Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13 - 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the “Barney Action”). Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently appointed as lead plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, filed an Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of entities acquiring Nova’s stock from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018. They claim that during this period the Company: (1) overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in its planned $460 million senior care center in China; and (2) inflated sales in 2016 and 2017 by recognizing significant sales to two allegedly non-existent customers. Plaintiffs claim that the falsity of these representations was exposed in a blog posted on the Seeking Alpha website in which it was claimed that an investigation failed to confirm the existence of several entities identified as significant customers. On March 8, 2022, the parties to the Barney Action filed a Stipulation of Settlement (“Settlement”) with the Court. Under the terms of the Settlement, and without admitting to any wrongdoing, fault, or liability, the Company agreed to a payment of $750,000 to completely resolve the Barney Action. The $750,000 would be funded by the remainder of any retention under applicable directors and officer liability insurance with the remainder paid by the directors and officer liability insurer. The settlement provided for the class members’ complete release of all claims against the Company and the named defendants with respect to any of the matters alleged in the litigation. The Settlement was subject to various conditions, including preliminary approval by the Court, notice to all class members, an opt-out period, and a final hearing and approval by the Court. By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 29, 2022, the Court denied the Barney plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Certify a Settlement Class and to Approve the Settlement. The Court held that plaintiffs had not met their burden of establishing the prerequisites to class certification of adequacy of class counsel, numerosity, and the superiority of class certification in fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The Court similarly concluded that plaintiffs had failed to make a threshold showing that the settlement was fair and adequate. Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ proposed plan for providing notice of the settlement to putative class members, finding that it was inadequate under the circumstances. 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 transactions 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. Samuels purports to state direct claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. On March 3, 2020, the defendants filed 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 of Directors 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 that the derivative plaintiffs filed to consolidate the proceedings and appoint lead counsel off calendar. With the settlement of the Barney action, the derivative actions will be activated. The parties disagree as to when that will occur. Defendants have asserted that the Action must remained stayed until the final disposition of the Barney Action, meaning, the Court’s final approval of the Settlement. Plaintiff’s position is that the Court should lift the stay because the class action plaintiffs agreed to settle the case. The Court has yet to address this issue. While these derivative actions are purportedly asserted on behalf of the Company, when they are subsequently activated, it is possible that the Company may directly incur attorneys’ fees and costs in 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 13 - 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the “Barney Action”). Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently appointed as lead plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, filed an Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of entities acquiring Nova’s stock from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018. They claim that during this period the Company: (1) overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in its planned $460 million senior care center in China; and (2) inflated sales in 2016 and 2017 by recognizing significant sales to two allegedly non-existent customers. Plaintiffs claim that the falsity of these representations was exposed in a blog posted on the Seeking Alpha website in which it was claimed that an investigation failed to confirm the existence of several entities identified as significant customers.

On March 8, 2022, the parties to the Barney Action filed a Stipulation of Settlement (“Settlement”) with the Court. Under the terms of the Settlement, and without admitting to any wrongdoing, fault, or liability, the Company agreed to a payment of $750,000 to completely resolve the Barney Action. The $750,000 would be funded by the remainder of any retention under applicable directors and officer liability insurance with the remainder paid by the directors and officer liability insurer. The settlement provided for the class members’ complete release of all claims against the Company and the named defendants with respect to any of the matters alleged in the litigation. The Settlement was subject to various conditions, including preliminary approval by the Court, notice to all class members, an opt-out period, and a final hearing and approval by the Court.

By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 29, 2022, the Court denied the Barney plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Certify a Settlement Class and to Approve the Settlement. The Court held that plaintiffs had not met their burden of establishing the prerequisites to class certification of adequacy of class counsel, numerosity, and the superiority of class certification in fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The Court similarly concluded that plaintiffs had failed to make a threshold showing that the settlement was fair and adequate. Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ proposed plan for providing notice of the settlement to putative class members, finding that it was inadequate under the circumstances.

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 transactions 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. Samuels purports to state direct claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

On March 3, 2020, the defendants filed 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 of Directors 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 that the derivative plaintiffs filed to consolidate the proceedings and appoint lead counsel off calendar.

With the settlement of the Barney action, the derivative actions will be activated. The parties disagree as to when that will occur. Defendants have asserted that the Action must remained stayed until the final disposition of the Barney Action, meaning, the Court’s final approval of the Settlement. Plaintiff’s position is that the Court should lift the stay because the class action plaintiffs agreed to settle the case. The Court has yet to address this issue.

While these derivative actions are purportedly asserted on behalf of the Company, when they are subsequently activated, it is possible that the Company may directly incur attorneys’ fees and costs in 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.