CONTINGENCIES AND LITIGATION LIABILITIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2013

CONTINGENCIES AND LITIGATION LIABILITIES [Text Block]

NOTE F – CONTINGENCIES AND LITIGATION LIABILITIES

There are no material pending legal proceedings to which the Company is a party. The Company was notified by a letter dated June 2, 2000 received June 6, 2000 stated that the Company may have a potential liability from waste disposal in the Casmalia Disposal Site at Santa Barbara County, California. The Company was given a choice of either signing an agreement that would toll the statute of limitations for eighteen (18) months in order to allow us to resolve any liability with the government without incurring costs associated with being named a defendant in a lawsuit, or becoming an immediate defendant in a lawsuit. We signed the tolling agreement. On November 20, 2001, the tolling agreement was extended for an additional 18 months. On May 20, 2003 the tolling agreement was again extended for an additional 18 months and on November 24, 2004 the tolling agreement was again extended for additional 18 months. On June 29, 2004, the Company received a proposed settlement from the EPA in the amount of $21,131, which had been accrued as other payable. The Company is waiting for communication from the government concerning payment of the final settlement. As of March 31, 2013, the Company had not received further correspondences from the EPA regarding this matter.

On June 7, 2011, Weifang Shili Hesin Engineering Equipment Co., Ltd. (the “Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against SD Chaoying at the Basic People’s Court of Changle County in Shandong Province, China, for alleged damages caused by SD Chaoying for not performing appropriately and completely the obligations in accordance with the agreement signed by both parties on April 28, 2011. Pursuant to the agreement, SD Chaoying agreed to transfer: (1) the rights of development, construction, and land of the #1 and #2 residential buildings for RMB7.6 million, or $1,207,518, and (2) the 12 unsold residential units in the #3 and #4 residential buildings at a price as agreed upon. As of September 30, 2012, the Plaintiff paid $95,468 (equivalent to RMB600,000) deposit as agreed upon, and prepaid $186,182 (equivalent to RMB1,170,114), both of which were recorded as Other Payables under current liabilities. Plaintiff was seeking for the discharge of the original agreement signed, the return of prepayment of $186,182 (equivalent to RMB1,170,114), repayment of the deposit plus 100% penalty, totaling $190,936 (equivalent to RMB1,200,000), and for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company disputed Plaintiff’s claim for a land use right certificate of underlying construction base of the #1 and #2 residential buildings, which certificate was inseparable from other part of the land and was not specifically stated in the agreement. The Company also disputed Plaintiff’s entitlement to the amounts claimed and instructed the Company’s legal counsel to contest the action, while concurrently pursuing opportunities for reasonable settlement. The case went to trial on July 7, 2011. On November 15, 2011, the Basic People’s Court of Changle County pronounced its judgment against Plaintiff and that SD Chaoying had no liability. The verdict was released by the court on March 23, 2012. An appeal was filed on April 6, 2012 by the Plaintiff. The hearing for the appeal was held on May 16, 2012 at the Intermediate Court in Weifang City, Shandong Province, China. On July 16, 2012, the Intermediate Court in Weifang City issued a decision and held that SD Chaoying should not be found liable. The decision is a final adjudication by the courts in China. Hence, the estimated contingent liabilities of approximately $36,942 (or RMB240,000) recorded in other payable as of December 31, 2011 had been reversed in 2012.