17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company leases the land and buildings for its six restaurants in South Africa, five restaurants in Australia 15 restaurants in the United States and one restaurant in each of Hungary and the United Kingdome through its subsidiaries. The South Africa and United Kingdom leases are for five year terms and the Hungary lease is for a 10 year term and include options to extend the terms. The Company through its South Africa subsidiary also purchased land and building in Port Elizabeth, S.A., and also has a mortgage on this property. The 14 restaurants operated in the United States as of December 31, 2014 have lease terms varying from 2 to 10 years and have options to extend. We lease some of our restaurant facilities under “triple net” leases that require us to pay minimum rent, real estate taxes, maintenance costs and insurance premiums and, in some instances, percentage rent based on sales in excess of specified amounts.

Rent obligations for are presented below:

Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013 was $2,651,121 and $868,285, respectively. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 for the Company’s restaurants was $2,625,351 and $833,546, respectively, and is included in the “Restaurant operating expenses” of the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 for the non-restaurants was $25,770 and $34,739, and is included in the “General and administrative expense” of the Consolidated Statement of Operations.

On October 12, 2012, Francis Howard (“Howard”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against the Company, Michael D. Pruitt, Eric S. Lederer, Michael Carroll, Paul I. Moskowitz, Keith Johnson (the “Individual Defendants”), Merriman Capital, Inc., Dawson James Securities, Inc. (the “Underwriter Defendants”), and Creason & Associates P.L.L.C. (“Creason”), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The class action lawsuit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all Defendants, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against only the Underwriter Defendants, and violations of Section 15 against the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging similar claims to those previously asserted. On March 17, 2014, the parties signed a settlement agreement for a total of $850,000, with $837,500 to be paid on behalf of the Company by its insurance carrier, and $12,500 to be paid by Creason. On August 14, 2014, the Court approved the settlement, which is now final. As a result, all claims against the Company have been dismissed with prejudice.

On March 26, 2013, our South African operations received Notice of Motion filed in the Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban, Republic of South Africa, filed against Rolalor (PTY) LTD (“Rolalor”) and Labyrinth Trading 18 (PTY) LTD (“Labyrinth”) by Jennifer Catherine Mary Shaw (“Shaw”). Rolalor and Labyrinth were the original entities formed to operate the Johannesburg and Durban locations, respectively. On September 9, 2011, the assets and the then-disclosed liabilities of these entities were transferred to Tundraspex (PTY) LTD (“Tundraspex”) and Dimaflo (PTY) LTD (“Dimaflo”), respectively. The current entities, Tundraspex and Dimaflo are not parties in the lawsuit. Shaw is requesting that the Respondents, Rolalor and Labyrinth, be wound up in satisfaction of an alleged debt owed in the total amount of R4,082,636 (approximately $480,000). The two Notices were defended and argued in the High Court of South Africa (Durban) on January 31, 2014. Madam Justice Steryi dismissed the action with costs on May 5, 2014. Ms. Shaw has appealed this decision.

In connection with our 2011 acquisitions of the South African entities (whereby, on October 1, 2011, Rolalor, Alimenta 177(Pty.) Ltd. and Labyrinth transferred their respective net assets to the newly formed entities controlled by the Company), the Company believes the purchase and sale with the seller was accomplished in accordance with the laws and regulations of the taxing authorities in South Africa. However, there can be no absolute assurance as to whether the business acquired continues to have any outstanding tax and regulatory filing requirements, (i.e. not filed certain corporate tax returns for previous years) as well as whether the local authorities could seek to recover any unpaid taxes, interest, penalties, or other amounts due from the Company, its shareholders or others. The Company is not aware of any existing obligations that remain outstanding for which the Company may be required to settle. In connection with acquiring the net assets of the business, the Company may be entitled to be reimbursed by the seller for any pre-acquisition obligations of the business that may arise post-acquisition.

In addition to the matters disclosed above, the Company may be involved in legal proceedings and claims which have arisen in the ordinary course of business. These actions, when ultimately concluded and settled, will not, in the opinion of management, have a material adverse effect upon the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the company.