(16) Contingencies

(a)

Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consolidated Investments, et al.,U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 04-10129-CIV.

In December 2004, the Company filed a multi-count complaint in U.S, Federal Court (Southern District of Florida) which was granted by the Court in August 2010 whereby Hemispherx was awarded $188 million, plus interest against Johannesburg Consolidated Investments ("JCI") and former JCI officers R.B. Kebble and H.C. Buitendag. The Company is attempting to domesticate the Final Judgment in South Africa and is being assisted by the South African law firm of Webber Wentzel. The action to domesticate has been filed in South Africa. No gain has been recorded for this judgment as it is too early in these proceedings to predict an outcome. As required by South African law, on October 11, 2011, Hemispherx has posted a security bond of $66,873 for these proceedings.

(b)

Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. MidSouth Capital, Inc., Adam Cabibi, And Robert L. Rosenstein v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. and The Sage Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-03110-CAP.

On June 4, 2009, the Company filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against MidSouth Capital, Inc. ("MidSouth") and its principals seeking monetary and injunctive relief against MidSouth's tortious interference with certain financing transactions in which the Company was engaged. The case was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, and Holland & Knight was engaged as local counsel for the Company on November 13, 2009. On November 19, 2009, MidSouth answered the Company's Complaint and filed a Counterclaim against the Company and The Sage Group, Inc. ("Sage") seeking to recover between $3,900,000 and $4,800,000 for fees allegedly owed to it as a result of the same financing transactions, plus attorneys' fees and punitive damages, under various contractual, quasi contractual, and tort theories. On January 12, 2010, the Company and Sage filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to all parts of MidSouth's Counterclaim. By Order dated March 31, 2010, the Court granted the Motion with respect to MidSouth's contract claim but denied it with respect to MidSouth's other claims.

The parties conducted Discovery and subsequently, all parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment. By Order dated March 9, 2011, the Court granted the Company's Motion on all the remaining counts of MidSouth's counterclaim, granted Sage's Motion with respect to MidSouth's claims against Sage, and granted MidSouth's Motion with respect to the Company's original Complaint against MidSouth. Costs have been taxed in the Trial Court in favor of the Company and against MidSouth in the amount of $8,631.82, and in favor of MidSouth and against the Company in the amount of $7,916.90.

In April 2011, MidSouth filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order disposing of its claims against the Company and Sage, and the Company filed a Notice of Cross Appeal from the Order granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the original Complaint. MidSouth's appeal has been assigned Case No. 11-11618-E and the Company's Cross-Appeal has been assigned Case No. 11-11650-E. Mediation ordered by the Court of Appeals was unsuccessful. The appeal and cross appeal have been fully briefed.

Oral arguments on consolidated appeals took place before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on February 1, 2012. The Judges' questions primarily focused on whether it was proper for the District Court to grant Summary Judgment as to MidSouth's claim for quantum meruit. The Judges did not express any opinions as to the merits of the claim, but questioned whether issues of material fact exist that should be determined by a jury as opposed to the District Court. Hemispherx' claim for Tortious Interference was also briefly discussed with very little time spent discussing the other claims. Counsel is unable to express an opinion as to how the Court will ultimately rule regarding this litigation.

(c)

Cato Capital, LLC v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 09-549-GMS.

On July 31, 2009, Cato Capital LLC ("Cato") filed suit asserting that under a November 2008 agreement, the Company owes Cato a placement fee for certain investment transactions. The Complaint seeks damages in the amount of $5,000,000 plus attorneys' fees. The Company filed an Answer on August 20, 2009. On October 13, 2009, Cato filed a Motion seeking leave to file an Amended Complaint which proposed that Cato be permitted to add The Sage Group as an additional defendant and to bring additional causes of action against the Company arising from the defenses contained in the Answer, and increase the total amount sought to $9,830,000, plus attorneys' fees and punitive damages. The Company filed a response objecting to the Motion, and also filed a Motion to Disqualify Cato's Delaware attorneys on basis of a conflict of interest. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted the Company's Motion to Disqualify Cato's Delaware attorneys. Also on September 14, 2010, the Court granted Cato's Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint, but specifically indicated that the Company could file a Motion to Dismiss, raising the arguments that the Company had previously made in response to Cato's Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint. On September 16, 2010, Cato filed its Amended Complaint, and on September 30, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to dismiss all the counts of the Amended Complaint against the Company other than the breach of contract count. In addition, pursuant to an indemnification responsibility, the Company has also retained counsel to undertake the defense of the Sage Group, and a motion to dismiss has been filed on behalf of the Sage Group seeking to dismiss all claims against the Sage Group. On July 28, 2011, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and the motion to dismiss of the Sage Group. On August 11, 2011, the Court entered a Scheduling Order that set Discovery, Motion and other applicable dates, including a trial date of October 1, 2012. On August 30, 2011, the Company and the Sage Group filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Company and other parties to the litigation are now in the discovery phase of the litigation. On October 24, 2011, Cato filed a Motion for a Partial Summary Judgment, seeking a determination that two of the Company's affirmative defenses to Cato's breach of contract cause of action should be stricken. On November 10, 2011, the Company filed a response controverting Cato's Motion on factual and legal basis. Also on November 10, 2011, the Company filed its own Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of Cato's claim for breach of contract. The time frame for the Court's determination of the respective Motions for Partial Summary Judgment cannot be ascertained. The parties are currently engaged in Discovery and a number of depositions have been taken, with others scheduled to be taken in the near future. As of March 1, 2012, no informed judgment can be made as to the likely outcome and Counsel is unable to provide a precise estimate of the merits or probability of success of the Cato claims or a range of potential recovery or loss.

(d)

Summation.

In reference to Contingencies identified above, there can be no assurance that an adverse result in these proceedings would not have a potentially material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending against the claims identified in Contingency (b) and (c). There is currently no projection as to the likely outcome of the cases and the Company has not recorded any gain or loss contingencies as a result of the above matters for the years ended December 31, 2011 or 2010.