Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block] | Note 18 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. EFTI 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 a second review and the District Court found in favor of all defendants for the second time. EFTI therefore filed a second appeal in the appellate court for reconsideration of the judgment entered by the District Court. On December 7, 2015, the appellate court dismissed the appeal. 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 the Company’s investment in Excalibur. The Company claims that the wrongful actions of the defendants resulted in damages of $ 19,000,000 200,000 307,000 85,000 On June 9, 2016, Lim Lan Eng Priscilla and Marinteknik filed an action against EFTI in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The action seeks summary judgment on their claims for fees in the sum of $ 162,720.38 In 2009, the Company’s subsidiary, Heilongjiang Tianquan Manor Soda Drinks Co. Ltd., “Tianquan”, 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 1,123,266 827,000 120,000 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. On June 4, 2015, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, ruled that because the Company has its principal place of business in California, the matter was 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 was set for December 4, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the court dismissed this legal action against all of the defendants with prejudice. A subsequent settlement was reached on October 15, 2015 by all parties. As part of the terms of the settlement, the Company will receive both real property and cash. (See Note 8) 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. On October 15, 2015, the Company reached a settlement agreement with the defendants and the civil case in the Los Angeles Supreme Court was dismissed with prejudice. 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. 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. 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 29, 2015, the court consolidated 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 was fully briefed by the parties. On December 14, 2015, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On April 6, 2016, the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. 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 the Company, 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 the Company and all other cross-defendants in the matter. The motion was heard on February 26, 2015 and court denied George Curry’s motion. Thereafter, a second motion for summary judgment was filed by Mr. Curry. That motion was denied as well. The final resolution of the entire matter is still pending. Trial is currently scheduled for Feburary 7, 2017. In addition, the Court consolidated the trial of this matter with that of the Company’s lawsuit against CTX, Buckman, Buckman & Reid and Peter Lau. 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 also filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. The Court granted the motion with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, with leave to amend, but denied it as to all other claims. After the Company’s filing of its First Amended Complaint, Buckman, Buckman & Reid and Peter Lau filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint on July 9, 2015. On May 26, 2016, the Court struck CTX’s Answer to the Complaint and entered default. The Company is in the process of preparing a default package. On April 1, 2016, Buckman, Buckman & Reid and Peter Lau filed a motion with the court to compel the matter to arbitration, thereby seeking to avoid a jury trial. The Company opposed the motion, arguing that there was no applicable arbitration provision, and seeking to retain the right to a jury trial. After extensive briefings, and following oral argument, on June 2, 2016, the Court denied Buckman, Buckman & Reid and Peter Lau’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court thereafter scheduled the trial for February 7, 2017. 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, in excess of $ 150,000 |