12. Commitments and contingencies

Commitments

The Company has an agreement with KTB for the exclusive license of patent rights held by KTB for the worldwide development and commercialization of aldoxorubicin. Under the agreement, the Company must make payments to KTB in the aggregate of $7.5 million upon meeting clinical and regulatory milestones up to and including the product's second final marketing approval. In the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company met two clinical milestones, resulting in total payments of $2.0 million to KTB. The Company also has agreed to pay:

	commercially reasonable royalties based on a percentage of net sales (as defined in the agreement);

	a percentage of non-royalty sub-licensing income (as defined in the agreement); and

	milestones of $1 million for each additional final marketing approval that the Company obtains.

Contingencies

As previously reported, on June 13, 2014, three purported securities class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, were consolidated in the matter of In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx), and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On October 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of CytRx between November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014, against CytRx, certain Company officers and directors, a freelance writer, and certain underwriters. The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements in press releases, promotional articles, SEC filings and other public statements. The complaint further alleges that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially misleading statements and omitting material information in the shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on December 6, 2012 and Prospectus Supplement on Form 424(b)(2) filed with the SEC on January 31, 2014. These allegations arise out of the Company's alleged retention of The DreamTeam Group and MissionIR, external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with the Company, as well as the Company's December 9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and officers. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages, including interest, in an unspecified amount, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable, injunctive, or other relief that the court may deem just and proper. On December 5, 2014, CytRx and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court was scheduled to hear argument on this motion on March 2, 2015. On February 25, 2015, the Court took this motion under submission and took the hearing off calendar.

Also, on April 3, 2014, as previously reported, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain officers and each director, as well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx Corporation, et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's secondary common stock offering, which closed on February 5, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements in filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs. On October 14, 2014, the court granted the parties' joint ex parte motion to stay this proceeding pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the related federal action, In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx).

As previously reported, on July 3, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Fishman v. Kriegsman, et al., 2:14-cv-05169, against nominal defendant CytRx and certain officers and each director of the Company. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, corporate waste, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment in connection with the Company's alleged retention of DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, two external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with the Company. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, corporate governance reforms, and attorney's fees and costs. On September 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss this action against all parties without prejudice, which the court granted on September 9, 2014. On June 13, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated Schwartz v. Ignarro, et al., Case No. 9864, Johnson v. Ignarro, et al., Case No. 9884, and Silverberg v. Kriegsman, et al., Case No. 9919, three shareholder derivative lawsuits described in our Quarterly Report filed with the SEC on August 6, 2014. The allegations in the Schwartz and Johnson complaints relate to the Company's December 9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and officers. The allegations in the Silverberg complaint relate to the Company's December 9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and officers as well as the Company's alleged retention of DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, two external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with the Company. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 9, 2014. On November 10, 2014, CytRx and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the action. The Delaware Court of Chancery heard argument on the motions on January 8, 2015. The Court denied the motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the motion to stay. On August 14, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Pankratz v. Kriegsman, et al., 2:14-cv-06414-PA-JPR, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against CytRx, as nominal defendant, and certain officers and each director. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, insider selling and misappropriation of information in connection with the Company's alleged retention of DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, two external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with the Company, as well as the Company's December 9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and officers. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, corporate governance and internal procedures reforms, restitution, disgorgement of all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the individual defendants, and the costs and disbursements of the action. On August 15, 2014, a shareholder derivative complaint, captioned Taylor v. Kriegsman, et al., 2:14-cv-06451, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against CytRx, as nominal defendant, and certain officers and each director. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, insider selling and misappropriation of information in connection with the Company's alleged retention of DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, two external investor and public relations firms unaffiliated with the Company, as well as the Company's December 9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and officers. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, corporate governance and internal procedures reforms, restitution, disgorgement of all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the individual defendants, and the costs and disbursements of the action. On February 27, 2015, the Pankratz and Taylor plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the stay. The Court took the matter under advisement and has not yet ruled on the motion.On October 8, 2014, the court in Pankratz and Taylor consolidated the cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On October 20, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated Pankratz and Taylor cases or, in the alternative, to stay the cases. On January 9, 2015, the Court stayed the action pending the resolution of the consolidated Delaware derivative action. On February 27, 2015, the Pankratz and Taylor plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the stay. The Court took the matter under advisement and has not yet ruled on the motion.

We intend to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints. The Company has directors' and officers' liability insurance, which will be utilized in the defense of these matters. As of March 31, 2015, the Company has submitted $8.6 million of expenses to its insurance carrier for reimbursement, of which $5.1 million remains in the Receivables on the accompanying Condensed Balance Sheet. The Company expects to recover this amount from its insurance carrier. The liability insurance may not cover all of the future liabilities the Company may incur in connection with the foregoing matters. We record accruals for loss contingencies to the extent that we conclude that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on the very early stage of litigation, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these matters. We evaluate developments in legal proceedings and other matters on a quarterly basis.