NOTE 11: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2014
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]||
NOTE 11: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
In August 2013, the Company entered into a consulting agreement with Consultants Worldwide, LLC. The agreement has a term of 1 year and under the terms of the agreement; the Company will be required to pay the consultant a fee of 5% of the gross funding amount of all fundings brought to the Company by the consultant. No fees became due under this agreement.
During October 2013, the Company entered into a 12 month consulting agreement for services related to business development in South Korea. The Company granted the consultant 28,571 fully vested common shares upon the signing of the agreement. Over the term of the agreement, the Company will pay a monthly cash retainer of $7,500. Upon any agreement brought by the consultant that results in future revenues, the Company will be required to issue the consultant 28,571 additional common shares. The Company will also be required to pay the consultant a fee of 5% and issue the consultant 28,571 or 57,142 common stock warrants for any funding transaction brought to the Company by the consultant in excess of $2,000,000 or $5,000,000, respectively.
We were served with a Statement on or about January 23, 2013 in an international arbitration proceeding titled Beijing Deheng Law Firm v. Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., #x20230033, filed with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”). The Beijing Deheng Law Firm (“Deheng”) has filed a claim against the Company for alleged breach of a Settlement Agreement to pay legal fees and costs. As a result of the arbitration, in September 2013, CIETAC awarded the Deheng Law Firm approximately $146,000 representing legal fees, arbitration fees and costs, plus interest of $30,002. In July, 2014 the Company agreed with Deheng Law Firm to settle the outstanding balance for $176,002 to be paid over a scheduled period. As of December 31, 2014 the company had paid $100,000 of the outstanding balance leaving a remaining balance of $76,002 due to Deheng Law Firm that is expected to be paid in 2015. This amount was accrued as of December 31, 2014 and 2013.
We were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a shareholder in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in and for West Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50 2010CA 028706XXXX MB on or about November 24, 2010. The Company has vigorously defended this action that the Company and its litigation counsel regard as absolutely frivolous, baseless and without merit. In August 2013, attorneys for the plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. In December 2013, the Court dismissed one count of the amended complaint but plaintiff’s attorneys filed a request to file a fifth amendment. In January 2014, our attorneys filed a memorandum objecting to the motion to amend. We will continue to vigorously defend the action and we do not believe that the action will be materially adverse to the company. Our attorneys have put the plaintiff’s counsel on notice of our intent to seek sanctions against both the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to Florida Statute Sec.57.105. Further, we have moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the Plaintiff has procedurally, factually, and legally failed to state a cause of action up which relief can be granted.
We were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed on or about October 19, 2009, in the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No. 09-56739 (09). The suit is a dispute for damages arising from a breach of contract involving an unrelated company, but naming Clean Coal. On February 9, 2010, Clean Coal was successful in filing a motion to dismiss the Company and its then- President & CEO, Douglas Hague from this case. The case was re-filed under the same case number in November 2013 but dismissed without prejudice again in January 2014.
We were named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a shareholder in December 2013 in the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No. 12-030351(05). The suit alleges misrepresentations regarding removal of restricted legends on stock certificates and misapplication by the Company of securities regulations and laws regarding legend removal. The Company is evaluating the claims but believes they are without merit.
No definition available.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef