Litigation

In April 2015, China Cinda Asset Management Co., Ltd. Shaanxi Branch (“Cinda Shaanxi Branch”) filed two enforcement proceedings with Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court (the “Court”) against the Company for alleged defaults pursuant to guarantees by the Company to its suppliers for a total amount of RMB 39,596,250 or approximately $6.0 million.

In September 2014, two long term suppliers of pear, mulberry, and kiwi fruits to the Company requested that the Company provide guarantees for their loans with Cinda Shaanxi Branch. Considering the long term business relationship and to ensure the timely supply of raw materials, the Company agreed to provide guarantees upon the value of the raw materials supplied to the Company. Because Cinda Shaanxi Branch is not a bank authorized to provide loans, it eventually provided financing to the two suppliers through the purchase of accounts receivables of the two suppliers with the Company. In July, 2014, the parties entered into two agreements – an Accounts Receivables Purchase and Debt Restructure Agreement, and Guarantee Agreements for Accounts Receivables Purchase and Debt Restructure. Pursuant to the agreements, Cinda Shaanxi Branch agreed to provide a RMB 100 million credit line on a rolling basis to the two suppliers and the Company agreed to pay its accounts payables to the two suppliers directly to Cinda Shaanxi Branch and provided guarantees for the two suppliers. In April 2015, Cinda Shaanxi Branch stopped providing financing to the two suppliers and the two suppliers were unable to continue the supply of raw materials to the Company. Consequently, the Company stopped making any payment to Cinda Shaanxi Branch.

The Company has responded to the Court and taken the position that the financings under the agreements are essentially the loans from Cinda Shaanxi Branch to the two suppliers, and because Cinda Shaanxi Branch does not have permits to make loans in China, the agreements are invalid, void and had no legal effect from the beginning. Therefore, the Company has no obligation to repay the debts owed by the two suppliers to Cinda Shaanxi Branch.

Upon the Court’s suggestion, parties agreed to a settlement discussion in April 2017. As a part of the settlement discussion, on April 18, 2017, the Company withdrew its non-enforcement request with the Court without prejudice. Both parties are still in the process of settlement negotiations. If the parties cannot reach a settlement agreement, the Company has the right to refile the non-enforcement request with the Court. As the Company may still be liable for this loan, the Company recorded expenses and liability of $6.0 million as the result of these two enforcement proceedings in the first quarter of 2018. 

Between October, 2013 and January, 2014, Xuzhou Jinkaifeng Glass Co. Ltd. (“JKF”) supplied glass bottles to SkyPeople China. SkyPeople China believed that the glass bottles supplied by JKF had quality issues and did not pay for the bottles delivered. In November, 2016, JKF filed a lawsuit against SkyPeople China with Xuzhou Tongshan District People’s Court. On July 27, 2017, SkyPeople China received judgment from Xuzhou Tongshan District People’s Court that SkyPeople China must pay JKF RMB 365,292 (approximately $55,040) for the glass bottles. SkyPeople China currently is in discussions with JKF on the payment terms and final amount in connection with the enforcement of the judgment.

In April 2015, SkyPeople China entered into a loan agreement with Shaanxi Fangtian Decoration Co. Ltd. (“Fangtian”). Pursuant to the loan agreement, SkyPeople China borrowed RMB 3.5 million (approximately $527,355) from Fangtian. SkyPeople China has not repaid the loan and Fangtian filed a lawsuit with Xi’an Yanta District People’s Court (“Yanta District Court”). On August 10, 2017, Yanta District Court ruled against SkyPeople China and determined that SkyPeople China must repay the loan of RMB 3.5 million plus interest RMB of 402,500 (approximately $588,000). SkyPeople China currently is in discussions with Fangtian on the payment terms and the final amount.

Shaanxi Hengtong Development Co. Ltd. (“Hengtong”) is a coal supplier to SkyPeople China’s Jingyang Branch (“SkyPeople Jingyang”). In November, 2016, Hengtong filed a lawsuit against SkyPeople Jingyang for unpaid coal deliveries and interest for a total amount of RMB 3,133,916 (approximately $482,141). On March 13, 2017, SkyPeople Jingyang received judgment from Jingyang County People’s Court ordering SkyPeople Jingyang to repay RMB 1.78 million (approximately $268,788) to Hengtong. SkyPeople Jingyang appealed the judgement to Xianyang Intermediate People’s Court, and on August 29, 2017, Xiangyang Intermediate Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. SkyPeople Jingyang currently is in discussions with Hengtong on payment terms and the final amount.

In September 2016, the Suizhong Branch of Huludao Banking Co. Ltd. (“Suizhong Branch”) filed a lawsuit with Huludao Intermediate People’s Court (the “Huludao Court”) against the Company’s indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary Huludao Wonder Fruit Co., Ltd. (“Wonder Fruit”) and requested that Wonder Fruit repay a RMB 40 million (approximately $6.35 million) bank loan, plus interest. The loan became due on its maturity date of December 9, 2016. On December 19, 2016, the Huludao Court accepted the case. The Company has been disputing the interest rate of the loan with Suizhong Branch, and has not repaid the loan to date. Wonder Fruit believes that the interest charged by Suizhong Branch is 100% higher than the base rate set by People’s Bank of China and is not in consistent with the China People’s Bank’s base interest and floating rate. The Huludao Court has seized land use rights, buildings and equipment of Wonder Fruit that were pledged as guarantee for the loan and has organized two auction sales for these assets in January and February of 2018, but both auction sales have been unsuccessful in finding a buyer. Wonder Fruit is currently in discussions with the Suizhong Branch on repayment of the bank loan and a reduction of the interest due thereon.

On June 29, 2015, SkyPeople China entered into a loan agreement with Beijing Bank. Pursuant to the loan agreement, SkyPeople China borrowed RMB 30 million (approximately $4.59 million) from Beijng Bank. Hongke Xue, Yongke Xue and Xiujun Wang provided guarantees for the loan and Shaanxi Boai Medical Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Shaanxi Boai”) provided certain real estate property as a pledge for the loan. SkyPeople China did not repay the loan on time and Beijing Bank filed an enforcement request with Xi’an Intermediate People's Court in June 2017. The Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court has seized real estate properties pledged by Shaanxi Boai and Xiujun Wang. In April, 2018, Xi’an Intermediate Court organized two auction sale for real estate property pledged by Shaanxi Boai but they were not successful. In April, 2018, the Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court organized two more auction sales for the pledged office space but they were not successful.. SkyPeople China currently is in discussions with Beijing Bank on the payment terms and the final amount. 

On March 8, 2016, SkyPeople China entered into a loan agreement with Ningxia Bank. Pursuant to the loan agreement, SkyPeople China borrowed RMB 25 million (approximately $3.83 million) from Ningxia Bank. Hongke Xue, Yongke Xue, Lake Chen, Shaanxi Boai Medical Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Shaanxi Qiyiwangguo provided guarantees for the loan. SkyPeople China also pledged 37 equipment and its trademarks to Ningxia Bank for the loan. SkyPeople China has not repaid the loan and Ningxia Bank filed enforcement action with Xi’an Intermediate people's court in August 2017. The Court has frozen the assets of SkyPeople China that were pledged as guarantee for the loan from being transferred to any third-party, but the freeze does not limit or affect the use of these properties by SkyPeople China for its business. SkyPeople China currently is in discussions with Ningxia Bank on the payment terms and the final amount.

On December 23, 2015, SkyPeople China entered into two loan agreements with China Construction Bank. Pursuant to the loan agreements, SkyPeople China borrowed RMB 13.90 million (approximately $2.13 million), and RMB 30 million (approximately $4.59 million) from China Construction Bank, respectively. Shaanxi Boai Medical Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Boai”), Mr. Hongke Xue, Mr. Yongke Xue, Mrs. Xiujun Wang and Yingkou Trusty Fruits Co., Ltd. (“Yingkou”) provided pledges for the loans. SkyPeople China has not repaid the loans and China Construction Bank filed an enforcement action with Xi’an Intermediate People's Court in March 2017. The Court has seized and sold by auction certain park space and land use rights pledged by Xiujun Wang and Boai for approximately RMB 25,000,000. The Court also seized certain land use rights pledged by Yingkou Trusty Fruits Co., Ltd., but the auction sale for those rights was not successful. SkyPeople China currently is in discussions with China Construction Bank on the payment terms and the final amount.

On May 9, 2016, SkyPeople China entered into loan agreements with China Construction Bank. Pursuant to the loan agreements, SkyPeople China borrowed RMB 22.9 million (approximately $3.50 million) from China Construction Bank. Shaan xi Province Credit Reassurance Company (“Credit Reassurance Company”) provided a guarantee to China Construction Bank for the loan, Mr. Hongke Xue and Mr. Yongke Xue provided their guarantees, and SkyPeople China provided an office space that it owned to Credit Reassurance Company as a pledge. SkyPeople China has not repaid the loan and Credit Reassurance Company repaid the loan for SkyPeople China. In June 2017, Credit Reassurance filed an enforcement action request with Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court in June 2017. In December 2017, the Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court seized the office space of SkyPeople China for auction sale in February 2018 but the sale was not successful. SkyPeople China currently is in discussions with Credit Reassurance Company on the payment terms and the final amount.

In August 2017, Cinda Capital Financing Co. Ltd. (“Cinda”) filed a lawsuit with Beijing 2^nd Intermediate People’s Court (the “Beijing Intermediate Court”) against the Company’s indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries Shaanxi Guoweimei Kiwi Deep Processing Company, Ltd. (“Guoweimei”) and Hedetang Farm Products Trading Market (Mei County) Co., Ltd. (“Trading Market Mei County Co”, and together with Guoweimei, “Leasees”) requested that Leasees repay RMB 50 million (approximately $7.65 million) in capital lease fees, plus interest. Cinda has purchased or paid for refrigerant warehouse and trading hall to the suppliers and vendors and agreed to lease them to the Leasees for a leasing fee of RMB 50 million in December, 2016. The capital leasing fee became due on its maturity date of June 2017, with certain land use rights of Leasees in Mei County and equity of Guoweimei as a pledge. The Company has disputed that the land use rights for the refrigerant warehouse and trading hall were never sold to or transferred to Cinda, therefore it is loan agreement and not capital lease agreement among the parties. Leasees have taken the position that Cinda is not a bank and does not have government permits required to make loans in China, and the agreements including pledge agreement were invalid, void and without legal effect from the beginning. Therefore, the Company only has the obligations to repay principal but not the interest. In November 2017, Beijing Intermediate Court ruled in favor of Cinda and the Leasees have appealed the case to Beijing Supreme Court. Beijing Supreme Court has not scheduled hearings yet. As the Company may still be liable for this loan, the Company recorded expenses and liability of $7.66 million as the result of the enforcement proceeding in the third quarter of 2017.

In August, 2017, Cinda Capital Financing Co. Ltd. (“Cinda”) filed another lawsuit at Beijing Intermediate Court against the Company’s indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries Guoweimei and SkyPeople China for repayment of leasing fee of RMB 84,970,959 (approximately $13 million) plus interest. In January 2014, Guoweimei and SkyPeople China (the “Equipment Leasees”) signed an Equipment Financial Lease Purchase Agreement with Cinda and an equipment supplier pursuant to which Cinda would provide funds to purchase equipment and the Equipment Leasees would lease the equipment from Cinda. Guoweimei pledged certain land use rights in Mei County to Cinda and Xi’an Hedetang and Hedetang Holding pledged their equities in Guoweimei to Cinda to secure the repayment. Mr. Hongke Xue also provided a personal guarantee for the payment of the leasing fee. Beijing Intermediate Court had two hearings of the case and on March 21, 2018, and it ruled in favor of Cinda to the effect that SkyPople China and Guoweimei shall pay leasing fees due in the amount of 20,994,048 (approximately $3.3 million), as well as leasing fees not yet due in the amount of RMB 63,975,910 (approximately $10 million), plus attorney’s fee and expenses. Beijing Intermediate Court also ruled that Mr. Hongke Xue is jointly liable for the debt as the guarantor, and that Cinda has priority rights to the pledged land use rights in Mei County and the pledged equities of Guoweimei as well as the ownership of the leasing properties until the leasing fees are paid. SkyPeople China has appealed the decision to the Beijing Supreme Court. 

In September, 2017, Andrew Chien, a former consultant of SkyPeople China, brought a lawsuit against the Company and Mr. Hongke Xue in the District Court of Connecticut.  The complaint was not properly served and the Company learned of the litigation in December 2017. In the complaint, Mr. Chien has made several claims, most of which attempt to hold the Company liable under novel legal theories that relate back to an alleged breach of a consulting agreement between SkyPeople China and Chien from August, 2006.  Mr. Chien claimed for approximately $257,000 damages and interest plus 2% of the Company’s then-outstanding shares. Mr. Chien has unsuccessfully attempted to sue the Company on the breach of the same consulting agreement several times in the courts of Connecticut and New York and these cases have been dismissed in the past.   The Company has filed a motion to dismiss (“MTD”) and all proceedings are stayed pending determination of the MTD.  The Company will vigorously defend this lawsuit and expects to obtain early dismissal of Mr. Chien’s claims.

In the past couple years, to expand our production and diversify our products and businesses, our subsidiaries in China borrowed loans from certain banks for our new construction projects. Because the business environment for manufacture industries and financing for non-stated owned companies in China have deteriorated, banks started to collect loans before their maturity dates for their own capital security consideration which has interrupted our business plan. In June 2017, one of the banks that we had loan with made the early payment request and applied for the enforcement action with local court which caused chain reactions for other banks that we had loan with and they all declared their loans due and applied for enforcement actions. Because the run on us by the banks at the same time, our subsidiaries can’t repay all the loans in a short period of time. Our subsidiaries have been in discussion with the banks to find solutions for the outstanding loans. The enforcement actions made by the banks are the usual practices used by the banks which don’t cause actual impact to our daily business operation. After the discussion and negotiation with the banks, we will cooperate with each party to solve the loan issues.