XML 73 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

(15) 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 $18,968 (RMB 120,000). This operating lease is renewable at the end of the 30-year term. The rental expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 were $4,742 and $4,685, while the rental expenses were $14,245 and $13,871 for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

 

Future minimum lease payments are as follows:

September 30,   Amount  
2013   $ 12,645  
2014     18,968  
2015     18,968  
2016     18,968  
2017     18,968  
Thereafter     270,291  
Total operating lease payments   $ 358,808  

 

Capital commitment

 

The Company has signed several contracts for constructing of boiler and power substation. The outstanding commitments are $516,083 and $4,860,965 as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The Company expected to pay off all the balances by the end of 2012.

 

Pending Litigation

 

On August 6, 2010, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed 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, et al. 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, attorneys' fees and experts' fees. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of the Company's stockholders (other than the defendants and their affiliates). 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. On July 20, 2011 the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, thus allowing the litigation to proceed to discovery. On June 21, 2012, the Company reached a proposed settlement of the securities class action lawsuit with the plaintiffs. The terms of the proposed settlement call for dismissal of all the defendants from the action in exchange for a $2 million payment from the Company's insurer. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 5, 2012, and the Company expects final settlement approval by the court during the first quarter of 2013. The management believes that the proposed settlement, if approved, should have no material impact on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements.

 

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. Tribank subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the court on August 5, 2011 and did file an opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which the Company filed an answering brief on August 31, 2012. 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.