Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies	Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On February 13, 2017, a putative shareholder securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entitled, Miller v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., et al. On February 15, 2017, a putative shareholder securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entitled, Kattuah v Galena Biopharma, Inc., et al. The actions assert that the defendants failed to disclose that Galena's promotional practices for Abstral were allegedly improper and that the Company may be subject to civil and criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered the Company’s statements about its business misleading. Two groups of shareholders and one individual shareholder filed three motions to be appointed lead plaintiff on April 14, 2017 and April 17, 2017. Subsequently, one of the shareholders groups withdrew its motion for lead plaintiff status and the individual shareholder notified the court that he does not object to the appointment of the remaining shareholder group, Gale investor group, as lead plaintiff. On July 17, 2017, the Court approved the GALE investor group as named lead plaintiff and its counsel as lead and liaison counsel. The Court also consolidated both actions. Within the time allowed under the federal rules and statute, we anticipate that an amended complaint will be filed and the Company and the other defendants, former and current officers, will respond to the amended complaints through an appropriate pleading or motion. On March 16, 2017, a complaint entitled Keller v. Ashton et al., CA No. 2:17-cv-01777 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company's current directors and the Company, as a nominal defendant. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty on Galena's behalf against its directors based on substantially similar facts as alleged in the putative shareholder securities class action complaints mentioned above. The Company's response to the complaint was due on June 1, 2017; however, the Court on May 21, 2017, entered a stay of the proceedings pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the securities litigations described above. On April 10, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a cease and desist order against the Company and the former CEO, Mark Ahn, requiring each of them to cease and desist from any future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 17(a), and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and Section 10(b), 13(a), and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and various rules thereunder (the "SEC Order"). Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act generally prohibit the offer and sale of unregistered securities absent an applicable exemption from registration. Section 5(b) of the Securities Act prohibits the use of a nonconforming prospectus. Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act generally prohibit fraudulent conduct in the offer or sale of securities and in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13 and 12b-20 thereunder require the Company to file annual and quarterly reports that disclose certain information, including information regarding the sale of all securities not registered under the Securities Act, and to include such further information as may be necessary to make the required statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act requires the Company to make and keep books, records, and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer. The Company and the former CEO did not admit or deny the findings in the order. Based upon the order, the Company made a $200,000 penalty payment as well as a payment of approximately $750,000, which was the indemnification payment of our former CEO for the disgorgement and prejudgment interest payment that he was required to pay by the order. The Company made such indemnification payment after a special committee of our Board of Directors determined that we were required under Delaware law to indemnify our former CEO for the disgorgement and prejudgment interest payment. The former CEO also made a penalty payment of $600,000. As a result of the SEC Order, Galena may not use certain exemptions from registration under the federal securities laws, including Regulation A and Regulation D. In addition, Galena is an "ineligible issuer" as the term is defined under Rule 405 promulgated under the Securities Act. On April 27, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the Chancery Court of Delaware entitled Patel vs. Galena Biopharma, Inc. et. al, CA No. 2017-0325 alleging breaches of Section 225 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) and breaches of fiduciary duties by the board of directors regarding the voting results of authorized share and the reverse stock split proposals in the proxy statements for the July 2016 and October 2016 stockholder meetings. On June 2, 2017, an amended verified complaint was filed along with a motion to expedite the proceedings. On June 5, 2017, we filed a verified petition under Section 205 of the DGCL and a motion to expedite the proceedings. On June 8, 2017, the court denied a request by the plaintiff to schedule a preliminary injunction motion and ordered a prompt trial on both the plaintiff and our claims. On June 20, 2017, the court consolidated the claims into In re Galena Biopharma, Inc., C. A. No. 2017-0423-JTL. On July 10, 2017, the court ordered that the trial of the claims be held on August 28, 30 and 31, 2017. On July 24, 2017, the Company entered into a binding settlement term sheet, which the parties will use to enter into a Stipulation of Settlement that is intended to settle the litigation currently pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”), captioned In re Galena Biopharma, Inc., C. A. No. 2017-0423-JTL. The settlement resolves the putative stockholder class action claims against the Company and/or certain of its current and former officers and directors (the “Defendants”), as well as the Company’s petition to validate certain corporate actions. The settlement will not become effective until approved by the Court. Under the terms of the settlement, the class will receive a settlement payment of $1.3 million, in addition to attorney fees in an amount to be approved. The settlement payment of $1.3 million consists of $50,000 in cash to be paid by the Defendants or their insurers and $1,250,000 in unrestricted shares of the Company’s common stock (“Settlement Stock”), which valuation will be based on the volume-weighted average closing price for the 20 trading days immediately preceding the day before the transfer of the Settlement Stock to the settlement fund pursuant to the terms and conditions of the settlement. The Company anticipates that the Settlement Stock will be issued, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act. Any amounts awarded by the Court for attorneys’ fees will be paid in part by the settlement fund and in part by the Company’s insurance carriers. Upon the effectiveness of the proposed settlement, the Defendants will be released from the claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the class action by class members participating in the settlement. On July 6, 2017, a complaint captioned Jacob v. Schwartz et al., Case No. C17-01222, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa against the Company's current and former directors and the Company, as a nominal defendant. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty on Galena's behalf against its directors based on substantially similar facts as alleged in the derivative complaint mentioned above. The Company's response to the complaint was due on July 7, 2017; however, the parties have agreed to stay of the proceedings pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the securities litigations described above. With respect to the criminal and civil investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey (“USAO NJ“) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Company previously announced it had reached an oral agreement in principle with USAO NJ and DOJ regarding the material terms of a settlement related to the USAO NJ and DOJ's investigation. The final terms and details of this settlement are subject to change pending the completion and execution of a definitive civil settlement agreement among the Company and the USAO NJ and DOJ as well as the settlement of any claims that might be made by state agencies and federal agencies such as U.S. Department of Defense, the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The agreement in principle involves a non-criminal resolution and a civil payment, the terms of which will be negotiated with the USAO NJ and DOJ, of approximately $7.5 million, plus interest accrued since the date of reaching an agreement in principle, in return for a release of government claims in connection with the investigation. The $7.5 million civil payment was accrued as of June 30, 2017 and is presented in discontinued operations in the statement of operations. In addition, there is a qui tam action pending in the U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey related to the investigation by USAO NJ and DOJ. On August 8, 2017, we reached an oral agreement with the attorneys for the relator in the qui tam action to settle their statutorily mandated attorney fees award by payment of $100,000 in cash and $200,000 in common stock subject to court approval which amounts are accrued as of June 30, 2017 and are presented in discontinued operations in the statement of operations. We also obtained the consent of SELLAS under the terms of the Merger Agreement. The Company anticipates that the $200,000 in settlement stock will be issued, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement to be negotiated by the parties, in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. Contingencies In a letter date May 16, 2017, the Company was advised by Midatech Pharma PLC (Midatech), the purchaser of Zuplenz, one of our former commercial products, that Zuplenz inventory held by Cardinal Health Inc. (Cardinal), a wholesaler, is approaching its expiration date. Midatech claims that under the Asset Purchase Agreement with the Company that such product needs to be returned. Cardinal, the wholesaler also claims that under an alleged agreement with the Company such product needs to be swapped with better dated Zuplenz product. Cardinal has not asserted the cost of the return. Midatech has advised that under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Midatech maintains that the cost of the return is $1.5 million and Galena needs to pay Midatech for the return. The Company disputes the claim made by Midatech and Cardinal and is currently in discussions to resolve the claim.

Legal Proceedings, Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On February 13, 2017, a putative shareholder securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entitled, Miller v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., et al. On February 15, 2017, a putative shareholder securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey entitled, Kattuah v Galena Biopharma, Inc., et al. The actions assert that the defendants failed to disclose that Galena's promotional practices for Abstral were allegedly improper and that the Company may be subject to civil and criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered the Company’s statements about its business misleading. Two groups of shareholders and one individual shareholder filed three motions to be appointed lead plaintiff on April 14, 2017 and April 17, 2017. Subsequently, one of the shareholders groups withdrew its motion for lead plaintiff status and the individual shareholder notified the court that he does not object to the appointment of the remaining shareholder group, Gale investor group, as lead plaintiff. On July 17, 2017, the Court approved the GALE investor group as named lead plaintiff and its counsel as lead and liaison counsel. The Court also consolidated both actions. Within the time allowed under the federal rules and statute, we anticipate that an amended complaint will be filed and the Company and the other defendants, former and current officers, will respond to the amended complaints through an appropriate pleading or motion.

On March 16, 2017, a complaint entitled Keller v. Ashton et al., CA No. 2:17-cv-01777 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company's current directors and the Company, as a nominal defendant. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty on Galena's behalf against its directors based on substantially similar facts as alleged in the putative shareholder securities class action complaints mentioned above. The Company's response to the complaint was due on June 1, 2017; however, the Court on May 21, 2017, entered a stay of the proceedings pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the securities litigations described above.

On April 10, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a cease and desist order against the Company and the former CEO, Mark Ahn, requiring each of them to cease and desist from any future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 17(a), and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and Section 10(b), 13(a), and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and various rules thereunder (the "SEC Order"). Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act generally prohibit the offer and sale of unregistered securities absent an applicable exemption from registration. Section 5(b) of the Securities Act prohibits the use of a nonconforming prospectus. Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act generally prohibit fraudulent conduct in the offer or sale of securities and in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13 and 12b-20 thereunder require the Company to file annual and quarterly reports that disclose certain information, including information regarding the sale of all securities not registered under the Securities Act, and to include such further information as may be necessary to make the required statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act requires the Company to make and keep books, records, and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer. The Company and the former CEO did not admit or deny the findings in the order. Based upon the order, the Company made a $200,000 penalty payment as well as a payment of approximately $750,000, which was the indemnification payment of our former CEO for the disgorgement and prejudgment interest payment that he was required to pay by the order. The Company made such indemnification payment after a special committee of our Board of Directors determined that we were required under Delaware law to indemnify our former CEO for the disgorgement and prejudgment interest payment. The former CEO also made a penalty payment of $600,000. As a result of the SEC Order, Galena may not use certain exemptions from registration under the federal securities laws, including Regulation A and Regulation D. In addition, Galena is an "ineligible issuer" as the term is defined under Rule 405 promulgated under the Securities Act.

On April 27, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the Chancery Court of Delaware entitled Patel vs. Galena Biopharma, Inc. et. al, CA No. 2017-0325 alleging breaches of Section 225 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) and breaches of fiduciary duties by the board of directors regarding the voting results of authorized share and the reverse stock split proposals in the proxy statements for the July 2016 and October 2016 stockholder meetings. On June 2, 2017, an amended verified complaint was filed along with a motion to expedite the proceedings. On June 5, 2017, we filed a verified petition under Section 205 of the DGCL and a motion to expedite the proceedings. On June 8, 2017, the court denied a request by the plaintiff to schedule a preliminary injunction motion and ordered a prompt trial on both the plaintiff and our claims. On June 20, 2017, the court consolidated the claims into In re Galena Biopharma, Inc., C. A. No. 2017-0423-JTL. On July 10, 2017, the court ordered that the trial of the claims be held on August 28, 30 and 31, 2017. On July 24, 2017, the Company entered into a binding settlement term sheet, which the parties will use to enter into a Stipulation of Settlement that is intended to settle the litigation currently pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”), captioned In re Galena Biopharma, Inc., C. A. No. 2017-0423-JTL. The settlement resolves the putative stockholder class action claims against the Company and/or certain of its current and former officers and directors (the “Defendants”), as well as the Company’s petition to validate certain corporate actions. The settlement will not become effective until approved by the Court. Under the terms of the settlement, the class will receive a settlement payment of $1.3 million, in addition to attorney fees in an amount to be approved. The settlement payment of $1.3 million consists of $50,000 in cash to be paid by the Defendants or their insurers and $1,250,000 in unrestricted shares of the Company’s common stock (“Settlement Stock”), which valuation will be based on the volume-weighted average closing price for the 20 trading days immediately preceding the day before the transfer of the Settlement Stock to the settlement fund pursuant to the terms and conditions of the settlement. The Company anticipates that the Settlement Stock will be issued, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act. Any amounts awarded by the Court for attorneys’ fees will be paid in part by the settlement fund and in part by the Company’s insurance carriers. Upon the effectiveness of the proposed settlement, the Defendants will be released from the claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the class action by class members participating in the settlement.

On July 6, 2017, a complaint captioned Jacob v. Schwartz et al., Case No. C17-01222, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa against the Company's current and former directors and the Company, as a nominal defendant. The complaint purports to assert derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty on Galena's behalf against its directors based on substantially similar facts as alleged in the derivative complaint mentioned above. The Company's response to the complaint was due on July 7, 2017; however, the parties have agreed to stay of the proceedings pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the securities litigations described above.

With respect to the criminal and civil investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey (“USAO NJ“) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Company previously announced it had reached an oral agreement in principle with USAO NJ and DOJ regarding the material terms of a settlement related to the USAO NJ and DOJ's investigation. The final terms and details of this settlement are subject to change pending the completion and execution of a definitive civil settlement agreement among the Company and the USAO NJ and DOJ as well as the settlement of any claims that might be made by state agencies and federal agencies such as U.S. Department of Defense, the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The agreement in principle involves a non-criminal resolution and a civil payment, the terms of which will be negotiated with the USAO NJ and DOJ, of approximately $7.5 million, plus interest accrued since the date of reaching an agreement in principle, in return for a release of government claims in connection with the investigation. The $7.5 million civil payment was accrued as of June 30, 2017 and is presented in discontinued operations in the statement of operations.

In addition, there is a qui tam action pending in the U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey related to the investigation by USAO NJ and DOJ. On August 8, 2017, we reached an oral agreement with the attorneys for the relator in the qui tam action to settle their statutorily mandated attorney fees award by payment of $100,000 in cash and $200,000 in common stock subject to court approval which amounts are accrued as of June 30, 2017 and are presented in discontinued operations in the statement of operations. We also obtained the consent of SELLAS under the terms of the Merger Agreement. The Company anticipates that the $200,000 in settlement stock will be issued, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement to be negotiated by the parties, in a transaction that is exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act.

Contingencies

In a letter date May 16, 2017, the Company was advised by Midatech Pharma PLC (Midatech), the purchaser of Zuplenz, one of our former commercial products, that Zuplenz inventory held by Cardinal Health Inc. (Cardinal), a wholesaler, is approaching its expiration date. Midatech claims that under the Asset Purchase Agreement with the Company that such product needs to be returned. Cardinal, the wholesaler also claims that under an alleged agreement with the Company such product needs to be swapped with better dated Zuplenz product. Cardinal has not asserted the cost of the return. Midatech has advised that under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Midatech maintains that the cost of the return is $1.5 million and Galena needs to pay Midatech for the return. The Company disputes the claim made by Midatech and Cardinal and is currently in discussions to resolve the claim.