LITIGATION	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitment and Contingencies
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	13. LITIGATION Sui-Yang Huang vs. ABAT On September 30, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “U.S. District Court”). The action, brought by the Company’s former Chief Technological Officer, Mr. Sui-yang Huang, alleges that based on his employment contract, he should have been paid certain additional stock-based benefits by November 30, 2008; in an Amended Complaint filed in November 2009, Mr. Huang also purported to state ancillary quasi-contract and tort claims related to his contract claim and his eventual dismissal from the Company. Mr. Huang’s Amended Complaint demanded between approximately $1.25 and $5 million in compensatory damages, plus an unspecified amount of punitive and other damages. The Company believes that all of Mr. Huang’s claims are without merit. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, both on forum non conveniens grounds and for failure to state a claim for relief. On May 26, 2010, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The dismissal was subject to the following conditions: (a) Mr. Huang is able, if he so chooses, to bring a similar action against the Company in a court near his residence in China, (b) the Chinese forum accepts jurisdiction over the dispute, and (c) the Company agrees to (1) consent to a Chinese court’s jurisdiction for these civil actions, (2) toll any applicable statute of limitations for 120 days after the Court’s dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, (3) make available in the courts of China any evidence or witnesses in its possession, custody, or control in the United States that a Chinese court hearing these cases may deem relevant, and (4) pay any final, post-appeal judgment awarded against it by a Chinese court. Huang did not file a notice of appeal of the Court’s order dismissing the action. Thereafter, on August 9, 2010 Mr. Huang refiled part, but, not all, of his claims in the People’s Court of Bao’an District, Shenzhen (the “Chinese Trial Court”). The Chinese Trial Court refused to accept the case, holding that since the Company is incorporated in the United States (and, specifically, in Delaware), it was not subject to the jurisdiction of that Court. Huang appealed, but the appeal was dismissed and the original decision of the Chinese Trial Court was affirmed. The case was thereafter sent back to the U.S. District Court from China. In March 2011 the United States District Court denied Mr. Huang’s request to reinstate the case in New York, finding that jurisdiction remains available in China. To date Mr. Huang has not renewed his effort to file the case in the Chinese Trial Court. SFG vs. ABAT In September 2008, Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP (“SFG”) commenced an action against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. SFG alleges that it was a party to two contracts with the Company, pursuant to which SFG alleges that it was entitled to serve as financial advisor with respect to any offering of securities by the Company completed prior to March 2009. SFG alleges that the Company failed to afford SFG the opportunity to serve as its financial advisor in connection with the private placement by the Company in August 2008. SFG alleges that it is entitled to damages in the amount of $1,359,872 and a warrant to purchase 81,882 share of the Company’s common stock exercisable at $8.00 per share. The Company has answered the complaint and denied that SFG was entitled to serve as financial advisor in connection with the August 2008 private placement by reason of the fact that SFG had terminated its agreements with the Company, had waived any continuing rights under the contracts, and had acted in bad faith in connection with the services it undertook to perform for the Company. The Parties are currently in the midst of the discovery process. Once discovery is complete, the Court will issue a schedule for the trial date. Class Actions Since April 2011 four class actions have been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company’s senior executive officers, asserting violations of the United States securities laws. The complaints allege that the Company, in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, made material misrepresentations and omissions. The plaintiffs in the actions seek to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between November 24, 2008 and March 30, 2011. The applications of plaintiffs to be appointed “lead plaintiff” in the consolidated action is pending before the Court. No specific amount of damages has been alleged. The Company and its senior management believe that the claims are without merit. They intend to mount a vigorous defense to the actions and to seek their prompt dismissal after a consolidated complaint is filed. Derivative Action In May 2011 actions were commenced in the Supreme Court of New York State and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York purporting to be derivative actions on behalf of ABAT. The actions allege that the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the matters that are the subject of the Class Actions described above. No specific amount of damages has been alleged. The Company and its directors believe that the claims are without merit. They intend to mount a vigorous defense to the actions and to seek their prompt dismissal.

On September 30, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “U.S. District Court”). The action, brought by the Company’s former Chief Technological Officer, Mr. Sui-yang Huang, alleges that based on his employment contract, he should have been paid certain additional stock-based benefits by November 30, 2008; in an Amended Complaint filed in November 2009, Mr. Huang also purported to state ancillary quasi-contract and tort claims related to his contract claim and his eventual dismissal from the Company. Mr. Huang’s Amended Complaint demanded between approximately $1.25 and $5 million in compensatory damages, plus an unspecified amount of punitive and other damages. The Company believes that all of Mr. Huang’s claims are without merit.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, both on forum non conveniens grounds and for failure to state a claim for relief. On May 26, 2010, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The dismissal was subject to the following conditions: (a) Mr. Huang is able, if he so chooses, to bring a similar action against the Company in a court near his residence in China, (b) the Chinese forum accepts jurisdiction over the dispute, and (c) the Company agrees to (1) consent to a Chinese court’s jurisdiction for these civil actions, (2) toll any applicable statute of limitations for 120 days after the Court’s dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, (3) make available in the courts of China any evidence or witnesses in its possession, custody, or control in the United States that a Chinese court hearing these cases may deem relevant, and (4) pay any final, post-appeal judgment awarded against it by a Chinese court. Huang did not file a notice of appeal of the Court’s order dismissing the action.

Thereafter, on August 9, 2010 Mr. Huang refiled part, but, not all, of his claims in the People’s Court of Bao’an District, Shenzhen (the “Chinese Trial Court”). The Chinese Trial Court refused to accept the case, holding that since the Company is incorporated in the United States (and, specifically, in Delaware), it was not subject to the jurisdiction of that Court. Huang appealed, but the appeal was dismissed and the original decision of the Chinese Trial Court was affirmed. The case was thereafter sent back to the U.S. District Court from China. In March 2011 the United States District Court denied Mr. Huang’s request to reinstate the case in New York, finding that jurisdiction remains available in China. To date Mr. Huang has not renewed his effort to file the case in the Chinese Trial Court.

In September 2008, Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP (“SFG”) commenced an action against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. SFG alleges that it was a party to two contracts with the Company, pursuant to which SFG alleges that it was entitled to serve as financial advisor with respect to any offering of securities by the Company completed prior to March 2009. SFG alleges that the Company failed to afford SFG the opportunity to serve as its financial advisor in connection with the private placement by the Company in August 2008. SFG alleges that it is entitled to damages in the amount of $1,359,872 and a warrant to purchase 81,882 share of the Company’s common stock exercisable at $8.00 per share. The Company has answered the complaint and denied that SFG was entitled to serve as financial advisor in connection with the August 2008 private placement by reason of the fact that SFG had terminated its agreements with the Company, had waived any continuing rights under the contracts, and had acted in bad faith in connection with the services it undertook to perform for the Company. The Parties are currently in the midst of the discovery process. Once discovery is complete, the Court will issue a schedule for the trial date.

Since April 2011 four class actions have been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company’s senior executive officers, asserting violations of the United States securities laws. The complaints allege that the Company, in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, made material misrepresentations and omissions. The plaintiffs in the actions seek to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between November 24, 2008 and March 30, 2011. The applications of plaintiffs to be appointed “lead plaintiff” in the consolidated action is pending before the Court. No specific amount of damages has been alleged. The Company and its senior management believe that the claims are without merit. They intend to mount a vigorous defense to the actions and to seek their prompt dismissal after a consolidated complaint is filed.

In May 2011 actions were commenced in the Supreme Court of New York State and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York purporting to be derivative actions on behalf of ABAT. The actions allege that the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the matters that are the subject of the Class Actions described above. No specific amount of damages has been alleged. The Company and its directors believe that the claims are without merit. They intend to mount a vigorous defense to the actions and to seek their prompt dismissal.