Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block] | Note 15 LITIGATION On October 1, 2010, EFT Investment Co. Ltd. (EFTI) filed a lawsuit against Hsiao Zhong-Xing, former general manager of Excalibur, and Lu Zhuo-Jun, former vice general manager of Excalibur, collectively "Defendants,” in the Taiwan Shihlin District Prosecutor’s Office. EFTI alleges, among other things, that Defendants committed the offences of capital forging, fraud, breach of trust, and document fabrication. On April 30, 2013, the Taiwan Shihlin District Court found that both Hsaio Zhong-Xing and Lu Zhuo-Jun were guilty of fraudulent increase of paid-up capital and dismissed all other charges. As a result, Hsiao Zhong-Xing received a six-month jail sentence and Lu Zhuo-Jun received a five-month jail sentence. Both of their jail sentences can be converted into a fine. On May 27, 2013, the Shihlin District Prosecutor filed an appeal in the Taiwan High court for reconsideration of the judgment entered by the District Court. On February 19, 2014, the Taiwan High Court sustained the District Court’s decision and found Hsaio Zhong-Xing guilty and sentenced him to a mandatory ten-month jail sentence; and found Lu Zhuo-Jun guilty and sentenced him to a mandatory eight-month jail sentence. This decision is final and confirmed. Based on the Taiwan Shihlin District Court’s judgment of fraudulent increase of paid-up capital, Excalibur filed a civil lawsuit against Hsiao Zhong-Xing, Lu Zhuo-Jun and Jiao Ren-He on January 7, 2014 for the unpaid capital amount of NTD 475,312,500 EFTI filed a civil lawsuit against Jiao Ren-Ho, Chang Hui-Ying, Hsiao Zhong-Xing, and Lu Zhuo-Jun, collectively “Defendants,” in the Taiwan Shihlin District court on February 12, 2010. EFTI alleges Defendants committed tortious acts, including but not limited to the offences of capital forging, fraud, breach of trust and document fabrication. The Shihlin District Court found in favor of all Defendants in the case. EFT filed an appeal in the appellate court for reconsideration of the judgment entered by the District Court. The appellate court remanded the case to District Court for the second review and the District Court found in favor of all defendants for the second time. EFT therefore filed a second appeal in the appellate court for reconsideration of the judgment entered by the District Court. The final resolution of this case is pending. Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd Excalibur 8,050,832 254,700 203,402 On August 2, 2010, the Company commenced a legal proceeding against Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd. and six other persons in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit on the part of the defendants with respect to Excalibur’s purchase of the Ocean La La. The Company claims that the wrongful actions of the defendants resulted in damages of $ 19,000,000 200,000 In 2009, EFT’s subsidiary, Heilongjiang Tianquan Manor Soda Drinks Co. Ltd., engaged a general contractor, the “Contractor”, to construct a water manufacturing plant, the “Plant”, for RMB 4,758,600 776,300 698,896 112,500 1,912,000 1,326,916 1,823,787.91 On August 8, 2012, the Company filed a complaint against Edward Carter, a former consultant, in the Superior Court of California, county of Los Angeles, in which the Company alleges, among other things, that Mr. Carter breached his consulting contract, fiduciary duty and committed fraud and misrepresentation in respect to the Company’s investment in CTX Virtual Technologies, Inc., “CTX”, as sponsored by Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Inc., “BB&R”, a financial consulting firm and placement agent. This matter was dismissed as part of a mutual settlement that was entered into between the parties on or around February 25, 2015. On January 28, 2013, EFTI filed a criminal complaint against Tom Peng a.k.a. Cheng Hao Peng (President of Meifu Development Co., Ltd., “Meifu”), Thomas Chen a.k.a. Hong Dong Chen (former General Manager and Director of EFTI), Steven Peng a.k.a. Tien Te Peng (Vice Chairman of Transglobe Life Insurance Inc., “Transglobe”), Xian Jue Liu (Chairman of Transglobe ), Shih Kuei Chang (General Manager of Meifu), Yi Feng Cheng (Real Estate Department Manager of Transglobe ) and Da Min Wu, an individual, collectively called “Defendants”, in the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office. EFTI alleges, among other things, that Thomas Chen colluded with Tom Peng and other Defendants, and that Thomas Chen had made numerous misrepresentations to the Company and EFTI in connection with transactions related to a building in Taiwan, of which Meifu and Transglobe were developers. The Company also alleges that Thomas Chen breached his fiduciary duty, as the General Manager of EFTI, by binding EFTI in various agreements and making payments from EFTI to Meifu and Transglobe, which are named Defendants, and that the Defendants had committed violations of securities law, insurance law, corporation law and tax law, as well as money laundering, fraud and breach of trust. On June 6, 2013, the Company filed a civil complaint in Los Angeles, California against Meifu Development Co., Ltd., Transglobe Life Insurance Inc. and certain individuals related to the purchase of the Taiwan Building. On January 27, 2014, the Company voluntarily dismissed the civil complaints without prejudice in Los Angeles, California, in return for a good faith settlement negotiation initiated by such defendants. However, due to a lack of good faith of the defendants in negotiation of a settlement, on May 30, 2014, the Company re-filed civil complaints against Meifu Development Co. Ltd., Transglobe Life Insurance, Inc., Tom Peng and Thomas Chen in the Los Angeles Supreme Court, alleging deceit, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and other illegal acts against the Company. The final resolution of this case is pending. On July 23, 2013, the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office issued a non-indictment decision on charges of fraud against the Defendants, which the Company believes is unwarranted. The decision not to indict the Defendants was made despite the fact that the Taiwan Investigation Bureau, Ministry of Justice had confirmed that Thomas Chen, the former GM of EFTI, has received and/or has intended to receive secret profits from Tom Peng, who admitted his full control over Meifu and Transglobe. A report by the Taiwan Investigation Bureau, Ministry of Justice, further revealed, among other fraudulent activities, that Tom Peng and his son, Steven Peng, a.k.a. Tien Te Peng, were involved in illegal inter-company transactions and illegal related party transactions. Documents received by the Company through Court petition indicated that, on June 14, 2013, the Prosecutor in Taiwan, despite what the Company believes to have been ample evidence of illegality, instructed the Taiwan Investigation Bureau to halt all further investigations into EFTI’s criminal complaint prior to his written decision not to indict the Defendants. Subsequently, on August 22, 2013, EFTI completed the filing of the appeal with the Taiwan High Prosecutor’s Office for reconsideration of the non-indictment charges against the Defendants. This appeal was rejected on August 29, 2013, which the Company believes was not enough time for the Prosecutor’s Office to fully reconsider the appeal. On September 12, 2013, EFTI filed a final petition to the Taipei District Court for judgment of the decision made by the Taiwan High Prosecutor’s Office, but the petition was rejected on March 5, 2014. The Company is considering various legal options against the Defendants in Taiwan. On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of one or more of the Company’s products against the Company and Jack Qin in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A first amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed all class claims with prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014 Order. On January 7, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of warranty with prejudice and all claims against Jack Qin without prejudice, and clarified that Plaintiff cannot seek disgorgement or state claims based on any stock-related fraud. On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging individual claims for unfair competition, false advertising and fraud. The second amended complaint sought, among other things, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the Wang, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. action. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of the individual plaintiffs without prejudice. On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company’s products against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A first amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed all class claims with prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014 Order. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ corporate waste and gift claims, and Plaintiffs’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claims based on alleged corporate looting and operation of a pump-and-dump scheme. The Court further dismissed Plaintiffs’ deception and common law fraud claims with respect to all defendants except the Company and Jack Qin. On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging individual claims for operation of an endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, and RICO violations. The complaint sought, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive damages. On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the Wang, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. action. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of the individual plaintiffs without prejudice. On January 30, 2015, a class action entitled Wang, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company’s products against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On April 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidate this action with the Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. and Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. actions. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which is currently pending. On May 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended and consolidated complaint, alleging claims for operation of an endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, unfair competition, false advertising, and RICO violations. On May 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the class allegations from the second amended and consolidated complaint.. On July 21, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ RICO claims with prejudice. The Court further dismissed Plaintiffs’ state law claims for operation of an endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, unfair competition and false advertising with respect to all defendants except the Company and Jack Qin. On July 28, 2015, the Court granted in part the Company’s motion to strike, deeming certain of Plaintiffs’ counsel inadequate to represent the class. On August 11, 2015, a third amended and consolidated complaint was filed alleging claims for operation of an endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, false advertising and unfair competition. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. This case is currently pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. On December 6, 2013, the Company named George Curry (a former director and officer of the Company) as one of the defendants in the Superior Court of California, county of Los Angeles, with reference to the CTX investment transaction, in which the Company alleges, among other things, that Mr. Curry breached his fiduciary duty and committed fraud and misrepresentation in respect of the Company’s investment in CTX. On April 18, 2014, George Curry filed a Notice of Removal for the above action to be brought in the District Court of California, Los Angeles (Western District). In the same action, he brought a counterclaim against EFT Holdings, Inc., Jack Qin and Pyng Soon and sought implied and equitable indemnity, declaratory relief and apportionment of fault. On or around December 11, 2014, George Curry filed a motion for summary judgment against EFT and all other cross-defendants in the matter. The motion was heard on February 26, 2015, wherein the Court denied George Curry’s motion. The final resolution of the entire matter is still pending. On May 30, 2014, the Company filed a civil lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles - East District against Meifu and others. alleging deceit, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and money had and received against the defendants. Also named as defendants in this action are TransGlobe, Peng Cheng-Hao (President of Meifu) and Thomas Chen, a former director of EFTI. On March 4, 2015, the Company filed a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against CTX, Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Cliff Rhee and Peter Lau alleging breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, negligent misrepresentation and negligence. On April 14, 2015, Defendant CTX filed a motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2015, the Court granted CTX’s motion, in part, with leave to amend. The Company filed a First Amended Complaint on June 8, 2015, asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraud-misrepresentation; and (4) fraud-concealment. On June 24, 2015, CTX filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint. Buckman, Buckman & Reid and Peter Lau filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint on July 9, 2015. On June 4, 2015, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles ruled that since the Company has its principal place of business in California, the matter is stayed to allow the Company time to file in the appropriate forum. The Court further ordered that Taiwan is a suitable forum for the Company’s complaint. An order to show cause is set for December 4, 2015. On June 22, 2015, a complaint entitled Greenstone Holdings, Inc. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting a claim for express indemnity against the Company. The Company believes that the claim asserted is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. |