Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies 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 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 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. By Order entered December 2, 2019, the Court denied a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint that Nova, Ms. Lam and Mr. Chuang filed (the “Nova Defendants”). The Nova Defendants accordingly answered the Amended Complaint. The Court entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial conference for July 20, 2020 that it without request from the parties continued to October 19, 2020. Plaintiffs waited until recently to pursue discovery and have yet to file a Motion for Class Certification. On August 7, 2020, the Nova Defendants filed a Motion for Interim Discovery Conference to address the pace and scope of discovery. By Order entered October 1, 2020 the Court denied the Motion for a Status Conference and continued the Final Pretrial Conference until April 19, 2021. Independently 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, Jie Yuan (the “Jie Action”) filed a putative shareholder 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”) 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. On March 3, 2020, defendants filed in motions to stay the derivative actions until the Barney Action is resolved or alternatively to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs’ failure to make demand upon the Board was not excused and the Complaints otherwise fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. By Order entered April 7, 2020, the Court granted defendants’ Motion to Stay and stayed the Jie Action until the Barney Action is resolved. The Court subsequently entered a similar Order in the Samuels Action. It also took a motion the derivative plaintiffs filed to consolidate the proceedings and appoint lead counsel off calendar. While these derivative actions are purportedly asserted on behalf of the Company, to the extent they are subsequently activated, it is possible that the Company may directly incur attorneys’ fees and is advancing the costs of defense for its current directors and officers pursuant to contractual and legal indemnity obligations. The Company believes there is no basis to the derivative complaints and they will be vigorously defended if necessary. 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.

Note 16 - Commitments and Contingencies

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 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 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.

By Order entered December 2, 2019, the Court denied a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint that Nova, Ms. Lam and Mr. Chuang filed (the “Nova Defendants”). The Nova Defendants accordingly answered the Amended Complaint. The Court entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial conference for July 20, 2020 that it without request from the parties continued to October 19, 2020.

Plaintiffs waited until recently to pursue discovery and have yet to file a Motion for Class Certification. On August 7, 2020, the Nova Defendants filed a Motion for Interim Discovery Conference to address the pace and scope of discovery. By Order entered October 1, 2020 the Court denied the Motion for a Status Conference and continued the Final Pretrial Conference until April 19, 2021.

Independently 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, Jie Yuan (the “Jie Action”) filed a putative shareholder 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”) 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.

On March 3, 2020, defendants filed in motions to stay the derivative actions until the Barney Action is resolved or alternatively to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs’ failure to make demand upon the Board was not excused and the Complaints otherwise fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. By Order entered April 7, 2020, the Court granted defendants’ Motion to Stay and stayed the Jie Action until the Barney Action is resolved. The Court subsequently entered a similar Order in the Samuels Action. It also took a motion the derivative plaintiffs filed to consolidate the proceedings and appoint lead counsel off calendar.

While these derivative actions are purportedly asserted on behalf of the Company, to the extent they are subsequently activated, it is possible that the Company may directly incur attorneys’ fees and is advancing the costs of defense for its current directors and officers pursuant to contractual and legal indemnity obligations. The Company believes there is no basis to the derivative complaints and they will be vigorously defended if necessary.

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.