14.  CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

Following the Acquisition, the Company is party to certain legal matters that existed with Novelos prior to the Acquisition. The following summarizes the status of those matters.

Class Action

A putative federal securities class action complaint was filed on March 5, 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged shareholder of Novelos, on behalf of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired Novelos common stock in the period between December 14, 2009 and February 24, 2010, against Novelos and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Harry S. Palmin.  On October 1, 2010, the court appointed lead plaintiffs (Boris Urman and Ramona McDonald) and appointed lead plaintiffs’ counsel.  On October 22, 2010, an amended complaint was filed.  The amended complaint claims, among other things, that Novelos violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with alleged misleading disclosures related to the progress of the Phase 3 clinical trial of NOV-002 for non-small cell lung cancer.  On December 6, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  On January 20, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to our motion and on March 3, 2011, the defendants filed their response to the opposition. On June 23, 2011, the motion to dismiss was granted and the case was dismissed without prejudice.  Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the plaintiffs could reinstitute the proceeding by filing an amended complaint.  On August 5, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint realleging that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in connection with alleged misleading disclosures related to the Phase 3 clinical trial for NOV-002 in non-small cell lung cancer. On September 9, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was filed on October 14, 2011 and the defendants filed a reply brief on November 4, 2011. The Company and Mr. Palmin believe the allegations are without merit and intend to continue to vigorously defend against them.

BAM Dispute

On June 28, 2010, Novelos received a letter from counsel to ZAO BAM and ZAO BAM Research Laboratories (Russian companies, collectively referred to as “BAM”) alleging that it modified the chemical composition of NOV-002 without prior notice to or approval from BAM, constituting a material breach of a technology and assignment agreement Novelos had entered into with BAM on June 20, 2000 (the “June 2000 Agreement”).  The letter references the amendment, submitted to the FDA on August 30, 2005, to Novelos’ investigational new drug application dated August 1999 as the basis for BAM’s claims and demands the transfer of all intellectual property rights concerning NOV-002 to BAM.  Mark Balazovsky, a director of Novelos from June 1996 until November 2006 and a shareholder of Novelos through at least June 25, 2010, is, to our knowledge, still the general director and principal shareholder of ZAO BAM.  On September 24, 2010, Novelos filed a complaint in Suffolk Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment by the court that the June 2000 Agreement has been replaced by a subsequent agreement between the parties dated April 1, 2005 (the “April 2005 Agreement”), that Novelos’ obligations to BAM are governed solely by the April 2005 Agreement and that the obligations of the June 2000 agreement have been performed and fully satisfied.  On November 29, 2010, BAM answered the complaint, denying the material allegations, and stating its affirmative defenses and certain counterclaims. On January 14, 2011, Novelos responded to the counterclaims, denying BAM’s material allegations and stating its affirmative defenses.  On June 9, 2011, BAM filed an amended counterclaim alleging additional claims related to Novelos’ acquisition of Cellectar.  In that amended counterclaim, BAM alleges that the acquisition evidences Novelos’ abandonment of the technology assigned to it by BAM constituting a breach of the June 2000 Agreement or, if that agreement is determined to no longer be in effect, a breach of the April 2005 Agreement and/or a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the April 2005 Agreement.  On June 15, 2011 the Company filed its response to their amended counterclaim.  On August 5, 2011, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to its declaratory judgment count and all counts of BAM’s amended counterclaim.  The motion was opposed by BAM and a hearing on the motion was held on September 27, 2011. On October 17, 2011, the court ruled on the Company’s behalf for each of its declaratory judgment claims and dismissed all counts of BAM’s counterclaim. Judgment in favor of the Company was entered on October 20, 2011. On November 14, 2011, BAM filed a notice of appeal.

We do not anticipate that these litigation contingencies will have a material impact on the Company’s future financial position, results of operations or cash flows.