NOTE 7 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

At December 31, 2014, we had a commitment under a non-cancelable operating lease for our New York office until December 31, 2015 totaling $142,000 and our Boston office until December 31, 2015 totaling $30,000 and until February 28, 2016 totaling $6,000. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 was $178,000 and $270,000, respectively. Rent expense in 2013 included rent for our Dallas office which was closed on September 30, 2013.

Alan Schmidt (“Schmidt”), a former shareholder of Genaera Corporation (“Genaera”), and a former unitholder of the Genaera Liquidating Trust (the ‘‘Trust’’), filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in June 2012. The lawsuit named thirty defendants, including PlasmaTech, MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by us in February 2009, Jeffrey Davis, the then-CEO and currently a director of PlasmaTech, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino, both of whom are our directors (the ‘‘PlasmaTech Defendants’’). With respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants, the complaint alleged direct and derivative claims asserting that directors of Genaera and the Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary duties to Genaera, Genaera’s shareholders and the Trust’s unitholders in connection with the licensing and disposition of certain assets, aided and abetted by numerous defendants including the PlasmaTech Defendants. Schmidt seeks monetary damages, disgorgement of any distributions received from the Trust, rescission of sales made by the Trust, attorneys’ and expert fees, and costs. On December 19, 2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) which asserted substantially the same allegations with respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants. On February 4, 2013, the PlasmaTech Defendants moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them. On August 12, 2013 the court granted the PlasmaTech Defendants’ motions to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the PlasmaTech Defendants on all claims. On August 26, 2013, Schmidt filed a motion for reconsideration. On September 10, 2013 Schmidt filed a Notice of Appeal with the District Court. On September 17, 2013, Schmidt filed his appeal with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”). On September 25, 2013, the District Court denied Schmidt’s motion for reconsideration. On October 17, 2013, Schmidt amended his appeal to include the District Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. On March 20, 2014, Schmidt filed his Brief and Joint Appendix. On May 22, 2014, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed their Oppositions to Schmidt’s Brief. On May 29, 2014, Schmidt was granted an extension of time until June 23, 2014 to file his Reply Brief and filed his Reply Brief on that date. The Third Circuit held oral argument on September 12, 2014. On October 17, 2014, in a split decision, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision holding, among other things, that the District Court’s determination that the Amended Complaint was time-barred on statute of limitations grounds was premature. The Third Circuit did not rule upon any of the other grounds for dismissal advanced in the District Court and on appeal. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 6, 2015, the District Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on all remaining arguments for dismissal, and further ordered that a hearing on the motions to dismiss would be held on February 3, 2015. On January 23, 2015, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed their Supplemental Brief. At the February 3, 2015 hearing, Schmidt sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint for a second time. Schmidt filed his Second Amended Complaint on February 3, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint asserts substantially the same factual allegations with respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants, but eliminates all causes of action against the PlasmaTech Defendants except for aiding and abetting the Genaera directors’ and officers’ purported breaches of fiduciary duties, a claim for “punitive damages” and a claim for rescission of a settlement agreement between the Trust and the PlasmaTech Defendants. On March 20, 2015, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. We intend to continue contesting the claims vigorously.

We are not currently subject to any other material pending legal proceedings.