dcth-10q_20180630.htm

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act . ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

As of August 14, 2018, 932,158 shares of the Company’s common stock, $0.01 par value, were outstanding.

	June 30,			December 31,
	2018			2017
	(Unaudited)
Assets
Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	1,283		$	3,999
Restricted cash		1,062			1,325
Accounts receivables, net		397			317
Inventories		1,250			1,248
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		382			700
Total current assets		4,374			7,589
Property, plant and equipment, net		1,099			1,298
Total assets	$	5,473		$	8,887

Liabilities and Stockholders' Deficit
Current liabilities
Accounts payable	$	5,607		$	3,846
Accrued expenses		5,220			3,408
Current portion of convertible notes payable, net of discount		387			—
Warrant liability		6,883			560
Total current liabilities		18,097			7,814
Convertible notes payable, net of current portion and debt discount		27			—
Other non-current liabilities		439			395
Total liabilities		18,563			8,209

Commitments and Contingencies		—			—

Stockholders' equity (deficit)
Preferred stock, $.01 par value; 10,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively		—			—
Common stock, $.01 par value; 1,000,000,000 shares authorized; 932,159 and 263,305 shares issued and 932,158 and 263,304 shares outstanding at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively*		9			3
Additional paid-in capital		311,293			325,516
Accumulated deficit		(324,305	)		(324,832	)
Treasury stock, at cost; 1 share at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively*		(51	)		(51	)
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income		(36	)		42
Total stockholders' (deficit) equity		(13,090	)		678
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity	$	5,473		$	8,887

^*reflects a one-for-three hundred and fifty (1:350) reverse stock split effected on November 6, 2017 and a one-for-five hundred (1:500) reverse stock split effected on May 2, 2018.

	Three months ended June 30,						Six months ended June 30,
	2018			2017			2018			2017
Revenue	$	858		$	584		$	1,560		$	1,327
Cost of goods sold		220			135			367			354
Gross profit		638			449			1,193			973

Operating expenses:
Selling, general and administrative		2,641			2,532			5,007			4,947
Research and development		4,089			2,518			9,781			4,840
Total operating expenses		6,730			5,050			14,788			9,787
Operating loss		(6,092	)		(4,601	)		(13,595	)		(8,814	)

Change in fair value of the warrant liability, net		2,513			(38	)		17,209			1,200
Gain on warrant extinguishment		—			9,613			—			9,613
Loss on issuance of financial instrument		(2,826	)		—			(2,826	)		—
Interest expense		(248	)		(6,916	)		(251	)		(15,282	)
Other (expense) income		(5	)		(1	)		(10	)		7
Net income (loss)	$	(6,658	)	$	(1,943	)	$	527		$	(13,276	)
Other comprehensive loss:
Foreign currency translation adjustments		(36	)		(30	)		(78	)		(8	)
Comprehensive loss	$	(6,694	)	$	(1,973	)	$	449		$	(13,284	)

Common share data:
Basic loss per common share*	$	(7.26	)	$	(1,373	)	$	0.67		$	(15,656	)
Diluted loss per common share*	$	(7.26	)	$	(1,373	)	$	(0.12	)	$	(15,656	)

Weighted average number of basic shares outstanding*		916,706			1,416			788,512			848
Weighted average number of diluted shares outstanding*		916,706			1,416			799,430			848

^*reflects a one-for-three hundred and fifty (1:350) reverse stock split effected on November 6, 2017 and a one-for-five hundred (1:500) reverse stock split effected on May 2, 2018.

	Common Stock Issued
	$0.01 Par Value				Treasury Stock
	No. of Shares		Amount		No. of Shares			Amount			Additional Paid in Capital			Accumulated Deficit			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)			Total
Balance at January 1, 2018		263,305	$	3		(1	)	$	(51	)	$	325,516		$	(324,832	)	$	42		$	678
Compensation income for issuance of stock options		—		—		—			—			(40	)		—			—			(40	)
Compensation income for issuance of restricted stock		—		—		—			—			(81	)		—			—			(81	)
Sale of common stock, net of expenses		668,854		6		—			—			4,204			—			—			4,210
Fair value of warrants issued		—		—		—			—			(18,306	)		—			—			(18,306	)
Net income		—		—		—			—			—			527			—			527
Total comprehensive loss		—		—		—			—			—			—			(78	)		(78	)
Balance at June 30, 2018		932,159	$	9		(1	)	$	(51	)	$	311,293		$	(324,305	)	$	(36	)	$	(13,090	)

	Six months ended
	2018			2017
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income (loss)	$	527		$	(13,276	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Stock option compensation (income) expense		(40	)		46
Restricted stock compensation (income) expense		(81	)		64
Depreciation expense		236			127
Loss on disposal of equipment		—			20
Warrant liability fair value adjustment		(17,209	)		(1,200	)
Gain on warrant extinguishment		—			(9,613	)
Non-cash interest income		(1	)		(1	)
Deferred revenue		—			2
Loss on issuance of financial instrument		2,826			—
Debt discount amortization		238			15,277
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Prepaid expenses and other assets		318			201
Accounts receivable		(163	)		(94	)
Inventories		43			(208	)
Accounts payable and accrued expenses		3,985			628
Other non-current liabilities		44			(110	)
Net cash used in operating activities		(9,277	)		(8,137	)

Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchase of property, plant and equipment		(39	)		(276	)
Net cash used in investing activities		(39	)		(276	)

Cash flows from financing activities:
Net proceeds from the release of restricted cash		263			5,954
Release of restricted cash for extinguishment of Series C Warrants		—			7,876
Extinguishment of Series C Warrants		—			(7,876	)
Net proceeds from convertible note debt financing		2,172			—
Net proceeds from sale of stock		4,210			15
Net cash provided by financing activities		6,645			5,969
Foreign currency effects on cash and cash equivalents		(45	)		(149	)
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents		(2,716	)		(2,593	)

Cash and cash equivalents:
Beginning of period		3,999			4,409
End of period	$	1,283		$	1,816

Supplemental non-cash financing activities:
Conversion of convertible notes	$	—		$	15,831
Fair value of warrants issued	$	23,532		$	—
Fair value of warrants exercised	$	—		$	19,000

The unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements of Delcath Systems, Inc. (“Delcath” or the “Company”) as of and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 (“Annual Report”), which has been filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 16, 2018 and can also be found on the Company’s website (www.delcath.com). In these notes the terms “us”, “we” or “our” refer to Delcath and its consolidated subsidiaries.

Delcath Systems, Inc. is an interventional oncology company focused on the treatment of primary and metastatic liver cancers. Our investigational product—Melphalan Hydrochloride for Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System (Melphalan/HDS) —is designed to administer high-dose chemotherapy to the liver while controlling systemic exposure and associated side effects. In Europe, our system is commercially available under the trade name Delcath Hepatic CHEMOSAT® Delivery System for Melphalan (CHEMOSAT®), where it has been used at major medical centers to treat a wide range of cancers of the liver.

Our primary research focus is on ocular melanoma liver metastases (mOM) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), a type of primary liver cancer, and certain other cancers that are metastatic to the liver. We believe the disease states we are investigating represent a multi-billion dollar global market opportunity and a clear unmet medical need.

Our clinical development program for CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS is comprised of The FOCUS Clinical Trial for Patients with Hepatic Dominant Ocular Melanoma (The FOCUS Trial), a Global Phase 3 clinical trial that is investigating overall survival in mOM, and The ALIGN Trial, a registration trial for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). Our clinical development plan (CDP) also includes a commercial registry for CHEMOSAT non-clinical commercial cases performed in Europe and sponsorship of select investigator initiated trials (IITs) in colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver (mCRC) and pancreatic cancer metastatic to the liver.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company has incurred losses since inception and expects to continue incurring losses for the next several years. These losses, among other factors raises substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

The Company’s existence is dependent upon management’s ability to obtain additional funding sources or to enter into strategic alliances. There can be no assurance that the Company’s efforts will result in the resolution of the Company’s liquidity needs. The accompanying statements do not include any adjustments that might result should the Company be unable to continue as a going concern.

These interim condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited and were prepared by the Company in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (GAAP) and with the SEC’s instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. They include the accounts of all entities controlled by Delcath and all significant inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

The preparation of interim financial statements requires management to make assumptions and estimates that impact the amounts reported. These interim condensed consolidated financial statements, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring accruals, necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s results of operations, financial position and cash flows for the interim periods ended June 30, 2018 and 2017; however, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in our Annual Report have been condensed or omitted as permitted by GAAP. It is important to note that the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations and cash flows to be expected for a full fiscal year or any interim period.

On May 2, 2018, the Company effected a reverse stock split at which time Delcath’s common stock began trading on the OTCQB on a one-for-five hundred (1:500) split-adjusted basis. All owners of record as of the open of the OTCQB market on May 2, 2018 received one issued and outstanding share of Delcath common stock in exchange for five hundred outstanding shares of Delcath common stock. No fractional shares were issued in connection with the reverse stock split. All fractional shares created by the one-for-five hundred exchange were rounded up to the next whole share. The reverse stock split had no impact on the par value per share of Delcath common stock, which remains at $0.01. All current and prior period amounts related to shares, share prices and earnings per share, presented in the Company’s consolidated financial statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the accompanying Notes have been restated to give retrospective presentation for the reverse stock split.

A description of our significant accounting policies has been provided in Note 3 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed for the period ended December 31, 2017.

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 2014-09”) that updates the principles for recognizing revenue. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. ASU 2014-09 also amends the required disclosures of the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers.

On January 1, 2018, the Company adopted ASU 2014-09 using the modified retrospective method and the impact was determined to be immaterial on its consolidated financial statements. The new revenue standard was applied prospectively in Delcath’s condensed consolidated financial statements from January 1, 2018 forward and reported financial information for historical comparable periods will not be revised and will continue to be reported under the accounting standards in effect during those historical periods.

Delcath generates revenue from the sales of its product in Europe, where its system is commercially available under the trade name Delcath Hepatic CHEMOSAT Delivery System for Melphalan (“CHEMOSAT®”). Revenue from product sales is generally recognized at the time of shipment to a treating center or distributor, when control of the promised goods has been transferred to our customers. When obligations or contingencies remain after the products are shipped, such as training and certifying new treatment centers, revenue is deferred until the obligations or contingencies are satisfied.

Delcath has one distribution contract with a Turkish distributor. The contract has standard provisions for termination, renewal, limited warranty and right of return. CHEMOSAT kits are delivered to the Turkish distributor as orders are received and revenue is recognized at the time of shipment to the distributor. Delcath sells directly to centers in Europe with the exception of those centers located in Turkey. Sales are processed when purchase orders are received from the hospitals and revenue is recognized at the time of shipment to the treating center.

In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash. The new guidance requires that the statement of cash flows explain the change during the period in the total of cash, cash equivalents, and amounts generally described as restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents. Entities will also be required to reconcile such total to amounts on the balance sheet and disclose the nature of the restrictions. ASU 2016-18 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those fiscal years, and early adoption is permitted. The Company adopted this standard on January 1, 2018.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230). The new guidance is intended to reduce diversity in practice in how certain transactions are classified in the statement of cash flows. The ASU is effective for public companies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, including interim periods within those fiscal years. An entity that elects early adoption must adopt all of the amendments in the same period. The guidance requires application using a retrospective transition method. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases, which requires entities to report a right-to-use asset and liability for the obligation to make payments for all leases with the exception of those leases with a term of twelve months or less. ASU

2016-02 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. The Company intends to adopt this standard on January 1, 2019 and is currently evaluating the impact it may have on its consolidated financial statements.

In July 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-11, Earnings Per Share (Topic 260) Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (Topic 480) Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815). The new guidance intends to reduce the complexity associated with the issuer’s accounting for certain financial instruments with characteristics of liabilities and equity. Specifically, the Board determined that a down round feature would no longer cause a freestanding equity-linked financial instrument (or an embedded conversion option) to be accounted for as a derivative liability at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in current earnings. In addition, the Board re-characterized the indefinite deferral of certain provisions of Topic 480 to a scope exception. The re-characterization has no accounting effect. ASU 2017-11 is effective for public entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018. The Company intends to adopt this standard on January 1, 2019 and is evaluating the effects, if any, that the adoption of this guidance will have on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

¹Other consists of various prepaid expenses and other current assets, with no individual item accounting for more than 5% of prepaid expenses and other current assets at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017.

Depreciation expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018 was approximately $0.1 million and $0.2 million, respectively, as compared to approximately $0.1 million and $0.1 million, respectively, for the same period in 2017.

¹Other consists of various accrued expenses, with no individual item accounting for more than 5% of current liabilities at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017.

In order to help reduce operating costs and more appropriately align its office space with the size of its workforce, the Company entered into two sub-leases for office space at its 810 Seventh Avenue office. On May 22, 2014, the Company entered into a sub-lease agreement (“Sub-lease #1”) for approximately one-half of the office space at this location (“Suite 3500”), resulting in a lease restructuring reserve of approximately $0.9 million. On August 18, 2014, the Company entered into a sub-lease agreement (“Sub-lease #2”) for the remaining one-half of office space at its 810 Seventh Avenue office (“Suite 3505”), resulting in a lease restructuring reserve of approximately $0.7 million.

The following table provides the year-to-date activity of the Company’s restructuring reserves as of June 30, 2018:

On June 4, 2018, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) with an institutional investor pursuant to which the Company issued $3.3 million in principal face amount of senior secured convertible notes of the Company (the “Notes”) and related Series D Warrants (the “Series D Warrants”) to purchase additional shares of the Company’s common stock (“Common Stock”). Notes in the amount of $3.3 million were issued for cash proceeds of $2.4 million with an original issue discount in the amount of $1.1 million. The Notes are secured pursuant to a Security Agreement which creates a first priority security interest in all of the personal property (other than Excluded Collateral (as defined in the Security Agreement) of the Company of every kind and description, tangible or intangible, whether currently owned and existing or created or acquired in the future. The Notes bear 8% interest payable quarterly in cash. Of the $3.3 million in issued Notes, $2.5 million matures in six months; the balance of $0.8 million is payable in twelve installments beginning seven (7) months after the original issuance date. Each payment shall be paid in cash or, provided that the Market Price (as defined in the SPA) is at least the conversion price of $3.00, at the option of the Company, upon ten (10) Trading Days’ written notice to the Holder, in free trading Common Stock at the conversion price.

In connection with the issuance of the Notes under the SPA, the Company also issued Series D Warrants. Warrant D-1 is exercisable to acquire 1.1 million shares of Common Stock at an initial exercise price of $4.00. Warrants D-2 101-113 are exercisable to acquire 13.0 million shares of Common Stock at a pre-funded exercise price of $0.01. The Company may buy back each D-2 Warrant on its date of initial exercisability so long as the Company is not in default and the applicable installment payment for each month commencing on January 4, 2019 through December 4, 2019 has been paid when due. In the event that Delcath’s Market Price (as defined in the Note Agreement) is less than $3.00, the Company can only purchase back these

warrants if the Notes payable are settled for cash. The provisions in the Series D Warrants required the Company to account for the warrants as derivative liabilities. The Company valued the Series D Warrants using the following inputs:

The Company recognized a discount to debt of $2.3 million and additional expense of $2.8 million was recognized as a Loss on issuance of a financial instrument related to the initial fair value of the Series D Warrants. The D-1 Warrants have a five-year term; the D-2 Warrants have a five-year term from initial exercisability which begins on the fifth day of each month commencing December 5, 2018, through December 5, 2019, for each of Warrant D-2-101 through 113 respectively.

On May 2, 2018, the Company effected a reverse stock split at which time Delcath’s common stock began trading on the OTCQB on a one-for-five hundred (1:500) split-adjusted basis. All owners of record as of the open of the OTCQB market on May 2, 2018 received one issued and outstanding share of Delcath common stock in exchange for five hundred outstanding shares of Delcath common stock. No fractional shares were issued in connected with the reverse stock split. All fractional shares created by the one-for-five hundred exchange were rounded up to the next whole share. The reverse stock split had no impact on the par value per share of Delcath common stock, which remains at $0.01. All current and prior period amounts related to shares, share prices and earnings per share, presented in the Company’s consolidated financial statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and the accompanying Notes have been restated to give retrospective presentation for the reverse stock split.

In February 2018, the Company completed the sale of 424,000 shares of its common stock, 76,000 pre-funded warrants and the issuance of warrants to purchase 1.0 million common shares (the “February 2018 Warrants”) pursuant to a placement agent agreement, with net proceeds after expenses of $4.3 million. The February 2018 Warrants are exercisable one year after the anniversary date of their issuance. At June 30, 2018, the February 2018 Warrants were exercisable at $10.00 per share with 1.0 million warrants outstanding. The Company allocated an estimated fair value of $18.3 million to the February 2018 Warrants. The Company valued the February 2018 Warrants using the following inputs: exercise price of $10.00; contractual term of six years; volatility of 122.68% and risk free rate of approximately one percent. Due to certain price protection features in the agreement, the February 2018 Warrants were accounted for as a derivative liability at issuance and will be subsequently marked to market through the statement of operations.

As a result of the May 2, 2018 reverse stock split, the Company’s Stock Incentive Plans has no active grants and no further shares available to be granted.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recognized compensation income of $47,000 and $40,000 relating to stock options granted to employees. For the same period in 2017, the Company recognized compensation expense of approximately $24,000 and $46,000 respectively.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recognized compensation income of $94,000 and $81,000 relating to restricted stock granted to employees. For the same period in 2017, the Company recognized compensation expense of approximately $6,000 and $100,000, respectively.

For the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded derivative warrant expense of $2.5 million and $17.2 million, respectively. The resulting derivative warrant liabilities totaled $6.9 million at June 30, 2018. Management expects that the Warrants will either be exercised or expire worthless. The fair value of the Warrants at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 was determined by using option pricing models with the following assumptions:

The table below presents the Company’s assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2018, aggregated by the level in the fair value hierarchy within which those measurements fall in accordance with ASC 820.

For the periods ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, there were no transfers in or out of Level 1, 2 or 3 inputs.

The table below presents the activity within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy for the six months ended June 30, 2018:

Basic net loss per share is determined by dividing net loss by the weighted average shares of common stock outstanding during the period, without consideration of potentially dilutive securities. Diluted net loss per share is determined by dividing net loss by diluted weighted average shares outstanding. Diluted weighted average shares reflects the dilutive effect, if any, of potentially dilutive common shares, such as stock options and warrants calculated using the treasury stock method. In periods with reported net operating losses, all common stock options and warrants are generally deemed anti-dilutive such that basic net loss per share and diluted net loss per share are equal. However, in certain periods in which the exercise price of the warrants was less than the last reported sales price of Delcath’s common stock on the final trading day of the period and there is a gain recorded pursuant to the change in fair value of the warrant derivative liability, the impact of gains related to the mark-to-market adjustment of the warrants outstanding at the end of the period is reversed and the treasury stock method is used to determine diluted earnings per share.

	June 30,
(in thousands, except share data)	2018			2017
Net income (loss) - basic	$	527		$	(13,276	)
Adjustment for gain on warrant income		(619	)		—
Net loss - diluted	$	(92	)	$	(13,276	)

Weighted average shares outstanding - basic		788,512			848
Weighted average shares outstanding - diluted		799,430			848

Net income (loss) per share - basic	$	0.67		$	(15,656	)
Net income (loss) per share - diluted	$	(0.12	)	$	(15,656	)

The following potentially dilutive securities were excluded from the computation of earnings per share as of June 30, 2018 and 2017 because their effects would be anti-dilutive:

As discussed in Note 13 Income Taxes of the Company’s Annual Report, the Company has a valuation allowance against the full amount of its net deferred tax assets. The Company currently provides a valuation allowance against deferred tax assets when it is more likely than not that some portion or all of its deferred tax assets will not be realized. The Company has not recognized any unrecognized tax benefits in its balance sheet.

The Company is subject to income tax in the U.S., as well as various state and international jurisdictions. During the third quarter of 2015, the Internal Revenue Service commenced an examination of the Company’s federal income tax return for the year ended December 31, 2013. The examination was completed in the third quarter of 2017 and no changes were made to the reported amounts. Accordingly, there was no effect on the financial statements as a result of the examination. The federal and state tax authorities can generally reduce a net operating loss (but not create taxable income) for a period outside the statute of limitations in order to determine the correct amount of net operating loss which may be allowed as a deduction against income for a period within the statute of limitations. Additional information regarding the statutes of limitations can be found in Note 13 Income Taxes of the Company’s Annual Report.

On December 22, 2017, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Tax Act) was enacted into law and the new legislation contains several key tax provisions that affected us, including a one-time mandatory transition tax on accumulated foreign earnings and a reduction of the corporate income tax rate to 21% effective January 1, 2018, among others. We were required to recognize the effect of the tax law changes in the period of enactment, such as determining the transition tax, remeasuring our U.S. deferred tax assets and liabilities as well as reassessing the net realizability of our deferred tax assets and liabilities. In December 2017,

the SEC staff issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118, Income Tax Accounting Implications of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (SAB 118), which allows us to record provisional amounts during a measurement period not to extend beyond one year of the enactment date. Since the Tax Act was passed late in the fourth quarter of 2017, and ongoing guidance and accounting interpretation are expected over the next 12 months, we consider the accounting of deferred tax re-measurements and the transition tax to be incomplete due to the forthcoming guidance and our ongoing analysis of final year-end data and tax positions. As of June 30, 2018, a SAB 118 measurement period adjustment has not been recorded, as the Company is continuing to assess the impact from the Tax Act and will record adjustments in 2018 if necessary.

In October 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued accounting standards update 2016-16 which simplifies the income tax consequences of intra-entity transfers other than inventory. Prior to ASU 2016-16, GAAP prohibited the recognition of current and deferred income taxes for intra-entity asset transfers until the asset has been sold to an outside party. ASU 2016-16 eliminates this prohibition for intra-entity transfers of assets other than inventory but retain the prohibition for intra-entity transfers of inventory. This standard is effective for public entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company adopted ASU 2016-16, effective on January 1, 2018. As a result of adoption, the Company recognized a $834 decrease to its net operating loss deferred tax assets, offset by a $834 decrease to the corresponding valuation allowance.

On July 20, 2018, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with Discover Growth Fund, LLC for the remaining Notes and Warrants in proportionate amounts to those issued in the June 4, 2018 transaction which is discussed in Note 7, in a transaction exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Rule 506(b) promulgated thereunder, and received gross proceeds of $1,600,000.

On July 20, 2018, the Company and Discover Growth Fund amended the June 4, 2018 Securities Purchase Agreement to delay the Company’s registration obligation, and amended the Warrants issued thereunder so that they are exercisable as of the amendment date and the Company may redeem them at any time the Notes are no longer outstanding as well as to amend the Fundamental Transaction clause in each which result in the Series D Warrants no longer being treated as a liability as of the date of the amendment.

On July 27, 2018, Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd. filed a summons and complaint against the Company in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County (the “Suit”). The Suit alleges breaches by the Company of Hudson Bay’s rights of participation in future Company offerings granted in the September 2017 Securities Purchase Agreement between the Company and Hudson Bay and in the February 2018 Securities Purchase Agreement among, inter alia, the Company and Hudson Bay. In terms of relief sought, Hudson Bay claims both monetary damages (which it claims to be in excess of $1 million) and specific performance. The Company denies any liability with respect to the claims set forth in the Suit.

On August 3, 2018, our registration statement on Form S-1 was declared effective by the SEC. Pursuant to our rights offering, we have distributed to holders of our common stock, and holders of certain of our instruments convertible or exchangeable into our common stock, on an as converted basis, non-transferrable subscription rights (500 shares per right) to purchase up to an aggregate of 28,571,429 shares of our common stock. Holders of our common stock will receive one subscription right for each share of common stock owned and holders of certain of our instruments convertible or exchangeable into our common stock will receive one subscription right for each share of common stock they would own upon full conversion of certain of our instruments convertible or exercisable into our common stock owned and settled by, 4:00 p.m., New York City time, on August 3, 2018; provided, that, the rights may only be exercised for a maximum of the lesser of 28,571,429 shares or $50.0 million of subscription proceeds.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis of the Company’s financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto contained in Item 1 of Part I of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and the audited financial statements and notes thereto as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017 included in the Company’s 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K to provide an understanding of its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2018 contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. Words such as “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “predicts,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “could,” “would,” “will,” “may,” “can,” “continue,” “potential,” “should,” and the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology often identify forward-looking statements. Statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2018 that are not historical facts are hereby identified as “forward-looking statements” for the purpose of the safe harbor provided by Section 21E of the Exchange Act and Section 27A of the Securities Act. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements, including the risks discussed in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2018 in Part II, Item 1A under “Risk Factors” as well as in Part I, Item 3 “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2017 in Item 1A under “Risk Factors” as well as in Item 7A “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk,” and the risks detailed from time to time in our future SEC reports. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Many of the important factors that will determine these results are beyond our ability to control or predict. You are cautioned not to put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Except as otherwise required by law, we do not assume any obligation to publicly update or release any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

The following section should be read in conjunction with Part I, Item 1: Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of this report as well as Part I, Item 1: Business; and Part II, Item 8: Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of the Company’s 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Delcath Systems, Inc. is an interventional oncology company focused on the treatment of primary and metastatic liver cancers. Our investigational product—Melphalan Hydrochloride for Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System (Melphalan/HDS) —is designed to administer high-dose chemotherapy to the liver while controlling systemic exposure and associated side effects. In Europe, our system is commercially available under the trade name Delcath Hepatic CHEMOSAT^® Delivery System for Melphalan (CHEMOSAT^®), where it has been used at major medical centers to treat a wide range of cancers of the liver.

The direction and focus of our CDP for CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS is informed by prior clinical development conducted between 2004 and 2010, non-clinical, commercial CHEMOSAT cases performed on patients in Europe, and prior regulatory experience with the FDA. Experience gained from this research, development, early European commercial and United States regulatory activity has led to the implementation of several safety improvements to our product and the associated medical procedure.

In the United States, Melphalan/HDS is considered a combination drug and device product and is regulated as a drug by the FDA. The FDA has granted us six orphan drug designations, including three orphan designations for the use of the drug melphalan for the treatment of patients with mOM, HCC and ICC. Melphalan/HDS has not been approved for sale in the United States.

In Europe, the current version of our CHEMOSAT product is regulated as a Class IIb medical device and received its CE Mark in 2012. We are in an early phase of commercializing the CHEMOSAT system in select markets in the European Union (EU) where the prospect of securing reimbursement coverage for the procedure is strongest. In 2015 national reimbursement coverage for CHEMOSAT procedures was awarded in Germany. In 2016, coverage levels were negotiated between hospitals in Germany and regional sickness funds. Coverage levels determined via this process are expected to be renegotiated annually. In 2017, Dutch health authorities added CHEMOSAT to their treatment guidelines for patients with ocular melanoma metastatic to the liver, an important step toward eventual reimbursement in the Dutch market.

Currently there are few effective treatment options for certain cancers in the liver. Traditional treatment options include surgery, systemic chemotherapy, liver transplant, radiation therapy, interventional radiology techniques, and isolated hepatic perfusion. We believe that CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS represent a potentially important advancement in regional therapy for primary liver cancer and certain other cancers metastatic to the liver and are uniquely positioned to treat the entire liver either as a standalone therapy or as a complement to other therapies.

Cancers of the liver remain a major unmet medical need globally. According to the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) Cancer Facts & Figures 2017 report, cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, with an estimated 600,920 deaths and 1,688,780 new cases expected to be diagnosed in 2017. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, accounting for approximately 8.2 million deaths and 14.1 million new cases in 2012 according to GLOBOCAN. The financial burden of cancer is enormous for patients, their families and society. The Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research estimates that the direct medical costs (total of all healthcare expenditures) for cancer in the U.S. in 2014 was $87.8 billion. The liver is often the life-limiting organ for cancer patients and one of the leading causes of cancer death. Patient prognosis is generally poor once cancer has spread to the liver.

There are two types of liver cancers: primary liver cancer and metastatic liver disease. Primary liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma or HCC, including intrahepatic bile duct cancers or ICC) originates in the liver or biliary tissue and is particularly prevalent in populations where the primary risk factors for the disease, such as hepatitis-B, hepatitis-C, high levels of alcohol consumption, aflatoxin, cigarette smoking and exposure to industrial pollutants, are present. Metastatic liver disease, also called liver metastasis, or secondary liver cancer, is characterized by microscopic cancer cell clusters that detach from the primary site of disease and travel via the blood stream and lymphatic system into the liver, where they grow into new tumors. These metastases often continue to grow even after the primary cancer in another part of the body has been removed. Given the vital biological functions of the liver, including processing nutrients from food and filtering toxins from the blood, it is not uncommon for metastases to settle in the liver. In many cases patients die not as a result of their primary cancer, but from the tumors that metastasize to their liver. In the United States, metastatic liver disease is more prevalent than primary liver cancer.

Ocular melanoma is one of the cancer histologies with a high likelihood of metastasizing to the liver. Based on third party research we commissioned in 2016, we estimate that up to 4,700 cases of ocular melanoma are diagnosed in the United States and Europe annually, and that approximately 55% of these patients will develop metastatic disease. Of metastatic cases of ocular melanoma, we estimate that approximately 90% of patients will develop liver involvement. Once ocular melanoma has spread to the liver, current evidence suggests median overall survival for these patients is generally six to eight months. Currently there is no standard of care (SOC) for patients with ocular melanoma liver metastases. Based on the research conducted in 2016, we estimate that approximately 2,000 patients with ocular melanoma liver metastases in the United States and Europe may be eligible for treatment with the Melphalan/HDS.

Hepatobiliary cancers include hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), and are among the most prevalent and lethal forms of cancer. According to GLOBOCAN, an estimated 78,500 new cases of hepatobiliary cancers are diagnosed in the United States and Europe annually. According to the ACS, approximately 40,710 new cases of these cancers were expected to be diagnosed in the United States in 2017.

ICC is the second most common primary liver tumor and accounts for 3% of all gastrointestinal cancers and 15% of hepatobiliary cases diagnosed in the United States and Europe annually. We believe that 90% of ICC patients are not candidates for surgical resection, and that approximately 20-30% of these may be candidates for certain focal interventions. We estimate that approximately 9,300 ICC patients in the United States and Europe annually could be candidates for treatment with Melphalan/HDS, which we believe represents a significant market opportunity.

According to the ACS, the overall five-year survival rate for hepatobiliary cancers in the United States is approximately 18%. For patient diagnosed with a localized stage of disease, the ACS estimates 5-year survival at 31%. The ACS estimates that 5-year survival for all cancers is 68%.

CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS administer concentrated regional chemotherapy to the liver. This “whole organ” therapy is performed by isolating the circulatory system of the liver, infusing the liver with chemotherapeutic agent, and then filtering the blood prior to returning it to the patient. During the procedure, known as percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP^® therapy), three catheters are placed percutaneously through standard interventional radiology techniques. The catheters temporarily isolate the liver from the body’s circulatory system, allow administration of the chemotherapeutic agent melphalan hydrochloride directly to the liver, and collect blood exiting the liver for filtration by our proprietary filters. The filters absorb chemotherapeutic agent in the blood, thereby reducing systemic exposure to the drug and related toxic side effects, before the filtered blood is returned to the patient’s circulatory system.

PHP therapy is performed in an interventional radiology suite in approximately two to three hours. Patients remain in an intensive care or step-down unit overnight for observation following the procedure. Treatment with CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS is repeatable, and a new disposable CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS is used for each treatment. Patients treated in clinical settings are permitted up to six treatments. In non-clinical commercial settings patients have received up to eight treatments. In the United States, melphalan hydrochloride for injection will be included with the system. In Europe, the system is sold separately and used in conjunction with melphalan hydrochloride commercially available from a third party. In our clinical trials, melphalan hydrochloride for injection is provided to both European and United States clinical trial sites.

As with many cancer therapies, treatment with CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS is associated with toxic side effects and certain risks, some of which are potentially life threatening. An integrated safety population comprised of patients treated during our prior clinical development using early versions of the Melphalan/HDS showed these risks to include grade 3 or 4 bone marrow suppression and febrile neutropenia, as well as risks of hepatic injury, severe hemorrhage, gastrointestinal perforation, stroke, and myocardial infarction in the setting of an incomplete cardiac risk assessment. Deaths due to certain adverse reactions within this integrated safety population were not observed to occur again during the clinical trials following the adoption of related protocol amendments.

The trials that comprised this integrated safety population used early versions of the device and procedure. As a consequence of these identified risks and experience gained in non-clinical, commercial usage in Europe, we have continued to develop and refine both the CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS and the PHP procedure. The procedure refinements have included modifications to the pre, peri and post procedure patient management and monitoring, as well as the use of the following: prophylactic administration of proton pump inhibitors, prophylactic platelet transfusions, prophylactic hydration at key pre-treatment intervals, use of vasopressor agents coupled with continuous monitoring for maintenance of blood pressure and prophylactic administration of growth factors to reduce risk of serious myelosuppression. In addition, in 2012 we introduced the Generation Two version of the CHEMOSAT system, which offered improved hemofiltration and other product enhancements.

Reports from treating physicians in both Europe and the United States using the Generation Two CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS in a non-clinical, commercial setting have suggested that these product improvements and procedure refinements have improved the safety profile. In 2017, physicians in Europe and the United States also presented the results of research that signaled an improved safety profile as well as efficacy in multiple tumor types at several major medical conferences.

In February 2010, we concluded a randomized Phase 3 multi-center study for patients with unresectable metastatic ocular or cutaneous melanoma exclusively or predominantly in the liver. In the trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive PHP treatments with melphalan using the Melphalan/HDS, or to a control group providing best alternative care (BAC). Patients assigned to the PHP arm were eligible to receive up to six cycles of treatment at approximately four to eight week intervals. Patients randomized to the BAC arm were permitted to cross-over into the PHP arm at radiographic documentation of hepatic disease progression. A majority of the BAC patients did in fact cross over to the PHP arm. Secondary objectives of the study were to determine the response rate, safety, tolerability and overall survival.

On April 21, 2010, we announced that our randomized Phase 3 clinical trial of PHP with melphalan using Melphalan/HDS for patients with unresectable metastatic ocular and cutaneous melanoma in the liver had successfully achieved the study’s primary endpoint of extended hepatic progression-free survival (hPFS). An updated summary of the results was presented at the European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress organized by the European Cancer Organization and the European Society of Medical Oncology in September 2011. Data submitted in October 2012 to the FDA in Delcath’s New Drug Application (NDA) comparing treatment with the PHP with melphalan (the treatment group) to BAC (the control group), showed that patients in the PHP arm had a statistically significant longer median hPFS of 7.0 months compared to 1.7 months in the BAC control group, according to the Independent Review Committee (IRC) assessment. This reflects a 4-fold increase of hPFS over that of the BAC arm, with 50% reduction in the risk of progression and/or death in the PHP treatment arm compared to the BAC control arm. Results of this study were published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, in December 2015.

Also, in 2010, we concluded a separate multi-arm Phase 2 clinical trial of PHP with melphalan using an early version of the Melphalan/HDS in patients with primary and metastatic liver cancers, stratified into four arms: neuroendocrine tumors (carcinoid and pancreatic islet cell tumors), ocular or cutaneous melanoma, metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma (mCRC), and HCC. In the metastatic neuroendocrine (mNET) cohort (n=24), the objective tumor response rate was 42%, with 66% of patients achieving hepatic tumor shrinkage and durable disease stabilization. In the mCRC cohort, there was inconclusive efficacy possibly due to advanced disease status of the patients. Similar safety profiles were seen across all tumor types studied in the trial.

In the HCC cohort (n=8) of our Phase 2 Multi-Histology trial, a positive signal in hepatic malignancies was observed in 5 patients. Among these patients, one patient received four treatments, achieved a partial response lasting 12.22 months, and survived 20.47 months. Three other patients with stable disease received 3-4 treatments, with hPFS ranging 3.45 to 8.15 months, and overall survival (OS) ranging 5.26 to 19.88 months. There was no evidence of extrahepatic disease progression. The observed duration of hPFS and OS in this limited number of patients exceeded that generally associated with this patient population.

Based on the results from our prior clinical development in August 2012, we submitted an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food Drug Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) seeking an indication for the percutaneous intra-arterial administration of melphalan for use in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma in the liver, and subsequently amended the indication to ocular melanoma

metastatic to the liver. Data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used the early clinical trial versions of the system along with early clinical procedure techniques. Our NDA was accepted for filing by the FDA on October 15, 2012 and was designated for standard review with an initial Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of June 15, 2013. On April 3, 2013, the FDA extended its PDUFA goal date to September 13, 2013.

On May 2, 2013 we announced that an Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) panel convened by the FDA voted 16 to 0, with no abstentions, that the benefits of treatment with the early version of Melphalan/HDS did not outweigh the risks associated with the procedure. A significant portion of FDA’s presentation to the ODAC panel was focused on the FDA’s assessment of treatment related risks, including the analysis of treatment-related deaths that occurred during clinical trials. The FDA also expressed concerns about hypotension (low blood pressure) during the procedure, length of hospital stay, as well as risks of stroke, heart attack, renal failure, and bone marrow suppression. We believe that the protocol amendments and other procedure refinements instituted during clinical trials and subsequently in commercial, non-clinical usage in Europe, including changes to the way blood pressure is managed and monitored, may help address these procedure related risks. Collection of adequate safety data on all aspects of the procedure is a major focus of the clinical trials in our current CDP.

Briefing materials presented to the 2013 ODAC panel by both the FDA and Delcath are available on our website at http://delcath.com/clinical-bibliography.

In September 2013 the FDA issued a complete response letter (CRL) in response to our NDA. The FDA issues a CRL after the review of a file has been completed and questions remain that preclude approval of the NDA in its current form. The FDA comments included, but were not limited to, a statement that Delcath must perform another "well-controlled randomized trial(s) to establish the safety and efficacy of Melphalan/HDS using overall survival as the primary efficacy outcome measure," and which "demonstrates that the clinical benefits of Melphalan/HDS outweigh its risks." The FDA also required that the additional clinical trial(s) be conducted using the product the Company intends to market, and that certain clinical, clinical pharmacology, human factors and product quality elements of the CRL be addressed.

In January 2016, we announced the conclusion of a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) with the FDA on the design of a new Phase 3 clinical trial of Melphalan/HDS to treat patients with hepatic dominant ocular melanoma. This SPA provides agreement that our new Phase 3 trial design adequately addresses objectives that, if met, would support the submission for regulatory approval of Melphalan/HDS. However, final determinations for marketing application approval are made by FDA after a complete review of a marketing application and are based on the entire data in the application. The SPA agreement also represents the satisfactory resolution of a substantial number of the FDA’s CRL non-clinical trial related requirements in that without these successful resolutions, the SPA request would not have been permitted to be filed.

The focus of our current CDP is to generate clinical data for the CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS in various disease states and validate the safety profile of the current version of the product and treatment procedure. We believe that the improvements we have made to CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS and to the PHP procedure have addressed the severe toxicity and procedure-related risks observed during the previous Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. The CDP is also designed to support clinical adoption of and reimbursement for CHEMOSAT in Europe, and to support regulatory approvals in various jurisdictions, including the United States.

On July 27, 2018 we announced an amendment to our Phase 3 clinical trial in ocular melanoma liver metastases. Under the terms of the amendment, the trial, now entitled A Single-arm, Multi-Center, Open-Label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Melphalan/HDS Treatment in Patients with Hepatic-Dominant Ocular Melanoma, will enroll 80 patients with ocular melanoma metastatic to the liver. Under the new protocol, the primary endpoint for the amended FOCUS trial will be objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints will include duration of response, disease control rate, overall survival and progression-free survival. Additional exploratory outcome measures include time to objective response, hepatic progression-free survival, hepatic objective response, and quality of life, safety and other pharmacokinetic measures. Inclusion and exclusion criteria remain unchanged. Patients currently enrolled in the Melphalan/HDS arm of the trial under the previous protocol will continue to be treated and evaluated as part of the amended trial.

The rarity of ocular melanoma, absence of crossover to the experimental trial arm, and the availability of PHP^® Therapy in a commercial setting in Europe have all combined to inhibit enrollment in this trial under its previous protocol. With this amendment,

we have taken a significant step that we believe will accelerate our timeline to complete trial enrollment while providing a strong scientific case to support an application for approval. With this amendment, The Company projects enrollment to complete by the end of the first half of 2019.

The amendment invalidates the prior Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) agreement for the prior version of the trial. Full details of the registration Phase 3 clinical trial will be made public upon the launch of the study and will be available at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

In April 2018, we announced that that the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for this trial completed another review of safety data for treated patients in the trial under the prior protocol. The DSMB has again recommended that the study continue without modification. The trial amendment does not change safety related procedures or invalidate prior DSMB evaluations.

The FOCUS Trial is being conducted at leading cancer centers in the United States and Europe. The Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida was activated as a participating center in January 2016 with Jonathan Zager, M.D., FACS, Professor of Surgery in the Cutaneous Oncology and Sarcoma Departments and a Senior Member at Moffitt Cancer Center, serving as the trial's lead investigator. Approximately 40 leading cancer centers in the United States and Europe are participating in the FOCUS Trial.

There currently is no SOC for the treatment of hepatic dominant ocular melanoma. Melphalan hydrochloride has been granted orphan drug status by FDA for treatment of patients with ocular melanoma. Based on the strength of the efficacy data in this disease observed in our prior Phase 3 clinical trial and the reports of an improved safety profile observed in non-clinical trial experience in Europe, we are confident that this program can address the concerns raised by the FDA in its CRL. We believe that ocular melanoma liver metastases represent a significant unmet medical need, and that pursuit of an indication in this disease state represents the fastest path to potential marketing approval of the Melphalan/HDS in the United States.

Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion (PHP) vs. Cisplatin/Gemcitabine in Patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma - NCT03086993

In April 2018 we announced the initiation of a new pivotal trial of Melphalan/HDS to treat patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) titled A Randomized, Controlled Study to Compare the Efficacy, Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Melphalan/HDS Treatment Given Sequentially Following Cisplatin/Gemcitabine versus Cisplatin/Gemcitabine (Standard of Care) in Patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (The ALIGN Trial). The ALIGN trial is being conducted under a SPA announced in March of 2017. Under the terms of the SPA, the ALIGN Trial will enroll approximately 295 ICC patients at approximately 40 clinical sites in the U.S. and Europe. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) and secondary and exploratory endpoints include safety, progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and quality-of-life measures. The ALIGN Trial is designed to be cost effective and pursued in a financially prudent manner when financial resources permit. The SPA agreement for the ALIGN TRIAL indicates that the pivotal trial design adequately addresses objectives that, if met, would support regulatory requirements for approval of Melphalan/HDS in ICC. However, final determinations for marketing application approval are made by FDA after a complete review of a marketing application and are based on the totality of data in the application.

Phase 2 Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) & Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) Program

In 2014 we initiated a Phase 2 clinical trial program in Europe and the United States, with the goal of obtaining an efficacy and safety signal for Melphalan/HDS in the treatment of HCC and ICC. Due to differences in treatment practice patterns between Europe and the United States, we established separate European and United States trial protocols for the HCC Phase 2 program with different inclusion and exclusion patient selection criteria:

Protocol 201 NCT02406508 – Conducted in the United States, this trial is intended to assess the safety and efficacy of Melphalan/HDS followed by sorafenib. The trial will evaluate overall response rate via modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), progression free survival, characterize the systemic exposure of melphalan and assess patient quality of life. This trial is now closed to enrollment.

Protocol 202 NCT02415036 – Conducted in Europe, this trial is intended to assess the safety and efficacy of Melphalan/HDS without sorafenib. The trial will also evaluate overall response rate via mRECIST criteria, progression free survival, characterize the systemic exposure of melphalan and assess patient quality of life. This trial is now closed to enrollment.

ICC Cohort – In 2015 we expanded Protocol 202 to include a cohort of patients with ICC. The trial for this cohort is being conducted at the same centers participating in the Phase 2 HCC trial. This trial has completed enrollment and data collection for the ICC cohort is ongoing. We will announce results for this cohort once the data are fully mature.

ICC Retrospective Data Collection - The original goal to obtain an efficacy signal for the Phase 2 ICC cohort has been satisfied by the result of multicenter patient outcomes identified in the retrospective data collection of our commercial ICC

cases conducted by our European investigators. These promising outcomes and observations were discussed with Key Opinion Leaders (KOL) at a Delcath-organized medical advisory panel meeting and led to the agreement that PHP^® therapy does, indeed, "demonstrate an efficacy signal in ICC and is worthy of full clinical investigation." Data from this retrospective data collection provided important scientific support during our negotiations with the FDA for our SPA for the Pivotal ICC Trial. Data for the retrospective data collection are being submitted for publication by the European investigators, and details of these findings will be announced when publicly available.

With the objectives of identifying an efficacy signal worthy of further clinical investigation now met, we have terminated enrollment in our Phase 2 program and have closed the Phase 2 trials in order to focus available resources on the FOCUS Trial and the ALIGN Trial.

Clinical trials are long, expensive and highly uncertain processes and failure can unexpectedly occur at any stage of clinical development. The start or end of a clinical trial is often delayed or halted due to changing regulatory requirements, manufacturing challenges, required clinical trial administrative actions, slower than anticipated patient enrollment, changing standards of care, availability or prevalence of use of a comparator treatment or required prior therapy. A substantial portion of the Company’s operating expenses consist of research and development expenses incurred in connection with its clinical trials. See the Company’s Consolidated Financial included in Item 8 of its Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In addition to the clinical trials in our CDP, we are supporting data generation in other areas. We are currently conducting one Investigator Initiated Trial (IIT) in colorectal carcinoma metastatic to the liver (mCRC) at Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands. We are planning two additional IITs – one for colorectal carcinoma metastatic to the liver at Heidelberg University in Heidelberg, Germany and one for pancreatic carcinoma metastatic to the liver at Spire Hospital in Southampton, England. We continue to evaluate other IITs as suitable opportunities present in Europe. We believe IITs will serve to build clinical experience at key cancer centers and will help support efforts to obtain full reimbursement in Europe.

On April 2, 2015, we announced the activation of our prospective patient registry in Europe to collect uniform essential patient safety, efficacy, and QoL information using observational study methods. This registry will gather data in multiple tumor types from commercial cases performed by participating cancer centers in Europe. A prospective registry is an organized system that uses observational study methods to collect defined clinical data under normal conditions of use to evaluate specified outcomes for a population defined by a particular disease, condition, or exposure. Registry data is non-randomized, and as such cannot be used for either registration approval, promotional or competitive claims. However, we believe the patient registry will provide a valuable supportive data repository from a commercial setting that can be used to identify further clinical development opportunities, support clinical adoption and reimbursement in Europe.

In May 2018 we announced that PHP Therapy was featured in a Video Learning Session presented at the Annual Meeting of the European Conference of Interventional Oncology (ECIO). Dr. M.C. Burgmans of Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) in the Netherlands presented the training in the main auditorium session dedicated to advances in liver cancer therapies. Dr. Burgmans presented an overview of the Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion (PHP) procedure, discussed the therapy’s developmental history, demonstrating how to perform the procedure, as well as outlining its potential in ocular melanoma liver metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and highlighting ongoing clinical research.

In his presentation, Dr. Burgmans stated his belief that PHP Therapy should be considered as first line therapy in ocular melanoma liver metastases, an opinion informed by both our commercial experience in Europe and our prior research into this tumor type. LUMC is an experienced treatment centers, and has recently completed its 100^th treatment using CHEMOSAT. We believe Dr. Burgmans comments reflect growing confidence in this therapy’s role in treating ocular melanoma liver metastases.

In March 2018, we announced that a comparative summary of research was presented by Dr. Jonathan Zager of Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, FL, at the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) annual meeting. In a presentation entitled Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion (PHP) in Hepatic Liver Metastases, Dr. Zager compared the results from the Company’s prior Phase 3 study, published by Hughes, et al (Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2015) with more recent results published by Karydis, et al (Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2017) and Abbott, et al (American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2017). The Hughes study was conducted from 2005 to 2010, and used an earlier generation of the Melphalan/HDS system, whereas the Karydis and Abbott studies evaluated patients primarily treated with the

Generation Two version of the Melphalan/HDS system along with other refinements to the peri- and post-procedure management of patients.

In his presentation, Dr. Zager highlighted that in all three studies results with PHP provided evidence of improved efficacy, with Hughes showing a 5x increase in hPFS over the study control arm (PHP 245 days vs BAC 49 days), and Abbott showing significantly longer hPFS for PHP than treatment with chemoembolization (CE) and Yttrium-90 beads (Y90) (PHP 310 days, CE 80 days, Y-90 54 days). Karydis showed an overall response rate with PHP of 47%, a >84% disease control rate and hPFS of 9.1 months. Regarding safety, Dr. Zager compared select safety data in the Hughes study conducted with the generation one system with data from the Karydis study conducted primarily in patients treated with the generation two system. The Hughes study was characterized by high percentages of hematologic side effects ranging from 60%-86% (anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia). In the Karydis study, Grade 3 and 4 hematologic side effects (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) were seen in approximately 30% of patients treated with PHP. Dr. Zager attributed this improvement in the safety profile to improvements in filtration with the generation two system, improved peri- and post-procedure management of patients, and greater experience in the treating centers. Dr. Zager concluded that PHP Therapy can be administered safely in high-volume cancer centers.

In January 2018, we announced the publication of a multi-center retrospective analysis of Delcath’s PHP^® Therapy published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Surgical Oncology. The study, Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion with Melphalan in Uveal Melanoma: A Safe and Effective Treatment Modality in an Orphan Disease”, was conducted by researchers from Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt) in Tampa, FL and the University Hospital Southampton (UHS) in the United Kingdom. The retrospective analysis of outcomes in 51 patients with liver metastases from ocular melanoma represents the largest data set compilation on the use of PHP Therapy in this tumor type outside of a clinical trial setting.

Patients in the study were treated at the two centers between December 2008 and October 2016. Patients received up to four PHP treatments at UHS and up to six PHP treatments at Moffitt. All patients received at least one PHP treatment, the median number of treatments per patient was two, and a total of 134 PHP treatments had been administered. Results showed that of the 51 treated patients, 22 (43.1%) showed a partial response, 3 (5.9%) showed a complete response, and 17 (33.3%) had stable disease. The six-month overall and hepatic disease control rates were 64.7% and 70.6% respectively. Survival analysis showed median overall survival of 15.3 months at the time of data cut off. One year overall survival was 64.6%.

Safety analysis showed that 19 patients (37.5%) had Grade 3 or 4 non-hematologic toxicity. Cardiovascular toxicity was seen in 17.6% of patients, a rate comparable to the company’s prior Phase 3 study. Further to implementation of the Gen 2 filter along with prophylactic use of growth factors, severe neutropenia was seen in 16 (31.3%) patients as opposed to 60 (85.7%) patients in the prior Phase 3 trial. Most significantly, as compared to the prior Phase 3, there were no treatment related deaths. Researchers stated that PHP Therapy “can be safely employed in appropriately selected ocular melanoma patients in institutions with appropriate expertise.”

The study authors further concluded that “results clearly demonstrate that PHP Therapy appears to be an effective means of obtaining rapid intrahepatic disease control and is a sensible option in patients with predominant liver disease.” Researchers said their results support the use of PHP Therapy in an integrated approach to the management of metastatic ocular melanoma and looked to the company’s Phase 3 FOCUS Trial to further quantify the benefit and optimize treatment strategies for these patients.

Our market access and clinical adoptions efforts are focused on the key target markets of Germany, United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which represent a majority of the total potential liver cancer market (primary and metastatic) in the Europe and where progress in securing reimbursement for CHEMOSAT treatments offers the best near-term opportunities. We also continue to support clinical adoption of CHEMOSAT in Spain, France and Italy. We employ a combination of direct and indirect sales channels to market and sell CHEMOSAT in these markets. Our European Headquarters is in Galway, Ireland.

Since launching CHEMOSAT in Europe, over 600 treatments have been performed at over 25 leading European cancer centers. Physicians in Europe have used CHEMOSAT to treat patients with a variety of cancers in the liver, primarily ocular melanoma liver metastases, and other tumor types, including cutaneous melanoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and liver metastases from colorectal cancer, breast, pancreatic and neuroendocrine. In 2017, we announced our first patient to receive eight CHEMOSAT treatments, and have seen the average number of repeat treatments performed on a per patient basis consistently increase.In 2017, SPIRE Southampton Hospital in the U.K. and the Medical University of Hannover in Germany each surpassed 100 treatments with CHEMOSAT since initiating procedures and in 2018, Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands surpassed 100 treatments with CHEMOSAT since initiating procedures.

In March 2018, we announced that we entered into a commercial supply agreement with Tillomed Laboratories, an EMCURE company, for the procurement of melphalan for use with CHEMOSAT in Europe. Tillomed Laboratories specializes in the licensing, marketing and supply of generic and branded pharmaceutical products to hospitals, wholesalers and pharmacists nationwide, in a cost-effective and timely manner. We believe this agreement establishes firm control over our melphalan supply chain in Europe, and over time will provide economies of scale. The supply agreement with Tillomed also gives Delcath access to the drug dossier for melphalan hydrochloride, an important asset that potentially provides a drug approval pathway with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in Europe. As many of the cancers of the liver we are treating with CHEMOSAT are orphan indications in the United States, a Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) approval by the EMA for CHEMOSAT could potentially provide added market protection for these indications in Europe.

A critical driver of utilization growth for CHEMOSAT in Europe is the expansion of reimbursement mechanisms for the procedure in our priority markets. In Europe, there is no centralized pan-European medical device reimbursement body. Reimbursement is administered on a regional and national basis. Medical devices are typically reimbursed under Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) as part of a procedure. Prior to obtaining permanent DRG reimbursement codes, in certain jurisdictions, we are actively seeking interim reimbursement from existing mechanisms that include specific interim reimbursement schemes, new technology payment programs as well as existing DRG codes. In most EU countries, the government provides healthcare and controls reimbursement levels. Since the EU has no jurisdiction over patient reimbursement or pricing matters in its member states, the methodologies for determining reimbursement rates and the actual rates may vary by country.

In October 2015, we announced that the Institut fϋr das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus (InEk), the German federal reimbursement agency, established a national Zusatzentgeld (ZE) reimbursement code for procedures performed with CHEMOSAT in Germany. The ZE diagnostic-related group (DRG) code is a national reimbursement code that augments existing DRG codes until a specific new DRG code can be created, and will replace the previous Neue Untersuchungs und Behandlungsmethoden (NUB) procedure that required patients in Germany to apply individually for reimbursement of their CHEMOSAT treatment. With the establishment of a ZE code for CHEMOSAT, the procedure is now permanently represented in the DRG catalog in Germany. Coverage levels under this process are negotiated between hospitals in Germany and regional sickness funds, with coverage levels renegotiated annually.

In May 2014, NICE, a non-departmental public body that provides guidance and advice to improve health and social care in the UK, completed a clinical review of CHEMOSAT. The NICE review indicated that as the current body of evidence on the safety and efficacy of PHP with CHEMOSAT for primary or metastatic liver cancer is limited, the procedure should be performed within the context of research by clinicians with specific training in its use and techniques. Delcath expects to consult again with the Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee at the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England, to provide recent clinical evidence with a view to moving existing Interventional Procedural Guidance from research to specialist status. This would enable greater scope for commercialization because it would allow more use by NHS clinicians of the therapy. It might also pave the way for a full Medical Technology Assessment as a way towards longer term reimbursement with the NHS.

In the short term, public patients will continue to be treated in the UK through clinical trials. Private patients will continue to be treated through the established private treatment pathway such as private insurance coverage or self-pay.

In the Netherlands CHEMOSAT has been performed at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in 2013 and at Leiden University Medical Centre since 2014. In June 2017 the Medical Oncology National Treatment Guidelines for Uveal Melanoma were updated and now include recommendations to consider CHEMOSAT in the treatment of liver metastases. We are hopeful that inclusion in the national guidelines and the support of clinicians treating patients with CHEMOSAT will support an application for reimbursement in this market.

In Spain, the Company has determined that there was no benefit to continuing with its relationship with a local sales agency and has exited the Spanish market.

In April 2016 we announced the activation of the Hacettepe University Clinic in Ankara, Turkey as a CHEMOSAT treatment center. Hacettepe University Clinic successfully completed its first CHEMOSAT treatments in March 2016, and the center represents the first CHEMOSAT commercial location to be activated outside of the European Union. In 2018 a second center has been activated in Turkey. We believe that these centers can serve as important location for CHEMOSAT treatment to patients in Turkey and throughout the region.

As a result of the Company’s strategy to prioritize resources on the key direct markets of Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the Company expects that its distribution strategy will play a lesser role in its current commercial activities. The Company is represented in Turkey through a distribution partner.

Our products are subject to extensive and rigorous government regulation by foreign regulatory agencies and the FDA. Foreign regulatory agencies, the FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions impose extensive requirements upon the clinical development, pre-market clearance and approval, manufacturing, labeling, marketing, advertising and promotion, pricing, storage and distribution of pharmaceutical and medical device products. Failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory agency or FDA requirements may result in Warning Letters, fines, civil or criminal penalties, suspension or delays in clinical development, recall or seizure of products, partial or total suspension of production or withdrawal of a product from the market.

In the United States, the FDA regulates drug and device products under the FFDCA, and its implementing regulations. The Delcath Melphalan/HDS is subject to regulation as a combination product, which means it is composed of both a drug product and device product. If marketed individually, each component would therefore be subject to different regulatory pathways and reviewed by different centers within the FDA. A combination product, however, is assigned to a center that will have primary jurisdiction over its pre-market review and regulation based on a determination of its primary mode of action, which is the single mode of action that provides the most important therapeutic action. In the case of the Melphalan/HDS, the primary mode of action is attributable to the drug component of the product, which means that the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, has primary jurisdiction over its pre-market development and review.

The process required by the FDA before drug product candidates may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

The development and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

The results of preclinical tests (which include laboratory evaluation as well as GLP studies to evaluate toxicity in animals) for a particular product candidate, together with related manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of an IND to the FDA. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. IND submissions may not result in FDA authorization to commence a clinical trial. A separate submission to an existing IND must also be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development. Further, an independent institutional review board, or IRB, for each medical center proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that center and it must monitor the study until completed. The FDA, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive good clinical practice regulations and regulations for informed consent and privacy of individually identifiable information. Similar requirements to the United States IND are required in the European Economic Area (EEA) and other jurisdictions in which we may conduct clinical trials.

For purposes of NDA submission and approval, clinical trials are typically conducted in the following sequential phases, which may overlap:

Sponsors of clinical trials may submit proposals for the design, execution, and analysis for their pivotal trials under a SPA. A SPA is an evaluation by the FDA of a protocol with the goal of reaching an agreement that the Phase 3 trial protocol design, clinical endpoints, and statistical analyses are acceptable to support regulatory approval of the drug product candidate with respect to effectiveness for the indication studied. Under a SPA, the FDA agrees to not later alter its position with respect to adequacy of the design, execution or analyses of the clinical trial intended to form the primary basis of an effectiveness claim in an NDA, without the sponsor’s agreement, unless the FDA identifies a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or efficacy of the drug after testing begins.

Prior to initiating our currently ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial(s), we submitted a proposal for the design, execution and analysis under a SPA.

The results of drug development, preclinical studies and clinical trials are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA. NDAs also must contain extensive chemistry, manufacturing and control information. An NDA must be accompanied by a significant user fee, which may be waived in certain circumstances. Once the submission has been accepted for filing, the FDA’s goal is to review applications within ten months of submission or, if the application relates to an unmet medical need in a serious or life-threatening indication, six months from submission. The review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The FDA may refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. For new oncology products, the FDA will often solicit an opinion from an ODAC, a panel of

expert authorities knowledgeable in the fields of general oncology, pediatric oncology, hematologic oncology, immunologic oncology, biostatistics, and other related professions. The ODAC panel reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cancer, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee. The FDA may deny approval of an NDA by issuing a Complete Response Letter (CRL) if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied. A CRL may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant, expensive and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. Data from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we or our collaborators interpret data. Approval may be contingent on a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) that limits the labeling, distribution or promotion of a drug product. Once issued, the FDA may withdraw product approval if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems occur after the product reaches the market. In addition, the FDA may require testing, including Phase IV clinical trials, and surveillance programs to monitor the safety effects of approved products which have been commercialized, and the FDA has the power to prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs or other information.

There are three primary regulatory pathways for a New Drug Application under Section 505 of the FFDCA: Section 505 (b)(1), Section 505 (b)(2) and Section 505(j). A Section 505 (b)(1) application is used for approval of a new drug (for clinical use) whose active ingredients have not been previously approved. A Section 505 (b)(2) application is used for a new drug that relies on data not developed by the applicant. Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA was enacted as part of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. This statutory provision permits the approval of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits the applicant to rely in part upon the FDA’s findings of safety and effectiveness for previously approved products. Section 505(j) application, also known as an abbreviated NDA, is used for a generic version of a drug that has already been approved.

Some jurisdictions, including the United States, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Pursuant to the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA grants orphan drug designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. The orphan designation is granted for a combination of a drug entity and an indication and therefore it can be granted for an existing drug with a new (orphan) indication. Applications are made to the Office of Orphan Products Development at the FDA and a decision or request for more information is rendered in 60 days. NDAs for designated orphan drugs are exempt from user fees, obtain additional clinical protocol assistance, are eligible for tax credits up to 50% of research and development costs, and are granted a seven-year period of exclusivity upon approval. The FDA cannot approve the same drug for the same condition during this period of exclusivity, except in certain circumstances where a new product demonstrates superiority to the original treatment. Exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA for the designated orphan drug, and an orphan designation does not limit the use of that drug in other applications outside the approved designation in either a commercial or investigational setting.

The FDA has granted Delcath six orphan drug designations. In November 2008, the FDA granted Delcath two orphan drug designations for the drug melphalan for the treatment of patients with cutaneous melanoma as well as patients with ocular melanoma. In May 2009, the FDA granted Delcath an additional orphan drug designation of the drug melphalan for the treatment of patients with neuroendocrine tumors. In August 2009, the FDA granted Delcath an orphan drug designation of the drug doxorubicin for the treatment of patients with primary liver cancer. In October 2013, the FDA granted Delcath an orphan drug designation of the drug melphalan for the treatment of HCC. In July 2015, the FDA granted Delcath an orphan drug designation of the drug melphalan for the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, which includes ICC.

The granting of orphan drug designations does not mean that the FDA has approved a new drug. Companies must still pursue the rigorous development and approval process that requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for our product will be granted at all or on a timely basis.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain patents and trademarks, maintain trade secret and know-how protection, enforce our proprietary rights against infringers, and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of third parties. Because of the length of time and expense associated with developing new products and bringing them through the regulatory approval process, the health care industry places considerable emphasis on obtaining patent protection and maintaining trade secret protection for new technologies, products, processes, know-how, and methods. The Company currently holds rights in eight U.S. utility patents, one U.S. design patent, five pending U.S. utility patent applications, six issued foreign counterpart utility patents (including the validation of a

European patent directed to our filter apparatus in eight European countries, six issued foreign counterpart design patents, and eight pending foreign counterpart patent applications. In July 2017, a patent directed to our chemotherapy filtration system was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

When appropriate, the Company actively pursues protection of our proprietary products, technologies, processes, and methods by filing United States and international patent and trademark applications. We seek to pursue additional patent protection for technology invented through research and development, manufacturing, and clinical use of the CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS that will enable us to expand our patent portfolio around advances to our current systems, technology, and methods for our current applications as well as beyond the treatment of cancers in the liver.

There can be no assurance that the pending patent applications will result in the issuance of patents, that patents issued to or licensed by us will not be challenged or circumvented by competitors, or that these patents will be found to be valid or sufficiently broad to protect our technology or provide us with a competitive advantage.

To maintain our proprietary position, we also rely on trade secrets and proprietary technological experience to protect proprietary manufacturing processes, technology, and know-how relating to our business. We rely, in part, on confidentiality agreements with our marketing partners, employees, advisors, vendors and consultants to protect our trade secrets and proprietary technological expertise. In addition, we also seek to maintain our trade secrets through maintenance of the physical security of the premises where our trade secrets are located. There can be no assurance that these agreements will not be breached, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, that others will not independently develop equivalent proprietary information or that third parties will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets and proprietary knowledge.

In certain circumstances, United States patent law allows for the extension of a patent’s duration for a period of up to five years after FDA approval. The Company intends to seek extension for one of our patents after FDA approval if it has not expired prior to the date of approval. In addition to our proprietary protections, the FDA has granted Delcath five orphan drug designations that provide us a seven-year period of exclusive marketing beginning on the date that our NDA is approved by the FDA for the designated orphan drug. While the exclusivity only applies to the indication for which the drug has been approved, the Company believes that it will provide us with added protection once commercialization of an orphan drug designated product begins.

There has been and continues to be substantial litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical and medical device areas. If a third party asserts a claim against Delcath, the Company may be forced to expend significant time and money defending such actions and an adverse determination in any patent litigation could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, require us to redesign our product, require us to seek licenses from third parties, and, if licenses are not available, prevent us from manufacturing, selling or using our system. Additionally, Delcath plans to enforce its intellectual property rights vigorously and may find it necessary to initiate litigation to enforce our patent rights or to protect our trade secrets or know-how. Patent litigation can be costly and time consuming and there can be no assurance that the outcome will be favorable to us.

Foreign Patents
Patent No.	Title	Issuance Date	Owned or Licensed	Expiration Date
84.098	Dual Filter (Argentina)	6/29/2012	Owned	6/29/2027
343454	Dual Filter (Australia)	7/23/2012	Owned	6/25/2022
146201	Dual Filter (Canada)	5/15/2013	Owned	5/15/2023
ZL 201230277905.5	Dual Filter (China)	3/20/2013	Owned	6/22/2022
1333173	Dual Filter (Europe)	6/27/2012	Owned	6/25/2037
1456186	Dual Filter Cartridge for Fluid Filtration (Japan)	10/26/2012	Owned	10/26/2032
2797644	Filter and Frame Apparatus and Method of Use (Belgium)	4/12/2017	Owned	12/29/2032
2797644	Filter and Frame Apparatus and Method of Use (France)	4/12/2017	Owned	12/29/2032
602012031191.6	Filter and Frame Apparatus and Method of Use (Germany)	4/12/2017	Owned	12/29/2032
2797644	Filter and Frame Apparatus and Method of Use (Great Britain)	4/12/2017	Owned	12/29/2032
2797644	Filter and Frame Apparatus and Method of Use (Ireland)	4/12/2017	Owned	12/29/2032
2797644	Filter and Frame Apparatus and Method of Use (Italy)	4/12/2017	Owned	12/29/2032
2797644	Filter and Frame Apparatus and Method of Use (Luxembourg)	4/12/2017	Owned	12/29/2032

Products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including recordkeeping, annual product quality review and reporting requirements. Adverse event experience with the product must be reported to the FDA in a timely fashion and pharmacovigilance programs to proactively look for these adverse events are mandated by the FDA. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMPs, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Following such inspections, the FDA may issue notices on Form 483 and Untitled Letters or Warning Letters that could cause us or our third-party manufacturers to modify certain activities. A Form 483 Notice, if issued at the conclusion of an FDA inspection, can list conditions the FDA investigators believe may have violated cGMP or other FDA regulations or guidelines. In addition to Form 483 Notices and Untitled Letters or Warning Letters, failure to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements can subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, such as suspension of manufacturing, seizure of

product, injunctive action or possible civil penalties. We cannot be certain that we or our present or future third-party manufacturers or suppliers will be able to comply with the cGMP regulations and other ongoing FDA regulatory requirements. If we or our present or future third-party manufacturers or suppliers are not able to comply with these requirements, the FDA may require us to recall our products from distribution or withdraw any potential approvals of an NDA for that product.

The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, dissemination of off-label information, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, we may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new or supplemental NDA, which may require us to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, Warning Letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties.

Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties, in particular in oncology. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use.

In the EEA, the CHEMOSAT system is subject to regulation as a medical device. The EEA is composed of the 27 Member States of the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Under the EU Medical Devices Directive (Directive No 93/42/ECC of 14 June 1993, as last amended), drug delivery products such as the CHEMOSAT system is governed by the EU laws on pharmaceutical products only if they are (i) placed on the market in such a way that the device and the pharmaceutical product form a single integral unit which is intended exclusively for use in the given combination, and (ii) the product is not reusable. In such cases, the drug delivery product is governed by the EU Code on Medicinal Products for Human Use (Directive 2001/83/EC, as last amended), while the essential requirements of the EU Medical Devices Directive apply to the safety and performance-related device features of the product. Because we do not intend to place the CHEMOSAT system on the EEA market as a single integral unit with melphalan, the product is governed solely by the EU Medical Devices Directive, while the separately marketed drug is governed by the EU Code relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use and other EU legislation applicable to drugs for human use.

Before we may commercialize a medical device in the EEA, we must comply with the essential requirements of the EU Medical Devices Directive. Compliance with these requirements entitles a manufacturer to affix a CE conformity mark, without which the products cannot be commercialized in the EEA. To demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements and obtain the right to affix the CE conformity mark, medical device manufacturers must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its classification. In April 2011, we obtained authorization to affix a CE Mark for the Generation One CHEMOSAT system and began European commercialization with this version of the CHEMOSAT system in early 2012. In April 2012, the Company obtained authorization to affix a CE Mark for the Generation Two CHEMOSAT system, and since this time all procedures in Europe have been performed with this version of the system.

The Medical Devices Directive establishes a classification system placing devices into Class I, IIa, IIb, or III, depending on the risks and characteristics of the medical device. For certain types of low risk medical devices (i.e., Class I devices which are non-sterile and do not have a measuring function), the manufacturer may issue an EC Declaration of Conformity based on a self-assessment of the conformity of its products with the essential requirements of the EU Medical Devices Directives. Other devices are subject to a conformity assessment procedure requiring the intervention of a Notified Body, which is an organization designated by a Member State of the EEA to conduct conformity assessments.

CHEMOSAT is regulated as a Class IIb medical device. As a Class IIb medical device, the Notified Body is not required to carry out an examination of the product’s design dossier as part of its conformity assessment prior to commercialization. The Company must continue to comply with the essential requirements of the EU Medical Devices Directive (Directive 93/42 EC) and is subject to a conformity assessment procedure requiring the intervention of a Notified Body. The conformity assessment procedure for Class IIb medical devices requires the manufacturer to apply for the assessment of its quality system for the design, manufacture and inspection of its medical devices by a Notified Body. The Notified Body will audit the system to determine whether it conforms to the provisions of the Medical Devices Directive. If the Notified Body’s assessment is favorable it will issue a Full Quality Assurance Certificate, which enables the manufacturer to draw a Declaration of Conformity and affix the CE mark to the medical devices covered by the assessment. Thereafter, the Notified Body will carry out periodic audits to ensure that the approved quality system is applied by the manufacturer.

A manufacturer without a registered place of business in a Member State of the European Union which places a medical device on the market under its own name must designate an authorized representative established in the European Union who can act before, and be addressed by, the Competent Authorities on the manufacturer’s behalf with regard to the manufacturer’s obligations under the EU Medical Devices Directive. We appointed such a representative prior to establishing our infrastructure in the EEA and expect that we will not need a third party representative in the future.

In the EEA, we must also comply with the Medical Device Vigilance System, which is designed to improve the protection of health and safety of patients, users and others by reducing the likelihood of recurrence of incidents related to the use of a medical device. Under this system, incidents are defined as any malfunction or deterioration in the characteristics and/or performance of a device, as well as any inadequacy in the labeling or the instructions for use which, directly or indirectly, might lead to or might have led to the death of a patient, or user or of other persons or to a serious deterioration in their state of health. When a medical device is suspected to be a contributory cause of an incident, its manufacturer or authorized representative in the EU must report it to the Competent Authority of the Member State where the incident occurred. Incidents are generally investigated by the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s investigation is monitored by the Competent Authority, which may intervene, or initiate an independent investigation if considered appropriate. An investigation may conclude in the adoption of a Field Safety Corrective Action (FSCA). An FSCA is an action taken by a manufacturer to reduce a risk of death or serious deterioration in the state of health associated with the use of a medical device that is already placed on the market. An FSCA may include device recall, modification exchange and destruction. FSCAs must be notified by the manufacturer or its authorized representative to its customers and/or the end users of the medical device via a Field Safety Notice.

In the EEA, the off-label promotion of a pharmaceutical product is strictly prohibited under the EU Community Code on Medicinal Products, which provides that all information provided within the context of the promotion of a drug must comply with the information contained in its approved summary of product characteristics. Our product instructions and indication reference the chemotherapeutic agent melphalan hydrochloride. However, no melphalan labels in the EEA reference our product, and the labels vary from country to country with respect to the approved indication of the drug and its mode of administration. In the exercise of their professional judgment in the practice of medicine, physicians are generally allowed, under certain conditions, to use or prescribe a product in ways not approved by regulatory authorities. Physicians intending to use our device must obtain melphalan separately for use with the CHEMOSAT system and must use melphalan independently at their discretion.

In the EEA, the advertising and promotion of our products is also subject to EEA Member States laws implementing the EU Medical Devices Directive, Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, as well as other EEA Member State legislation governing the advertising and promotion of medical devices. These laws may further limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of our products to the general public and may also impose limitations on our promotional activities with health care professionals.

Failure to comply with the EEA Member State laws implementing the Medical Devices Directive, with the EU and EEA Member State laws on the promotion of medicinal products or with other applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the EEA Member State authorities, which may include any of the following: fines, imprisonment, orders forfeiting products or prohibiting or suspending their supply to the market, or requiring the manufacturer to issue public warnings, or to conduct a product recall.

The European Commission recently reviewed the Medical Device Directive legislative framework and promulgated REGULATION (EU) 2017/745 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. This new Medical Device Regulation became effective on May 25, 2017, marking the start of a 3-year transition period for manufacturers selling medical device in Europe to comply with the new medical device regulation (MDR) which governs all facets of medical devices. The transition task is highly complex and touches every aspect of product development, manufacturing production, distribution and post marketing evaluation.

Effectively addressing these changes will require a complete review of our device operations to determine what is necessary to comply. We do not believe the MDR regulatory changes will impact our business at this time, though implementation of the medical device legislation may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations or restrict our operations.

The CHEMOSAT device has received registrations in the following countries: Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Taiwan, and Singapore. With limited resources and our attention focused on European commercial and clinical adoption efforts, pursuing other markets at this time is not practical. We will continue to evaluate commercial opportunities in these and other markets when resources are available and at an appropriate time.

The healthcare industry is characterized by extensive research, rapid technological progress and significant competition from numerous healthcare companies and academic institutions. Competition in the cancer treatment industry is intense. We believe that the primary competitive factors for products addressing cancer include safety, efficacy, ease of use, reliability and price. We also believe that physician relationships, especially relationships with leaders in the medical and surgical oncology communities, are important competitive factors. We also believe that the current global economic conditions and new healthcare reforms could put competitive pressure on us, including reduced selling prices and potential reimbursement rates, and overall procedure rates. Certain markets in Europe are experiencing the effects of continued economic weakness, which is affecting healthcare budgets and reimbursement.

The CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS competes with all forms of liver cancer treatments, including surgery, systemic chemotherapy, focal therapies and palliative care. In the disease states we are targeting there are also numerous clinical trials sponsored by third-parties, which can compete for potential patients in the near term and may ultimately lead to new competitive therapies.

For ocular melanoma liver metastases, there are currently no approved or effective treatment options, and patients are generally treated with a variety of focal and regional techniques. There are numerous companies developing and marketing devices for the performance of focal therapies, including Covidian, Biocompatibles, Merit, CeleNova, SirTex, AngioDynamics, and many others.

For ICC, gemcitabine plus cisplatin remains the standard of care for the treatment of ICC in patients who are not candidates for surgery.

Several therapies have been recently approved for unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, which may encompass liver metastases. Dabrafenib (Tafinlar™, GlaxoSmithKline), is indicated as single agent for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation, and in combination with trametinib in unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Furthermore, trametinib (MEKINIST™, GlaxoSmithKline) is indicated as single agent (in addition to in combination with dabrafinib) for treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Previously approved melanoma therapies such as the biologic ipilimumab (Yervoy™, Bristol Myers Squibb) and the B-RAF targeted drug vemurafenib (Zelboraf™, Genentech) may also make up the competitive landscape for the treatment of metastatic liver disease.

Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technological, research and development, marketing and personnel resources. In addition, some of our competitors have considerable experience in conducting clinical trials, regulatory, manufacturing and commercialization capabilities. Our competitors may develop alternative treatment methods, or achieve earlier product development, in which case the likelihood of us achieving meaningful revenues or profitability will be substantially reduced.

We manufacture certain components including our proprietary filter media, and assemble and package the CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS at our facility in Queensbury, New York. We have established our European headquarters and distribution facility in Galway, Ireland where we intend to conduct final manufacturing and assembly in the future. Delcath currently utilizes third-parties to manufacture some components of the CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS. The CHEMOSAT and Melphalan/HDS and its components must be manufactured and sterilized in accordance with approved manufacturing and pre-determined performance specifications. In addition, certain components will require sterilization prior to distribution and Delcath relies on third-party vendors to perform the sterilization process.

We are committed to providing high quality products to our customers. To honor this commitment, Delcath has implemented updated quality systems throughout our organization. Delcath’s quality system starts with the initial product specification and continues through the design of the product, component specification process and the manufacturing, sale and servicing of the product. These systems are designed to enable us to satisfy the various international quality system regulations including those of the FDA with respect to products sold in the United States and those established by the International Standards Organization (ISO) with respect to products sold in the EEA. The Company is required to maintain ISO 13485 certification for medical devices to be sold in the EEA, which requires, among other items, an implemented quality system that applies to component quality, supplier control, product design and manufacturing operations. On February 17, 2011, we announced that we had achieved ISO 13485 certification for our Queensbury manufacturing facility. On December 28, 2011, we announced that we had achieved ISO 13485 certification for our Galway, Ireland facility. All Delcath facilties are presently ISO 13485:2016 certified.

On June 4, 2018 the Company sold 8% Senior Secured Convertible Promissory Notes (“Notes”) and warrants and prepaid warrants (“Warrants”) pursuant to a Securities Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) with an institutional investor in a transaction exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), Regulation S and Rule 506(b) promulgated thereunder, and received gross proceeds of $2,400,000. The Agreement provided for an aggregate subscription amount for all securities to all purchasers of up to $4,000,000. On July 20, 2018, the Company entered into a second Securities Purchase Agreement with another institutional investor for the remaining Notes and Warrants in proportionate amounts to those issued in the June 4, 2018 transaction, in a transaction exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Rule 506(b) promulgated thereunder, and received gross proceeds of $1,600,000.

On July 20, 2018, the Company and the investor from the June 4, 2018 transaction amended the Agreement to delay the Company’s registration obligation, and amended the Warrants issued thereunder so that they are exercisable as of the amendment date, and the Company may redeem them at any time the Notes are no longer outstanding.

Results of Operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018; Comparisons of Results of Operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017

The Company recorded approximately $0.9 million in revenue related to product sales for the three months ended June 30, 2018 and $0.6 million in revenue related to product sales for the three months ended June 30, 2017. Although sales remain modest, the increase is driven by the establishment of ZE diagnostic-related group reimbursement for CHEMOSAT procedures in Germany.

For the three months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded cost of goods sold of approximately $0.2 million compared to $0.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017. The increase in cost of goods is commensurable to the slight increase in sales quarter over quarter.

For the three month period ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, selling, general and administrative expenses were $2.6 million and $2.5 million, respectively. The slight increase for the three months ended June 30, 2018 is related to decreased production and adjustments to overhead allocations.

For the three month period ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, research and development expenses increased to $4.1 million from $2.5 million, primarily due to the ongoing accrual of the Company’s Phase 3 FOCUS trial which is discussed in further detail in the Current Clinical Development Program section above.

Other expense is primarily related to foreign currency exchange gains and losses.

Interest income is from a money market account and interest earned on operating accounts.

For the three months ended June 30, 2018 the change in the fair value of the warrant liability adjusted to income of $2.5 million versus expense of $0.04 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017. The increase of $2.6 million is due to the mark-to-market adjustments to the Warrant liability as discussed in more detail in Note 9 to the Company’s interim condensed consolidated financial statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

The Company recorded net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2018, of $6.7 million, an increase of $4.7 million, or 242.6%, compared to a net loss of $1.9 million for the same period in 2017. This increase in net loss is primarily due to a $6.7 million decrease in interest expense primarily related to the amortization of debt discounts related to convertible notes that were fully satisfied in 2017, and a $2.6 million increase in the change in the fair value of the warrant liability, both non-cash items. Additionally, there was a $1.7 million increase in operating expenses primarily related to increased investment in our clinical trial initiatives.

The Company recorded approximately $1.6 million in revenue related to product sales for the six months ended June 30, 2018 and $1.3 million in revenue related to product sales for the six months ended June 30, 2017. Although sales remain modest, the increase is driven by the establishment of ZE diagnostic-related group reimbursement for CHEMOSAT procedures in Germany.

For the six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded cost of goods sold of approximately $0.4 million compared to $0.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017.

For the six months ended June 30, 2018 the Company recorded selling, general and administrative expenses of approximately $5.0 million compared to $4.9 million for the same period in 2017. The slight increase for the three months ended June 30, 2018 is related to decreased production and adjustments to overhead allocations.

For the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, research and development expenses increased to $9.8 million from $4.8 million, primarily due to the ongoing enrollment of our Phase 3 trial during 2018 which is discussed in further detail in the Current Clinical Development Program section above.

Other expense is primarily related to foreign currency exchange gains and losses.

Interest income is from a money market account and interest earned on operating accounts.

For the six months ended June 30, 2018 derivative instrument income increased to $17.2 million from $1.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017. The increase of $16.0 million is due to the extinguishment of the Series C Warrants during the six months ended June 30, 2017, the issuance of Series D Warrants during the six months ended June 30, 2018 and the related mark-to-market adjustments to the Warrant liability as discussed in more detail in Note 7 and Note 9 to the Company’s interim condensed consolidated financial statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

The Company recorded net income for the six months ended June 30, 2018, of $0.5 million, an increase of $13.8 million, or 104.0%, compared to a net loss of $13.3 million for the same period in 2017. This increase in net income is primarily due to a $15.0 million decrease in interest expense related to the amortization of debt discounts, offset by a reduction of prior year’s gain of $9.6 million on the extinguishment of the June 2016 Series C Warrants. Additionally, there was a $5.0 million increase in operating expenses primarily related to increased investment in our clinical trial initiatives and a $16.0 million increase in the change in the fair value of the warrant liability, a non-cash item.

The Company’s capital resources as of June 30, 2018 are not sufficient to fund planned operations during 2018. The Company will need to raise $20-25 million of outside capital under structures available to it including debt and/or equity offerings this year. If these

sources do not provide the capital necessary to fund the Company’s operations, the Company will need to curtail certain aspects of its operations or consider other means of obtaining additional financing, although there is no guarantee that the Company could obtain the financing necessary to continue its operations.

The Company’s future results are subject to substantial risks and uncertainties. Delcath has operated at a loss for its entire history and anticipates that losses will continue over the coming years. There can be no assurance that Delcath will ever generate significant revenues or achieve profitability. The Company expects to use cash, cash equivalents and investment proceeds to fund its clinical and operating activities. Delcath’s future liquidity and capital requirements will depend on numerous factors, including the initiation and progress of clinical trials and research and product development programs; obtaining approvals and complying with regulations; the timing and effectiveness of product commercialization activities, including marketing arrangements; the timing and costs involved in preparing, filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing intellectual property rights; and the effect of competing technological and market developments.

At June 30, 2018, the Company had cash and cash equivalents totaling $1.3 million, as compared to cash and cash equivalents totaling $4.0 million at December 31, 2017 and $1.8 million at June 30, 2017. During the six months ended June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2017, the Company used $9.3 million and $8.1 million respectively, of cash in its operating activities. The Company believes that its capital resources are adequate to fund its operating activities through August 2018.

Our consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2018 have been prepared under the assumption that we will continue as a going concern for the next twelve months. We expect to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. These factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Because Delcath’s business does not generate positive cash flow from operating activities, the Company will need to obtain substantial additional capital in order to fund clinical trial research and support development efforts relating to Ocular Melanoma liver metastases, ICC, HCC or other indications, and to fully commercialize the product. The Company believes it will be able to raise additional capital in the event it is in its best interest to do so. The Company anticipates raising such additional capital by either borrowing money, selling shares of Delcath’s capital stock, or entering into strategic alliances with appropriate partners. To the extent additional capital is not available when needed or on acceptable terms, the Company may be forced to abandon some or all of its development and commercialization efforts, which would have a material adverse effect on the prospects of its business. Further, the Company’s assumptions relating to its cash requirements may differ materially from its actual requirements because of a number of factors, including significant unforeseen delays in the regulatory approval process, changes in the timing, scope, focus and direction of clinical trials and costs related to commercializing the product.

The Company has funded its operations through a combination of private placements of its securities, and public offerings in 2000, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2018, including registered direct offerings in 2007, 2009 and 2013, “at the market” equity offering programs in 2012 and 2013, and by the private placement of convertible notes in 2016 and 2018. For a detailed discussion of the Company’s various sales of securities see Note 8 to the Company’s financial statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

The Company intends to use the net proceeds from any future offerings for general corporate purposes, including, but not limited to, funding of clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, commercialization of its products, capital expenditures and working capital.

The Company’s financial statements have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (GAAP). Certain accounting policies have a significant impact on amounts reported in the financial statements. A summary of those significant accounting policies can be found in Note 3 to the Company’s audited financial statements contained in the 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Company may be minimally exposed to market risk through changes in market interest rates that could affect the interest earned on its cash balances.

The Company measures all derivatives, including certain derivatives embedded in contracts, at fair value and recognizes them on the balance sheet as an asset or a liability, depending on the Company’s rights and obligations under the applicable derivative contract.

In February 2018, the Company completed the sale of 424,000 shares of its common stock and the issuance of warrants to purchase 1.0 million common shares (the “February 2018 Warrants”) pursuant to a placement agent agreement. The Company received net proceeds of $4.6 million, with cash proceeds after related expenses from this transaction of $4.3 million. The Company allocated an

estimated fair value of $18.3 million to the February 2018 Warrants. The exercise price is subject to appropriate adjustment in the event of stock dividends, stock splits, reorganizations or similar events affecting our common stock. The exercise price of the warrants is also subject to anti-dilution adjustments for any issuance of common stock or rights to acquire common stock for consideration per share less than the exercise price of the warrants. For purposes of these adjustments, dilutive issuances do not include securities issued under existing instruments, under board-approved equity incentive plans or in certain strategic transactions. At June 30, 2018, the February 2018 Warrants had an exercise price of $10.00 per share with 1.0 million warrants outstanding. The February 2018 Warrants have a six-year term and are not exercisable until the first anniversary of issuance.

In June 2018, the Company issued Series D Warrants in connection with a private placement of senior secured notes discussed further in Note 7. Warrant D-1 is exercisable to acquire 1.1 million shares of Common Stock at an initial exercise price of $4.00. Warrants D-2 101-113 are exercisable to acquire 13.0 million shares of Common Stock at a pre-funded exercise price of $0.01. The Company may buy back each D-2 Warrant on its date of initial exercisability so long as the Company is not in default and the applicable installment payment for each month commencing on December 4, 2018 through December 4, 2019 has been paid when due. The Company allocated an estimated fair value of $3.8 million to the D-1 Warrants and an initial fair value of $1.4 million to the D-2 Warrants. At June 30, 2018, the D-1 Warrants were exercisable at $4.00 per shares with 1.1 million warrants outstanding, the Series D-2 Warrants were pre-funded at $0.01 with 13.0 million warrants outstanding. The D-1 Warrants have a five-year term; the D-2 Warrants have a five-year term from initial exercisability which begins on the fifth day of each month commencing December 5, 2018, through December 5, 2019, for each of Warrant D-2-101 through 113 respectively.

The proceeds allocated to the 2013 Warrants, February 2015 Warrants, the July 2015 Series A Warrants, the October 2016 Warrants, the November 2017 Warrants, the February 2018 Warrants and the Series D Warrants (the “Warrants”) were initially classified as derivative instrument liabilities that are subject to mark-to-market adjustments each period. As a result, for the six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded pre-tax derivative instrument income of $17.2 million. The fair value of the Warrants totaled $6.9 million at June 30, 2018. Management expects that the warrants outstanding at June 30, 2018 will either be exercised or expire worthless. The fair value of the Warrants at June 30, 2018 was determined by using option pricing models assuming the following:

Delcath’s management, with the participation of its Chief Executive Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) or 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act). Based on that evaluation, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer concluded that Delcath’s disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2018 (the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q), have been designed and are functioning effectively to provide reasonable assurance that the information required to be disclosed by us in the Company’s reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended June 30, 2018 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

future Company offerings granted in the September 2017 Securities Purchase Agreement between the Company and Hudson Bay and

in the February 2018 Securities Purchase Agreement among, inter alia, the Company and Hudson Bay. In terms of relief sought, Hudson Bay claims both monetary damages (which it claims to be in excess of $1 million) and specific performance. The Company denies any liability with respect to the claims set forth in the Suit.

Delcath’s 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K, in Part 1 – Item 1A. "Risk Factors," contains a detailed discussion of factors that could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and/or financial condition.

We have had a legal proceeding filed against us, and it is premature to assess what the potential outcome of the proceeding will be, and what impact, if any, the outcome could have on our business.

On July 27, 2018, Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd. filed a summons and complaint against the Company in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County (the “Suit”). The Suit alleges breaches by the Company of Hudson Bay’s rights of participation in future Company offerings granted in the September 2017 Securities Purchase Agreement between the Company and Hudson Bay and in the February 2018 Securities Purchase Agreement among, inter alia, the Company and Hudson Bay. In terms of relief sought, Hudson Bay claims both monetary damages (which it claims to be in excess of $1 million) and specific performance. While the Company denies any liability with respect to the claims set forth in the Suit, it is premature to assess the outcome of this proceeding, and what, if any, impact any potential outcome could have on our business operations or financial condition.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Delaware		06-1245881
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

Large accelerated filer ☐		Accelerated filer	☒

Non-accelerated filer ☐	(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company	☐

		Emerging growth company	☐

		Page
PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.	Financial Statements (Unaudited)
	Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017	3
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017	4
	Condensed Consolidated Statement of Stockholders’ Deficit for the six months ended June 30, 2018	5
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017	6
	Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements	7
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	15
Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	35
Item 4.	Controls and Procedure	36

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	37
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	37
Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	37
Item 3.	Defaults upon Senior Securities	37
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosure	37
Item 5.	Other Information	37
Item 6.	Exhibits	38

SIGNATURES		40

	June 30,		December 31,
(in thousands)	2018		2017
Raw materials	$	339	$	298
Work-in-process		755		721
Finished goods		156		229
Total inventories	$	1,250	$	1,248

	June 30,			December 31,
(in thousands)	2018			2017
Buildings and land	$	579		$	579
Enterprise hardware and software		1,743			1,744
Leaseholds		1,702			1,705
Equipment		979			971
Furniture		199			175
Property, plant and equipment, gross		5,202			5,174
Accumulated depreciation		(4,103	)		(3,876	)
Property, plant and equipment, net	$	1,099		$	1,298

(in thousands)	Lease Liability
Reserve balance at December 31, 2017	$	604
Charges		—
Payments/Utilizations		(109	)
Reserve balance at June 30, 2018	$	495

	Warrant D-1		Warrant D-2
Expected life (in years)		5.0	5.5 - 6.5
Expected volatility	194.10%		215.0% - 389.0%
Risk-free interest rates	2.78%		2.13% - 2.30%

	Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis
(in thousands)	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Balance at June 30, 2018
Liabilities
Derivative instrument liabilities	$	—	$	—	$	6,883	$	6,883

(in thousands)	Warrant Liability
Balance at December 31, 2017	$	560
Fair value of warrants issued		23,532
Fair value of warrants exercised		—
Total change in the liability included in earnings		(17,209	)
Balance at June 30, 2018	$	6,883

Patent Applications in the United States
Application No.	Application Title	Filing Date	Owned or Licensed
15/651,141	Apparatus For Removing Chemotherapy Compounds from Blood	7/17/2017	Owned
15/071,896	Filter and Frame Apparatus and Method of Use	3/16/2016	Owned
15/346,239	A Method of Selecting Chemotherapeutic Agents for an Isolated Organ or Regional Therapy	11/8/2016	Owned
14/995,677	Recovery Catheter Assembly	1/14/2016	Licensed
14/797,108	Recovery Catheter Assembly and Method	7/11/2015	Licensed
15/728,296	Recovery Catheter Assembly and Method	10/9/2017	Licensed

Exhibit No.		Description

31.1	**	Certification by Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2	**	Certification by Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.1	***	Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32.2	***	Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

101.INS		XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document

101.DEF		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document

101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

101.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

August 14, 2018	DELCATH SYSTEMS, INC.
	(Registrant)

	/s/ Jennifer K. Simpson
	Jennifer K. Simpson
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	(Principal Executive Officer)