Effective August 1, 2010, the Company extended its office lease agreement for its office for a term of one year with monthly lease payments of $2,100. Since August 1, 2011, the office lease continues at the same rate on a month-to-month basis. On July 1, 2012, the Company signed a one year office lease agreement for a satellite office in Florida for one year at a monthly rate of $800; the lease is not being renewed upon its expiration in June, 2013.

The Company leases the land and buildings for its four restaurants in South Africa and one restaurant in Hungary through its subsidiaries. The South Africa leases are for five year terms and the Hungary lease is for a 10 year term and include options to extend the terms. 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 our five restaurants are presented below:

Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was $792,420 and $112,334, respectively. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 for the Company’s restaurants was $757,766 and $83,116, respectively, and is included in the “Restaurant operating expenses” of the Consolidated Statement of Operations. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 for the management segment was $34,654 and $29,218, 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 other similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. (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. (The “Auditor Defendant”), 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.  Howard seeks unspecified damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On October 15th, 2012, the Honorable Judge James I. Cohn filed an Order setting the Calendar Call for the case for June 13th, 2013, and the Trial Date for the trial period commencing on June 17th, 2013.  On October 31st, 2012, the Company and the Individual Defendants retained Stanley Wakshlag at Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. to represent them in this litigation. Requests by the Underwriting Defendants for indemnification were denied.  On November 2nd, 2012, we filed a Joint Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond to Class Action Complaint, requesting that our responsive pleading deadline be delayed until after a lead Plaintiff is named.  That Motion was approved, and on December 12th, 2012, Howard filed a Motion to Appoint himself Lead Plaintiff and to Approve his Selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as his Counsel.  An Order appointing Francis Howard and the Rosen Law Firm as lead Plaintiff and lead Plaintiff’s Counsel was entered on January 4, 2013. Therein, Judge Cohn also reset Calendar Call for October 10, 2013; trial was reset for the two-week period commencing October 15, 2013. On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, to which an Answer from Defendants is due within forty five days.

Given that the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, and the early stage of this class action, the Company can neither comment on the probability of potential liabilities, nor provide an estimate of such. As of December 31, 2012, no amounts have been accrued for related to this matter.

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 Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Given that the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain and the early stage of this action, the Company can neither comment on the probability of potential liabilities, nor provide an estimate of such. As of December 31, 2012, no amounts have been accrued for related to this matter.

On April 1, 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission, requesting various corporate documents relating to operations.  The Company intends to fully cooperate with the subpoena.

The Company has engaged outside South African tax experts in September 2012 to assist with compliance with Value Added Tax (VAT), payroll taxes, and income taxes in South Africa. A voluntary disclosure agreement has been submitted and the Company is awaiting contact from the South African governmental agency. As of December 31, 2012, $385,621 has been accrued and is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in our consolidated balance sheet.

In connection with the acquisition of the business as described in Note 3 (whereby, on October 1, 2011, Rolalor (Pty.) Ltd., Alimenta 177 (Pty.) Ltd. and Labyrinth Trading (Pty.) Ltd. 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, as well as whether the local authorities could seek to recover any unpaid taxes 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, the Company has not filed certain corporate income tax returns for previous years, which could potentially result in penalties upon filing these returns.