California court rejects Lucky Film request for new trial

March 27, 2009, a jury found China Lucky liable for negligent misrepresentation, breach of warrant and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of its business dealings with Royal Marketing, a local photo-imaging distribution business with warehouses located worldwide. After Royal Marketing and China Lucky had entered into a long term distribution deal, the company found out later, after having purchased and re-sold in the United States hundreds of thousands of dollars of the China Lucky photo paper, that the paper was not manufactured to U.S. standards and was of poor quality. A China Lucky consultant actually admitted at the trial that the China Lucky paper was not suitable for the U.S. Market.

After the lower court on June 23, 2009 rejected China Lucky’s request for a new trial, the Court of Appeal now ruled “China Lucky’s argument requesting duplicative damages is not supported by facts in the record”.

Reaffirming the previous judgment, the court now stated the amount should be modified to US$ two million plus court costs of $38,005.80 in favor of BFK Inc/Royal Marketing, making uo for a total of approximately US$2,27 million including intest, which accounts for nearly $17,000.00 per month, according to a press release. China Lucky’s appeal seeking payments of it’s attorney fees was also rejected by the Court of Appeal.

BFK Inc said it will continue their pursuit of China Lucky Film Corporation to collect on their damage compensation untilthe sum is paid in full. At PMA 2010 in Anaheim, California,, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, acting pursuant to the judgement against China Lucky Film, seized the company’s booth and confiscated all China Lucky materials to apply them to the outstanding balance.