Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Unless I am wrong but I believe the court of law will determine if gdsi’s claims are false or whether Rontan backed out of a legal binding agreement and gdsi are entitled to damages. Until then gdsi claims are just that claims neither false or correct
Double bullshit!
How many defendants are there? Of course they are each going to have their own counsel. There is only one person representing the company Rontan. A one person law firm that is going to quit because he is over his head and knows it. He’s probably the one looking for a settlement so he doesn’t have to go to trial. Who knows if he has even done a trial. His website doesn’t list any of his “big clients” just says he represents mom and pop operations. Gdsi only needs one person from bsf to represent them because they have the whole office to support them. Btw he one person law firm has:
1 PARTNER - the big dog, the man himself
2 associates - probably the secretary and receptionist
1 of counsel - a lawyer that doesn’t actually work for him but available for consultation, you know for like those difficult parking ticket offences
A one man law firm, I am sure bsf are shaking in their boots going head to head with this formidable giant lol. Check it for yourself
http://osorioint.com/attorneys/
Rontan got a $100M contract this year so after the bailout from the govt they are quite profitable. Settlement before trial is the word. A one man law firm is over his head and knows it. He knows he doesn’t have legal expertise and resources to go against bsf. Look for a change in counsel. Gdsi is looking very good as each day passes.
Motion to dismiss - denied
2nd tranche financing contingent on surviving MTD received
Filings up to date
Discovery in Brazil
Max subpoenaed much to his dismay. Thought he could just hide in Brazil
Discovery set in Florida in September
Trial date set in December
Bsf vs a one man law firm
Seems like Rontan bring a knife to a gun fight. No wonder they want to settle.
Got the lowdown from the same source that told me about the discovery in Brazil before it was disclosed. Getting one of the brothers subpoenaed was huge as he was being very dodgy. Gdsi s position is getting stronger each passing day. Gdsi will end up with partial ownership of Rontan. Getting motion to dismiss denied has been a huge blow to Rontan and they know it. That why they are looking for a settlement before trial. The one person law firm apparently is overwhelmed by the case and beyond his capabilities. Again all from a reliable source.
I think in Brazil not Bolivia. Word is Rontan is looking to settle on a cash/share basis. Looking good for gdsi!!
I think bsf may disagree but their legal knowledge may not be on par with yours....
Gdsi was allowed to amend one of the claims within the motion to dismiss in that regard the original motion to dismiss has been amended it is still called a motion to dismiss. I merely point out it has been amended from its original filing. As you erroneously keep reporting that the motion to dismiss has been granted it has NOT it has been denied on all claims. The second tranche of financing contingent on gdsi surving the motion to dismiss has been met and gdsi has utilized the funds to pay bsf as outlined in the agreement. The sticky should be removed as it is no longer relevant and misleading. Facts not propaganda.
Gdsi was allowed to amend one of the claims in that regard it was an amended motion to dismiss which has been denied. Rontan didn’t file a response to the amended claim. Facts not propaganda. A discovery is set in August in Brazil. Again fact not useless propaganda. Gdsi second tranche of funding which they received was contingent on gdsi having the motion to dismiss denied. Again fact not propaganda promoted for one’s self interest. Gdsi will end up owning Rontan once the case is over and shareholders will be richly rewarded.
so wrong on many counts....rontant didn't respond to the amended motion.....facts not propaganda......
Discovery is in Brazil in August. Rontan did not file a response to the amended motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss is denied on all claims. Sticky posted should be removed as it is now misleading and irrelevant.
All motions to dismiss denied. Discovery in august. Shows you how people try to promote wrong information to manipulate stock price
of course it is false and unverifiable!
11
Again subjective an non factual.
Whatever
oh boy say no more
William Isaacson will also be a part of our counsel in the Rontan lawsuit. Mr. Isaacson is a partner in the Washington DC office of BSF. Mr. Isaacson is a 2015 American Lawyer Litigator of the Year, a three-time winner of the American Lawyer Litigator of the Week and a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Global Competition Review, the world’s leading antitrust and competition law journal and news service said this about Mr. Isaacson, “Arguably no antitrust lawyer in recent memory has had as much success for both plaintiffs and defendants as Boies Schiller partner Bill Isaacson.” In 2013, Mr. Isaacson was trial counsel in the first antitrust action against Chinese companies for cartel conduct related to products sold in the United States, winning a $162 million judgment, and an additional $33 million from settling defendants
what is high net worth clients over 50k over 100k over 250k in net assets, purely a subjective measure......who are his big clients they are not listed like they are on bsf website.....he works with mom and pop operations....have you even looked at his webpage it is only him and an associate and 2 lawyers of counsel......not very impressive stuff....you wonder if he has even done an international case in front of a judge.....if i need a divorce lawyer in Nicaragua he will be the first guy i call.....yeah i think bsf are shaking in their boots......
marital disputes you got to be friggin kidding me.....this guy will take any case he can get.....oh boy i am sure bsf are sooooooo worried.....
you are reading different court documents then i am.....gdsi only needs one firm to defend them....hasta la vista baby...
Research Rontan new legal representation and then research gdsi legal team. There was a reason why Rontan first legal counsel jumped ship. It won’t be too long before they Say hasta la vista baby.
Once the motion to dismiss is denied then the trial begins unless Rontan makes a settlement. If the motion to dismiss is granted on all claims then the case is dead. However the judge has already denied the motion to dismiss on jurisdiction which was the major hurdle. There is only one item outstanding that he has to rule on and he has allowed gdsi to amend it. He basically told gdsi what he wants in the amendment. Given the judges rulings to date, allowing gdsi an amendment and setting a trial date you read between the lines.
hmmmmm if the judge granted rontan the motion to dismiss why did he allow gdsi to amend their complaint and furthermore why did he set a trial date, because he knows there is merit for the case to proceed.....a motion to dismiss means there is no merit for the case to be heard and is tossed out......his ruling is simple and straightforward the case going to trail....so your logic is erroneous and outright non factual on many points......
absolutely correct,,,,,your are the first person to get it right
i hate to burst your bubble but i know for a fact that litigation funding is still available
it is important for investors to do their own due diligence and make decisions based on such.....not on legal opinions posted here that are based with our knowledge or merit.....
can you post the link to the judges ruling. Thanks
FD if the claim was made against falcon why was gdsi involved unless bill had put his gdsi shares as security. I am aware the principle of forte was sentenced. Any enlightenment you could share would be appreciated.
big news to come shortly, judge to rule on motion to dismiss very soon when you will see a huge jump on the price....at this point you are betting on the law firm representing the company....a pretty good bet!!!
Glad to see the believers are still believing, stock hasn't done a thing in the last year even with all the good news the Company keeps putting out. Company is almost on the verge of folding and people still think share price is going to go to the moon. I wonder if anybody would like to buy a bridge I have to sell.....
OMID, don't have pm all out, now you believe me, called it didn't i.....will let you know about the next one
if you wait much longer you will be selling at 0.00 but then you didn't think this would go below .06 ever and what is it trading at today? Hahahaha too funny!!!!
oh be still my heart, i woke up to see paws was at .501 just like everyone predicted it would go to, oh wait i had the decimal in the wrong place it was actually .0501 can you believe it this stock is still going down......hahahaha
you are getting your wish......
I gave you your answer to read the F/S
When your cost base is $.00 on 100 million shares would you not want to sell them at some value as opposed to nothing? How do explain days of high volume like yesterday at levels below .06, do you not think someone is dumping? I don't know how many shares you hold but I guarantee you don't hold in excess of 3 million.
Well done, that is exactly what has happened in the past and is happening currently. At the end of the day this stock will be so diluted. The only way this company can operate is to equity finance as it can't afford to satisfy it's finance obligations with cash. It couldn't even afford to make it's interest payments on time. What do you think is going to happen to the market when Dan and Alysia start to dump their 60 million shares, and their 40 million shares from the old PET Airways they gave themselves. The only reason they are still on the board is to prevent them from selling as they have to wait 90 days once they are let go from the board. Don't be surprised if you see them resign from the board shortly, then the carnage will begin. Dan and Alysia aren't the only ones, holding large blocks. Dan's friend that sat on the board of PET Airways also got a huge payout in shares as well. so did the 14% and 8% debenture holders. Equity financing has been the death of many emerging companies.
Love that comment, "Never thought we'd see under 6s again." Wow!!!
For someone who says they talked to Ed twice a week, you certainly dont have anything worthwhile to offer. I know what you mean about phoney people usually they are liars too.
Hear ye Hear ye, you are right on the money my friend. I have been preaching exactly what you said for a period of time now. You must have had personal experience with Dan Weasel if you are from the PET Airways era, funny how he, his wife and his buddy that he appointed to the board were the only that came out smelling like a rose in that fiasco. Did you fund their massive salaries like we did all those years when PET Airways was spirally on a downward crash. How about the 60 million shares they gave themselves before they got the heave ho from this venture, their timing was very convenient. I wouldn't listen to most of the people on this board as you will find they don't have a clue about what they are talking about. They have this pie in the sky dream and they are going to ride this money train all the way to the bank, unfortunately they can't see reality as their vision is too clouded with the riches they are going to make.
I just saying a CEO cannot not verify the numbers without being audited first. The verification has to come from the auditor, otherwise reliance would be put on whatever the CEO says and there would be no need for an auditor. A CEO is not at liberty to discuss financial information that has not been filed with SEC, even information that has been released in a pr because a press release has the following disclaimer attached, as cya clause. The information in a pr may or may not be materially true.
Certain statements made in this press release are forward-looking in nature (within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) and, accordingly, are subject to risks and uncertainties. The actual results may differ materially from those described or contemplated and consequently, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Certain of these risks and uncertainties are discussed in the reports we filed with the SEC
One has to be very wary when a person states they have personally talked to CEO and has been given information, it can be illegal for both parties.
I was being sarcastic, I don't think Ed would actually tell a member that the PR numbers are accurate over the phone.