Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company records $2,500 a month as rent, overhead, and services due to Metropolitan Lumber Hardware Building Supplies, Inc. for services rendered by the management of the Company. Mr. Gans is the sole owner of Metropolitian Lumber Hardware Building Supplies, Inc.

The Company currently leases office space from the Westside Realty of New York which is owned and operated by Robert Gans our majority shareholder, for $2,500 a month.

On June 14, 2011, Christina Maldonado, a former front door receptionist/coat checker at Scores New York, located in New York NY filed a civil lawsuit against the Company and IMO alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law, New York City Human Rights Law and the New York City Administrative Code, based on allegations of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. The lawsuit further alleges that both the Company and IMO were her employers. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for alleged loss of past and future earnings and emotional distress and humiliation. The Company disputes that that it was an employer of the plaintiff and categorically denies all allegations of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. The Company responded to the complaint and later filed an amended complaint and asserted a cross claim against IMO. The Company is vigorously defending itself in this litigation and does not expect that the outcome will be material.

In mid-March 2010, the Company was named by Nichole Hughes in a complaint filed with the SCNY. Ms. Hughes sued the Company for an unspecified amount of damages in connection with an alleged unauthorized use of her image in the Company’s advertising materials. On June 20, 2010, the Company filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied on December 17, 2010. The Company then filed an answer and affirmative defenses and a third party complaint against IMO, owner and operator of the club where Ms. Hughes was employed. Plaintiff’s counsel was granted leave by the court to withdraw from representation in January 2013. Plaintiff failed to appoint new counsel or further participate in the case and the case was dismissed on May 20, 2013.

On March 14, 2013, Miki Yamada, a former bartender at the Scores New York nightclub located at 536 West 28th Street, New York, NY filed charges against the Company and IMO with the EEOC claiming violations of Title VII based upon alleged sexual harassment, discrimination based on gender and unlawful retaliation. Ms. Yamada also delivered a draft civil complaint to the Company containing similar allegations. Although the Company disputed the issues of liability and damages asserted by Ms. Yamada, the Company and the other respondents settled these matters for a payment of $90,000 (of which the Company paid $0) to Ms. Yamada pursuant to a settlement and release agreement dated April 30, 2013. These matters were settled out of court.

On June 14, 2013, Elizabeth Shiflett, a former cocktail waitress, filed a civil lawsuit against the Company in the S.D.N.Y. alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) based upon allegations of sexual discrimination, creating a hostile work environment based upon plaintiff’s sex and race and unlawful retaliation against plaintiff. The lawsuit further alleges that at all material times the Company was the employer of the plaintiff. The lawsuit had been preceded by a Determination of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) on January 25, 2013 that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Company had violated Title VII as a result of the complained-of conduct. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of violated Title VII, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, an injunction enjoining the Company from engaging in future unlawful acts of discrimination, harassment and retaliation, unspecified compensatory damages for plaintiff’s alleged loss of past and future earnings, emotional distress, humiliation and loss of reputation, punitive damages as a result of the Company’s alleged disregard of plaintiff’s protected civil rights, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company disputes that it was an employer of the plaintiff and categorically denies all allegations of sexual discrimination, sexual and racial harassment and retaliation. The Company will vigorously defend itself in this litigation and does not expect that the outcome will be material.

There are no other material legal proceedings pending to which the Company or any of its property is subject, nor to our knowledge are any such proceedings threatened.