(13) Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease

Orient Paper leases 32.95 acres of land from a local government through a real estate lease with a 30-year term, which expires on December 31, 2031. The lease requires an annual rental payment of approximately $18,567. This operating lease is renewable at the end of the 30-year term. The rental expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 were $4,633 and $4,390, while the rental expenses were $9,186 and $8,779 for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments are as follows:

June 30,	Amount

2012	$	18,567
2013		18,567
2014		18,567
2015		18,567
2016		18,567
Thereafter		287,793
Total operating lease payments	$	380,628

Capital commitment

The Company has signed several contracts for constructing plants and purchase of equipment. The outstanding commitments are $4,289,958 and $7,628,331 as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The Company expects to pay off all the balances by the end of 2011.

Pending Litigation

On August 20, 2010, the Company was served notice of a stockholder class action lawsuit filed on August 6, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, and Roth Capital Partners, LLP. The complaint in the lawsuit, Mark Henning v. Orient Paper et al., CV-10-5887 RSWL (AJWx), alleges, among other claims, that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that rendered its affirmative statements misleading as they related to the Company’s financial performance, business prospects, and financial condition, and that the defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued or corrected. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and plaintiff’s counsel’s fees and experts’ fees. Mr. Henning purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of a class consisting of the Company’s stockholders (other than the defendants and their affiliates). One group of three shareholders with a total alleged loss of approximately $150,000 has filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and has been so appointed by the court. The Company and the defendant officers and directors have retained the law firm DLA Piper US LLP to represent them in connection with the lawsuit. The Company believes that the lawsuit has no merit and intends to mount a vigorous defense. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 28, 2011, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss with the court on March 14, 2011. The plaintiffs subsequently filed their opposition to the Company’s motion to dismiss on April 28, 2011. On July 20, 2011 the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, thus allowing the litigation to proceed. Nevertheless, at this stage of the proceedings, management cannot opine that a favorable outcome for the company is probable or that an unfavorable outcome to the company is remote. While certain legal defense costs may be later reimbursed by the Company’s insurance carrier, no reasonable estimate of any impact of the outcome of the litigation or related legal fees on the financial statements can be made as of date of this statement.

On April 1, 2011 the Company was served a summon for a complaint filed by Tribank Capital Investments, Inc. (“Tribank”) on March 30, 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against the Company and its Chairman and CEO Mr. Zhenyong Liu (the “Tribank Matter”). By filing the complaint, Tribank alleges, among other claims, that the Company breached the Non-Circumvention Agreement dated October 29, 2008 between the Company and Tribank (the “Agreement”), and that the Company was unjustly enriched as a result of breaching the Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and plaintiff’s counsel’s fees. On April 29, 2011 the Company filed a Notice of Removal to remove the jurisdiction of the case from the state court of California to the Federal District Court for the District of Central California and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on May 6, 2011. On July 18, 2011, United States District Court Judge Manual Real granted Orient Paper motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, finding that venue is improper because the contract that forms the basis of the parties' relationship contains a valid and enforceable forum selection clause providing that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China is the exclusive forum for resolution of disputes.The Company continues to believe that the complaint has no merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. While certain legal defense costs may be later reimbursed by the Company’s insurance carrier, no reasonable estimate of any impact of the outcome of the litigation or related legal fees on the financial statements can be made as of date of this statement.