Note 12 - Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

On June 17, 2013, the Company entered into a lease agreement for office, warehouse, storage, and distribution space with a five year term, commencing on November 1, 2013 and expiring on October 31, 2018. The lease agreement also provides an option to extend the term for an additional six years. On April 23, 2018, the Company extended the lease for another 36 months with an expiration date of October 31, 2021. The monthly rental payment is $42,000 with an annual 3% increase.

On January 7, 2014, the Company entered into a sublease agreement with Diamond Bar for warehouse space with a five-year term commencing on November 1, 2013 and which expired on October 31, 2018. The Company subleased a portion of its warehouse space to one of its customers with a one-year term commencing on December 1, 2013 and expiring on November 30, 2014, which has been renewed every year, expired on October 31, 2018, and was not renewed. The sublease income of $6,000 per month was recorded against the rental expense. During the nine and three months ended September 30, 2018, the Company recorded $47,330 and $11,330 in sublease income, respectively.

On September 13, 2017, Bright Swallow renewed the lease for another two year term, commencing on October 1, 2017 and expiring on September 30, 2019. The monthly rental payment is 20,000 Hong Kong Dollars ($2,548). The Company terminated the lease on December 31, 2018.

The Company has entered into several lease agreements for office and warehouse space in Commerce, California and showroom space in Las Vegas, Nevada and High Point, North Carolina on monthly or annual terms.

Total rental payments for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018 were $863,760 and $638,398, respectively; and $286,251 and $241,004 for the three months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

The components of lease costs, lease term and discount rate with respect of leases with an initial term of more than 12 months are as follows:

	Nine Months Ended			Three Months Ended
	September 30, 2019			September 30, 2019

Operating lease cost	$	465,735		$	155,245
Weighted Average Remaining Lease Term - Operating leases	5.08 years
Weighted Average Discount Rate - Operating leases		5	%

The following is a schedule, by years, of maturities of lease liabilities as of September 30, 2019:

	Operating Leases
The remainder of 2019	$	148,990
Fiscal year 2020		604,811
Fiscal year 2021		622,956
Fiscal year 2022		641,644
Fiscal year 2023		660,894
Thereafter		508,000
Total undiscounted cash flows		3,187,295
Less: imputed interest		(380,789	)
Present value of lease liabilities	$	2,806,506

Legal Proceedings

On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, claiming the Company violated federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the “Barney Action”). Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently substituted as plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, they filed an Amended Complaint. In the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages caused by the Company’s alleged violations of federal securities laws during the period from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018. Plaintiffs claim that the Company: (1) overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in such customer’s planned $460 million senior care center in China; (2) the Company inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with the Company’s two major customers; and (3) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. In support of these claims, plaintiffs rely primarily upon a blog appearing in Seeking Alpha on December 21, 2018 in which it was claimed that an investigation of the Company failed to confirm the existence of several entities identified as significant customers, Plaintiffs purported to verify some of the information alleged in the Seeking Alpha blog. The Company denies the material allegations of the Amended Complaint and plans to defend the action vigorously. On August 2, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants argued that the Seeking Alpha blog was not a sufficiently reliable source to serve as the basis of a federal securities claim, that plaintiffs used the wrong company names in seeking to locate the Company’s customers, plaintiffs could not establish loss causation, and plaintiffs did not adequately allege intentional or reckless misrepresentations. This Motion has been fully briefed and we are waiting for a decision from the Court.

Independent of the litigation, the Audit Committee engaged the Company’s auditor to perform special procedures to confirm the reported sales. Those procedures included but were not limited to the examination and testing of relevant documentation relating to the sales made by the Company to the customers identified in the purported research report for the periods 2015-2018, and 100% sampling of all transactions between the Company and the subject customers. The Audit Committee finished its special procedures in March 2019 and the Company’s independent auditor has reported to the Audit Committee that, regarding the four subject customers mentioned in the purported research report, the special procedures resulted in no evidence of fictitious sales or of fictitious customers. Please see the details in the Form 8-K filed by the Company with SEC on March 29, 2019.

On March 8, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, shareholder Jie Yuan (the “Jie Action”) filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) and directors (Charlie Huy La, Bin Liu, Umesh Patel, and Min Su) and vice president (Steven Qiang Liu) (collectively, the “Defendants”) seeking to recover any losses the Company sustains as a result of alleged securities violations outlined in the Seeking Alpha blog and Barney securities class action complaint. Specifically, the derivative lawsuit alleges that the Defendants caused the Company to make the alleged false and/or misleading statements giving rise to the putative securities class action. The Plaintiff also alleges that President and CEO Lam engaged in self-dealing by leasing her property to Diamond Bar, a Company subsidiary, and asserts, in conclusory fashion, that Lam, former CEO and director Ya Ming Wong, former CFO and director Yuen Ching Ho, and director Umesh Patel sold securities during the period of time when the alleged false and/or misleading statements were made “with knowledge of material non-public information . . . .”

On May 15, 2019, Wilson Samuels (the “Samuels Action”) also filed a putative derivative complaint purportedly on behalf of the Company against the same current and former directors and officers named in the Jie Action other than Steven Qiang Liu. That action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Samuels repeats the allegations of the Complaint in the Jie Action. Additionally, Samuels claims that, in announcing its change of auditing firms in September 2016, the Company asserted that this change was made because its existing auditor ceased auditing public companies subject to regulation in the United States without disclosing that its new auditing firm was created in a merger of three accounting firms, including a firm whose registration was revoked by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Samuels also claims that the Company redeemed its stock in reliance upon the same purported fraudulent recognition of revenues claimed in the putative class action. He purports to state direct claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

While these derivative actions are purportedly asserted on behalf of the Company, it is possible that the Company may directly incur attorneys’ fees and is advancing the costs of defense for its current directors and officers. The Company believes there is no basis to the derivative complaints and they will be vigorously defended. At this point, however, plaintiffs in both the Jie and Samuels actions have agreed to stay those proceeding pending the Court’s decision on the Motion to Dismiss in the Barney Action.

Other than the above, the Company is not currently a party to any legal proceeding, investigation or claim which, in the opinion of the management, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations.