Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block] | NOTE 15 – LITIGATION 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 to the Company. On December 11, 2012, the High Court issued a decision whereby it dismissed the Company’s actions against Marinteknik and Lim Lan Eng (Priscilla), a director of Marinteknik. On January 8, 2013, the Company filed an appeal against the decision made by the High Court. On November 29, 2013, the appellate court issued its order and sustained the High Court’s decision and awarded legal fees to the defendants. The Company has accrued a liability in the amount of $200,000 for the legal costs. The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Company, but criticized the defendants, stating that their actions were “wholly lacking in probity” and “likely also to have been unlawful”. After seeking further legal advice and balancing all factors, however, it was decided that commencing further legal proceedings on this matter is not beneficial to the commercial interests of the Company. On October 15, 2015, the High Court determined that the Company is obligated to bear the defendants’ legal costs of approximately SGD 307,000. On February 18, 2016, the Commercial Affairs Department issued a letter to confirm completion of the investigation of the report by the Company regarding Lim Lam Eng (Priscilla) and Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd. and confirmed their view that no evidence of a criminal offense was disclosed and they will not be pursuing the matter further. On March 4, 2016, the Company received a letter from its solicitor RHT requesting legal fees in the amount of approximately SGD 85,000. The Company refused to pay the solicitor’s legal fees because the Company believed that it was inadequately represented by the solicitor. On June 19, 2016, the solicitor filed a claim with the High Court of Singapore for the legal fees in the amount of approximately SGD85,000. On October 31, 2016, the High Court issued a judgment in favor of the solicitor for that amount plus interest and costs. 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 sought summary judgment on their claims for fees in the sum of $162,720.38, arising out of the Singapore High Court’s determination that plaintiffs were entitled to an award of their fees and costs in connection with the Singapore litigation. After consulting with counsel, EFTI declined to contest the summary judgment and judgment was entered in the Supreme Court for the sum of $162,720.38 in favor of the plaintiffs. 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). Upon completion, the Company inspected the Plant and found several material construction defects, including, but not limited to, the fact that the Contractor used inferior construction material, inconsistent construction plans and substandard insulation material. As a result, in 2010, the Company conditioned its final construction payment to the Contractor in the amount of RMB 698,896 ($112,500) on the rectification of all construction defects. On March 22, 2012, the Contractor brought a case against Tianquan in Baiquan People’s Court in Heilongjiang Province seeking approximately RMB 1,912,000 of purported outstanding payments under the contract and interest thereon. On January 16, 2014, the Company’s subsidiary, Tianquan, received an unfavorable decision issued by Baiquan People’s Court in Heilongjiang Province awarding the contractor approximately RMB1,326,916 of purported outstanding payments under the contract and interest thereon. Tianquan filed an appeal with the Qiqihar Intermediate People’s Court on January 27, 2014. On August 18, 2014, the Qiqihar Intermediate People’s Court issued a judgment rescinding the unfavorable decision issued by the Baiquan People’s Court and ordered the case to be reheard at the Baiquan People’s Court. On September 25, 2014, Tianquan received a favorable decision from Baiquan People’s Court as the court concluded that the company stamps affixed to all of the Contractor’s legal documents were fake. On November 5, 2014, the subcontractor brought another civil case against Tianquan in the Baiquan People’s Court in Heilongjiang Province seeking RMB 1,823,787 of purported outstanding payments under the same contract and interest thereon. On December 8, 2014, Tianquan filed a civil lawsuit against the sub-contractor for compensation for material construction defects. On December 31, 2015, the two cases were reheard at the Baiquan People’s Court and the sub-contractor changed the claim to the amount of RMB 1,123,266. On January 5, 2016, the Company’s subsidiary, Tianquan, received an unfavorable decision issued by Baiquan People’s Court awarding the contractor approximately RMB 827,000 of purported outstanding payments under the contract and interest thereon. The Court ordered the subcontractor to reimburse the amount of RMB 120,000 for testing fees to the Company. The Company filed an appeal of the order awarding the contractor approximately RMB827,000 of purported outstanding payments under the contract and accrued interest. On August 17, 2016, Baiquan People’s Court dismissed the appeal of the order awarding the contractor approximately RMB827,000 of purported outstanding payments under the contract and interest thereon. On November 9, 2016, the Company filed an enforcement application to require the subcontractor to reimburse the Company the amount of RMB 120,000 for testing fees and legal fees in the amount of RMB 3,980. 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 the 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 February 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 a default judgment. The Company thereafter submitted a default judgment package. On September 6, 2016, the court, after reviewing the default judgment package, entered judgment against CTX, and in favor of the Company, in the amount of $2,500,000. 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. The trial was thereafter continued to November 7, 2017, and, then, to December 5, 2017. In October 2017, the Company and Mr. Curry settled their respective claims, in exchange for a mutual dismissal and the agreement of Mr. Curry to testify at the then-scheduled trial. Finally, on December 4, 2017, the Company resolved its lawsuit against Buckman Buckman & Reid and Peter Lau, to the parties’ mutual satisfaction. 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. After negotiations, the Company entered into a confidential settlement with Greenstone Holdings, Inc. on April 14, 2016. |