a result of Dr. Goldberg's actions. On Navidea filed an amended complaint against Dr. Goldberg which added a claim for breach of fiduciary duty seeking damages related to certain actions Dr. Goldberg took while CEO of Navidea. On Dr. Goldberg answered the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Navidea and -party claims against MT for breach of the Goldberg Agreement, wrongful termination, injunctive relief, and quantum meruit.

 

On the District Court ruled on several motions related to Navidea and MT and Dr. Goldberg that substantially limited the claims that Dr. Goldberg can pursue against Navidea and MT. Specifically, the District Court found that certain portions of Dr. Goldberg's counterclaims against Navidea and -party claims against MT failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Additionally, the District Court ruled that actions taken by Navidea and MT, including reconstituting the MT Board, replacing Dr. Goldberg with Mr. Latkin as Chief Executive Officer of MT, terminating the sublicense between Navidea and MT, terminating certain research projects, and allowing MT intellectual property to revert back to Navidea, were breaches of the Goldberg Agreement.

 

The District Court also rejected Dr. Goldberg's claim for wrongful termination as Chief Executive Officer of MT. In addition, the District Court found that Dr. Goldberg lacked standing to seek injunctive relief to force the removal of Dr. Claudine Bruck and Michael Rice from MT's Board of Directors, to invalidate all actions taken by the MT Board on or after the date upon which Dr. Bruck and Mr. Rice were appointed by Navidea to the Board of MT), or to reinstate the terminated sublicense between Navidea and MT.

 

In addition, the District Court found Navidea's breach of fiduciary duty claim against Dr. Goldberg for conduct occurring more than years prior to the filing of the complaint to be time-barred and that Dr. Goldberg is entitled to an advancement of attorneys' fees solely with respect to that claim. The parties have briefed the issue to the District Court for resolution on how much in fees Dr. Goldberg is owed under the District Court's order.

 

On Goldberg filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to add back in claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quantum meruit and injunctive relief. On the District Court denied Dr. Goldberg's motion for leave to amend in its entirety.

 

On Dr. Goldberg filed a motion seeking additional advancement from Navidea for fees in connection with the New York Action and the Delaware Action. Navidea opposed the motion and the District Court referred the matters to a Magistrate Judge. On the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation which recommended that: () the District Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over Dr. Goldberg's motion as it pertained to expenses and fees incurred in defense of the Delaware Action; () the District Court decline to award any fees to Dr. Goldberg for the breach of fiduciary duty without additional motion practice on the issue; () the District Court find that Dr. Goldberg is entitled to advancement of his expenses and fees reasonably incurred in the defense of the remainder of the New York action subject to Dr. Goldberg's posting of an undertaking; and () establish a protocol by which Dr. Goldberg could establish the amounts due for advancement.

 

On in connection with Dr. Goldberg's motion for advancement, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and found that while Dr. Goldberg was being granted advancement of fees and expenses incurred in connection with either the Delaware Action or the assertion of -party claims against MT, the District Court ruled that Dr. Goldberg was entitled to advancement for the defense of the remaining claims asserted against him by Navidea in the New York action. Dr. Goldberg is also asking the Court to accelerate the timeline by which advancement will occur, and to expand the scope of issues to which Dr. Goldberg would be entitled to advancement, and is seeking to hold Navidea in contempt for failing to advance fees to date. The Company has opposed Dr. Goldberg's requests.

 

On the Magistrate Judge issued her report and recommended that: () Dr. Goldberg only be awarded for indemnification for his attorneys' fees; () Dr. Goldberg only be advanced for his attorneys' fees subject to repayment; () Navidea should be required to indemnify or advance any of the costs sought by Dr. Goldberg; () Dr. Goldberg is entitled to advancement for the prosecution of his counterclaims and -party claims; () Dr .Goldberg's motion to hold Navidea in contempt be denied; and () Navidea should be required to advance any additional fees or costs unless Dr. Goldberg presents his time records and costs in compliance with the District Court's orders.  On Dr. Goldberg filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge's order and Navidea will respond on The District Court will rule upon the objections.

 

Fact discovery in the New York Action has been completed and the parties and the Court anticipate meeting in the future to address remaining case deadlines.

 

 

On MT initiated a suit against Dr. Goldberg in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty as a director and officer of MT and conversion, and to obtain a declaratory judgment that the transactions Dr. Goldberg caused MT to effect are void. On the Delaware Court found that Dr. Goldberg's actions were authorized in compliance with the Delaware General Corporation Law. Specifically, the Delaware Court found that Dr. Goldberg's creation of a new subsidiary of MT and the purported assignment by Dr. Goldberg of MT's intellectual property to that subsidiary were void. The Delaware Court's ruling follows the order on in the case, in which it found Dr. Goldberg in contempt of its prior order holding Dr. Goldberg responsible for the payment of MT's fees and costs to cure the damages caused by Dr. Goldberg's contempt. MT's claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion against Dr. Goldberg remain pending. As a result of the Delaware Court's ruling and Navidea's prior termination of the sublicense between itself and MT, all of the intellectual property related to the Manocept platform is now directly controlled by Navidea. A trial on MT's claims against Goldberg for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion was held on through The Delaware Court requested post-trial briefing and a post-trial hearing. In addition, Dr. Goldberg filed additional requests for relief – seeking to hold MT's directors in contempt and seeking to challenge the appointment of certain individuals to the MT Board. MT opposed Dr. Goldberg's filings. The Delaware Court conducted oral argument on all remaining issues on and indicated that a written opinion will be forthcoming.

 

 

On Dr. Goldberg served shareholder demands on the Boards of Directors of Navidea and MT repeating many of the claims made in the lawsuits described above. On or about Dr. Goldberg commenced a derivative action purportedly on behalf of MT in the District Court against Dr. Claudine Bruck, Y. Michael Rice, and Jed Latkin alleging a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the actions alleged in the demands. On Dr. Goldberg dismissed the derivative action in New York without prejudice, and the Court approved the dismissal. Dr. Goldberg retains the ability to re-file the action in Delaware. Dr. Goldberg has yet re-filed his derivative complaint. See Notes and

 

 

Navidea must maintain compliance with NYSE American continued listing standards, including those relating to stockholders' equity. Specifically, Sections (a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the NYSE American Company Guide (the “Guide”), the highest of such standards requiring an issuer to have stockholders' equity of million or more if it has reported losses from continuing operations and/or net losses in its most recent fiscal years. As of the Company had stockholders' equity of approximately million.

 

Even if an issuer does meet the standards required by Sections (a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Guide, the NYSE American will normally consider delisting securities of an issuer that fails to meet these requirements if the issuer has () average global market capitalization of at least or total assets and revenue of in its last fiscal year, or in of its last fiscal years; and () the issuer has at least shares publicly held, a market value of publicly held shares of at least and round lot shareholders.  As of the Company's total market capitalization was approximately million. However, declines in the Company's stock price since have resulted in total market capitalization falling below million. Therefore, we currently do meet these exceptions and there is a risk that our Common Stock be delisted as a result of our failure to meet the minimum stockholders' equity requirement for continued listing.