12. Commitments and contingencies

Commitments

We have an agreement with KTB Tumorforschungs GmbH, or KTB, for the Company's exclusive license of patent rights held by KTB for the worldwide development and commercialization of aldoxorubicin. Under the agreement, we must make payments to KTB in the aggregate of $6.0 million upon meeting clinical and regulatory milestones up to and including the product's second final marketing approval. We also have 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 we obtain.

In the event that we must pay a third party in order to exercise our right to the intellectual property under the agreement, we will deduct a percentage of those payments from the royalties due KTB, up to an agreed upon cap. As a result of the NantCell license and the sale of $13 million of our shares to NantCell, we will incur an obligation to pay KTB approximately $0.6 million.

Contingencies

We applied the disclosure provisions of ASC 460, Guarantees ("ASC 460") to our agreements that contain guarantees or indemnities by us. We provide (i) indemnifications of varying scope and size to certain investors and other parties for certain losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with various types of third-party claims; and (ii) indemnifications of varying scope and size to officers and directors against third party claims arising from the services they provide to us.

Shareholder Derivative Actions in Delaware. There are two competing derivative complaints pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging claims related to our alleged retention of DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR. On December 14, 2015, a shareholder derivative complaint, captioned Niedermeyer et al. v. Kriegsman et al., C.A. No. 11800, was filed against certain of our officers and directors, for which a second amended complaint was filed on October 12, 2016. On September 6, 2016, one of the plaintiffs in the California litigation (discussed above) effectively refiled his complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, with the case captioned Taylor v. Kriegsman, C.A. No. 12720. Following competing motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, On February 22, 2017, the Court of Chancery appointed Niedermeyer et al.as lead plaintiffs in the complaint. On May 3, 2017, the parties entered into negotiations with a mediator and on June 2, 2017, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle the entire action. On June 15, 2017, the MOU was submitted to the Court.

Class Action in California. On July 25 and 29, 2016, nearly identical class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, titled Crihfield v. CytRx Corp., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05519 and Dorce v. CytRx Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-05666 alleging that we and certain of our officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failing to disclose material adverse facts to the effect that the clinical hold placed on the Phase 3 trial of aldoxorubicin for STS would prevent sufficient follow-up for patients involved in the study, thus requiring further analysis, which could cause the trial's results and/or FDA approval to be materially adversely affected or delayed. The plaintiffs allege that such wrongful acts and omissions caused significant losses and damages to a class of persons and entities that acquired our securities between November 18, 2014 and July 11, 2016, and seek an award of compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On October 26, 2016, the Court entered an Order consolidating the actions titled In re: CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 16-cv-05519-SJO and appointing a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Following the filing of a first amended complaint on January 13, 2017, on March 14, 2017 the Company and the individual defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed an Opposition thereto on April 28, 2017. The Company and the individual defendants filed a Reply on May 30, 2017 and the matter was heard by the Court on June 12, 2017. On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and the Individual Defendants filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed an Opposition thereto on July 24, 2017. The Company and the Individual Defendants filed a Reply on July 31, 2017 and the matter is set to be heard by the Court on August 14, 2017.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints. CytRx has directors' and officers' liability insurance, which will be utilized in the defense of these matters. The liability insurance may not cover all of the future liabilities the Company may incur in connection with the foregoing matters. These claims are subject to inherent uncertainties, and management's view of these matters may change in the future.

The Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings and other matters on a quarterly basis. The Company records accruals for loss contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company has accrued $0.7 million of litigation settlement related to Shareholder Derivative actions.

We evaluate developments in legal proceedings and other matters on a quarterly basis. If an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and reasonably estimable, we could incur charges that could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations for the period in which the outcome becomes probable and reasonably estimable.