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.
3 requirements of Recognition.
The interested party must submit a formal request filed by a Brazilian attorney for recognition of a foreign judgment to the Superior Court of Justice. The request must be accompanied by the following documents that demonstrate the ratification requirements:
1) the original or notarised copy of the judgment to be recognised;
2) other documents deemed necessary for the recognition of the foreign judgment (the applicant must provide evidence that the final decision was made by a competent authority and that the parties were regularly summoned); and
3) a certified translation into Portuguese, which in some cases (more often in family matters) must be authenticated by the competent Brazilian consular authority.
Brazilian law does not permit the review of the merits of a foreign judgment. The Superior Court of Justice can only approve, partially approve or disapprove the judgment; it cannot change the decision regarding the merits of a foreign judgment.
The Superior Court of Justice reviews the service of process only when it was invalid or absent.
Bull butter:
There is no “ SERVICE” that begins in the “Central Court” there is no such Brazilian court that hears these issues.
Only the Superior Court is assigned Foreign Judgement decisions.
And there is no such thing as starting “Service” with the court.
As stated before and further defined by the Department of Justice, Brazil
SERVICE is the process by which parties to a litigation are summonsed, subpoenaed, noticed or otherwise informed by the court.
Recognition by the Superior court, not “central court”, is a process by which the Judgement is examined to ensure it does not violate any laws of Brazil. It does not examine the merits of the case. It does not address “service” other than to review that service was conducted during the original litigation. Once the Superior court finds that the provisions are satisfied then it is RECOGNIZED and immediately enforceable. The order of recognition is rendered and the local court is notified to assist in the enforcement of the foreign order. The local court has no jurisdiction in modifying anything in the original order but is there to assist the foreign party in collecting its judgement. It is not “ a long road”
You promised 5 cents on 1/22. Then you were a buyer at 10 cents on 1/27. Now it’s 15cents?
You would be wise to wait till after the meeting and the decision on the RS before buying anything at any price right now.
Stocks tend to trade back down to the pre split price shortly after an RS.
If you are banking on the split not getting approved then by all means this is a great price since it will go right back up to the low 30s very shortly.
Congratulations on the great call to .05. errr .10. No wait it was .15 right. .15 it is. LOL. Ohhh wait. I forgot you said it was a 20 cent stock also. you called it though. Good call. Nailed it!
It’s in my posts from the Department of Justice Brazil.
You cane believe the ambulance chasers postings on the internet
Or
The official Statements by the Brazilian department of Justice
Do your own DD and make your own decisions.
Note the following ruling by the 11th circuit court.
Citation from previous post.
“A defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established."
(11th circuit court 2009)
You can read it your self. It’s probably even in one of my earlier posts.
Please state the Brazilian Public policy that the Judgement violates or any others items you think would prevail.
Please be specific so that the items you state can be addressed on the merit of the claim you wish to make.
Note several times the Department of Justice Brazil when given an opportunity to address “service” states only that it is not and issues that is even addressed unless it is missing from the documentation. Then goes on to give a definition of SERVICE.
Guess we will soon find out.
No. It would be an action by the Brazilian company “Rontan” against its former owners prior to becoming a publicly traded company. It would be adjudicated in Brazil under Brazilian laws. The stockholders in the US would have no standing for wrongdoings prior to transfer of ownership.
Correction. The 11th circuit court of appeals. Not the 4th
Go read the entire DE 206 and 207 and come back and let us know if ya still feel the same way.
Everything you brought up here is addressed by Judge Middlebrooks prior to his ruling.
His decision is supported and he includes numerous citations and rulings in support of his decision. Including the fact that the decision is not appealable on its merits.
Let me rephrase for clarity. You cannot appeal a Default Judgement on the merits of the case. You can try to say the ruling was in error but it would be summarily denied without comment in every appeals court. namely Judge Middlebrooks would Deny the first appeal. Then the 4th circuit would refuse to hear it. So. This clears up my previous statement.
Default Judgements are not appealable. You can file paperwork if ya have an attorney but they don’t have one.
You can not appeal a default Judgement. It’s the law in Brazil and The US.
I don’t think it would be worth the effort to Pursue such efforts. Once operational control has been established by GDSI, then Rontan as a company could go after the Bolzan’s in a civil matter in Brazil.
It would be less expensive and more expedient to allow Rontan to sue the Bolzan’s after this litigation is completely closed.
From the Department of Justice Brazil:
The following laws and regulations govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Brazil:
Articles 105(I)(i) and 109(x) of the constitution;
Articles 513 to 538 and 960 to 965 of the Civil Procedure Code (Law 13.105/2015); and
Articles 216-A to 216-N of the Rules of Procedure of the Superior Court of Justice.
Brazil is party to various instruments, international conventions and bilateral treaties which cover the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments – for example:
the Convention on Obtaining Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, signed in The Hague in March 1970 and enacted in Brazil by Decree 9.039/
the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention), enacted in Brazil by Decree 4.311/2002;
the Inter-American Convention on the Extraterritorial Validity of
Foreign Judgments and Arbitration Awards, enacted in Brazil by Decree 2411/1997;
The latest changes to the framework are the new Civil Procedure Code (Law 13.105/2015) and the amendment to the Arbitration Act (Law 13.129/2015).
(See my stickie above)
The meaning and implementation of recognition and enforcement differ. The ‘recognition’ of foreign judgments implies the effectiveness of judgments (ie, a final and non-appealable decision rendered by a foreign court). The ‘enforcement’ of foreign judgments implies the concrete realisation of the decision and not just the acknowledgment of rights granted. It allows the applicant to undertake enforcement measures.
The interested party must submit a formal request filed by a Brazilian attorney for recognition of a foreign judgment to the Superior Court of Justice. The request must be accompanied by the following documents that demonstrate the ratification requirements:
the original or notarised copy of the judgment to be recognised;
other documents deemed necessary for the recognition of the foreign judgment (the applicant must provide evidence that the final decision was made by a competent authority and that the parties were regularly summoned); and
a certified translation into Portuguese, which in some cases (more often in family matters) must be authenticated by the competent Brazilian consular authority.
Brazilian law does not permit the review of the merits of a foreign judgment. The Superior Court of Justice can only approve, partially approve or disapprove the judgment; it cannot change the decision regarding the merits of a foreign judgment.
The Superior Court of Justice reviews the service of process only when it was invalid or absent.
SERVICE is the process by which judicial notifications are made during the course of litigation. Ie. Summons, subpoena, notices and other official court notifications.
Brazilian law does not permit the review of the merits of a foreign judgment. The Superior Court of Justice can only approve, partially approve or disapprove the judgment; it cannot change the decision regarding the merits of a foreign judgment.
This information was provided by the Department of Justice Brazil
I have provided the information and omitted information that was not relevant to our litigation.
As can be seen. “Service” is not a consideration.
The Superior court is only reviewing the judgement to be sure it does not go against Brazilian laws.
The Bolzan’s cannot challenge any of the merits of the case. It is final and un-appealable.
Have a wonderful weekend.
100% wrong again
Service has nothing to do with this. Recognition is granted under the 2016 Brazilian Civic Procedures for foreign Judgements. ( see my stickie above)
I guess if you consider 30-60 days for document verification and communications between the Brazilian court and Judge Middlebrooks to verify his rulings a “ very long road”. Then so be it.
30-60’days are for foreign litigations that’s required Jury trials. This one is cut and dry.
DEFAULT JUDGEMENTS are not appealable in Brazil or the US. This could be all wrapped up by the end of March.
Anyone may go look up foreign judgements in Brazil and see how long it takes the courts to verify information and or begin Enforcement.
Hint, it is not a “very long road”
It is in fact an expedited process.
I encourage everyone to do their own DD and research the time it takes from Foreign judgement to collection from Brazilian entities.
Have a great weekend.
If you read all the DEs all the information you want to know is in them.
Attorney fees are limited to $2.5m in recovery.
We already know from the Deposition of Rontan’s tax expert that the tax liabilities were over 750m (Brazilian). $114m USD at the time the SPA was signed. The tax liabilities were for 2015 and prior years according to Rontan’s own witness.
We know from the SPA that the agreed purchase price was $100m plus some earn out credit that would be paid over a period of time.
If you just use the facts. As these are all undisputed facts.
$100m purchase price less $2.5m in litigation fees less $114m in unpaid taxes. This alone still leaves the defendants owing $16.5m which would be offset in subsequent earn out payments.
These are the FACTS of the case. Not pie in the sky pumping on message boards by people unrelated to the company.
The value of the award would be north of $100m, using the undisputed FACTS already established.
I have read every PR since early 2015. Bill Delgado has done everything he promised after running Sullivan et al out.
Converted Toxic financing to non toxic non-dilutive.
Stated that it would require additional financing going forward which he has secured without the use of “toxic” financing.
Cleared all civil complaints and litigations as of 10/2019. Cleared all SEC complaints and actions as of early 2019.
Completed the acquisition of HA in early 2019 and development of PALS continues.
I read no PRs or filings where the company at any time has made any claims to the value of Rontan or the litigation. I’m sure they will in a very short time when the court has made its final ruling and award.
GLTA.
Have a wonderful weekend.
Where are you getting that the Bolzan’s continue to run the company in any of the judges rulings?
I don’t see anything even vaguely close to that in any of them.
DE 207. Clarification on Specific Performance with Incidental Damages is GRANTED
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (DE 205), which I have reclassified as a Motion for Clarification, is GRANTED to the extent discussed above. Specifically, I find that: .
a. Given the facts of this case, specific performance is an available remedy for Defendants' breach of the Agreement.
b. Plaintiff may obtain both the remedy of specific performance and incidental damages in the form of an offset in purchase price based on unpaid tax liability.
2. Plaintiff is ordered to file a status report by 12:00 pm on March 2, 2020 stating whether, given my rulings in this Order, a hearing on March 4, 2020 is necessary. Specifically, Plaintiff should discuss its efforts to obtain information on Rontan Company's outstanding tax liability, and, if additional time is needed to locate the necessary information, Plaintiff should indicate when it expects to be ready to proceed to a hearing on damages.
SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 28 day of February, 2020. DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DE 206
Motion for Default Judgement GRANTED
CONCLUSION Because I grant default judgment and liability has now been established against Defendant, a bench trial is no longer necessary. Instead, I will hold an evidentiary hearing on damages on the same date and time. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (DE 193) is GRANTED. (2) The Bench Trial scheduled for March 4, 2020 shall instead be calendared as an Evidentiary Hearing on damages. (3) The hearing shall commence at 9:00 a.m. in West Palm Beach, Florida. SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 2 day of February, 2020. Mpularne DONALD M.
WRONG Still.
Judge Signs order
Order sent to Brazil
Under Brazilian Lawn the US ( foreign) judges signature is Recognized as satisfying Proper service and adjudication. It is then Immediately Enforceable. One verified signature satisfies the three steps you think are required.
Brazilian court verifies Judges order. There is no additional court proceedings, no new trial, no appeal is available for Default Judgements, Default Judgements are treated the same in Brazil as the US.
There are two possible outcomes for Damages after the Default Judgement ruling which will be handed down on the 4th.
They may or may not take a day or two to rule on Damages.
First, Specific Performance with Incidental Damages.
If this is awarded the The SPA will be enforced with an adjustment to the sale price to reflect the Taxes owed. Enforcement of a contract (SPA) is a voluntary event in the eyes of the law in Brazil and the US, both parties willingly entered into the agreement.
Second, if Incidental Damages are not awarded then GDSI May chose to take Actual Damages in lieu of Specific Performance.
100% incorrect.
Brazilian Law is quite clear on foreign Judgements
From the 2016 Brazilian Civil Code
Foreign judgment directly enforceable.
Brazilian law provides that CERTAIN TYPES of contracts and negotiable instruments take a speedier route in civil proceedings, GOING STRAIGHT TO THE ENFORCEMENT PHASE. THESE ARE CALLED enforceable certificates, and are divided into judicial (COURT and arbitration PROCEEDINGS)
this litigation is a court proceeding. IT IS IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED AND IMMEDIATELY ENFORCEABLE under Brazilian law.
only one part of this is even half right, it’s true that if the court does not award Incidental Damages in conjunction with the Specific Performance then GDSI is entitled to take Actual Damages in the alternative. Which would mean a financial award and not the binding of the parties to the SPA.
So the only part that’s partially correct is that GDSI may not own Rontan in the end.
That’s entirely dependent on the ruling as it pertains to Incidental Damages.
There is no part of your information (stickie) that links back to the actual wording in Brazilian law or civil code. You have links to Ambulance chaser Lawyers that post their interpretations of what they think the law says.
See my stickie for the actual wording of Brazilian Civil Code adopted 2015, enacted 2016. These are the words the Judges use not the nonsense posted online by some lawyers.
This is not correct. As is the case in the US and Brazil. Judgements rendered as a result of Default are not subject to appeal/Challenge.
The Brazilian Civil code for “Foreign Judgements” states that Judgements signed by a Judge are “Recognized” and are immediately enforceable. Direct quote of their civil code enacted 2016.
(See stickie above for information, feel free to search the information provided to verify) Not an interpretation from an online ambulance chaser.
Have a wonderful blissful day.
USD/CAD conversion 1.3265 2/24/2020.
This conversion matters when investing USD in Canadian Venture Capitol stocks from the TSX
PRPCF-USD OTC
PCY-CAD TSX
Doing proper DD should include include the ability to look up information based on its Tittle, date published, country or origin, entity of Origin and direct quotes.
Links can be manipulated and lead to false information. Everything a person doing DD needs is in my Stickie.
Your links lead to a specific law firms interpretations of the laws of Brazil. The information I provided is the exact published wording of the law. Not my interpretation or the interpretation of some ambulance chaser making a few extra bucks posting to an online “Law” site.
Good luck.
You are mistaken on what “service” , “recognition” and enforcement are. (See my stickie above)
Again. There is no interpretation I supplied direct quotes and uncontested facts in evidence.
All facts in evidence become uncontested and barred from Appeal once a Default judgement is rendered. This is true in the US and Brazil.
Service has already been satisfied. Recognition has already been satisfied.
Under Brazilian law.
This action is “IMMEDIATELY ENFORCEABLE”
See Brazilian Civil Code Adopted 2015 enacted 2016. For definitions and condition of Foreign court actions. It’s in my stickie I post the citation so that anyone may go look it up for themselves.
GLTA
LOL. You already lost brother.
Under Brazilian Law, a corporation who chooses to place its self under the jurisdiction of a foreign court is subject to the laws of that court. ( paraphrased for simple understanding)
The SPA clearly states the venues by which disputes may be resolved arising from disputes of the conditions in the SPA.
Rontan Availed itself to the law and rulings of the Southern district of Florida who’s rulings and orders are recognized and “IMMEDIATELY ENFORCEABLE” by the Brazilian courts under the Brazilian civil code of 2015, enacted 2016 (see my stickie above)
You are a fool if you don’t care about it being a Canadian company. The share price is directly effected by the exchange rate which is currently at 1.321. Monday it was at 1.335. So the US pps would have improved even if the TSX price had remained the same. You should invest in something else. international transactions are clearly not a safe investment for you if you don’t know these basic concepts.
Pretty sure you are just here for the .10 a post someone is paying you. So I am equally sure you can’t afford even a penny stock.
Have a blissful day!
“I went and hid in my cave”.
Is that the part where I publicly stated I had sold my position and would be back in March after the vote on the RS?
LOL
Then stop posting the OTC volume like it means something. Be truthful and go get the volume off the TSX where the company is primarily listed.
The facts in evidence are not interpretation.
None of this is my interpretation, it is the law and facts as presented and accepted by both parties as being uncontested.
Should the judge render an order in support of GDSIs motion for Default Judgement it rules that everything GDSIs claims is now legally factual.
The judge can rule in favor or against the motion.
The judge can not change the pleadings, thus an affirmative ruling on the MDJ renders all pleadings by GDSI legally factual and barred from redress on appeal.
I believe you have missed the point of my post again.
Note the following ruling by the 11th circuit court.
“A defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established."
(11th circuit court 2009)
Once the Default Judgement is entered. Everything stated by GDSI becomes legally accepted as true. There is no recourse for Appeal. This standard of the court is also a standard used in Brazilian law.
There is no judicial Recognition nor Service required under Brazilian civil code. (See my stickie above)
All US judgements are considered “Serviced and Recognized” under Brazilian law ( Brazilian Civil Code adopted 2015, enacted 2016)
Volume for 02/20 798,019
NOT 76,000
Know the company you are investing in. Do your DD. This is a TSX stock. The OTC is a secondary market to allow US investors easier access to Canadian Venture Capitol exchanges.
It’s official ticker on the TSX is “PCY”. You must goto the TSX site to get a proper listing. It is not a US company.
Facts to consider going forward.
DEFAULT JUDGEMENT
“A defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established."
(11th circuit court 2009)
The SPA provided that the "Purchase Price" consisted of three components: (i) cash payments totaling R$100,000,000, payable "in equal monthly installments over a period of forty eight (48) months following the Closing Date�" (SPA at §2.1.1 (emphasis added)); (ii) "R$100,000,000 of shares of [GDSI's] common stock," transferable at Closing (id. at §2.1.2.); and (3) future "earn-out" payments that were contingent upon Rontan's future financial 13 1 performance, with payments starting (if at all) more than two years after Closing (id. at § 2.1.3). Accordingly, the SPA did not require GDSI to make any cash payment to the Bolzans at closing.
J.C. Bolzan confirmed in his deposition that under the SPA, neither GDSI, General American Capital Partners, nor any other funding source was required to pay any cash at closing.
This purchase price was predicated on the Defendants' express representation and warranty in the SPA that, as of the execution of the agreement, "Rontan has timely paid all the Taxes due, and complied with all Tax obligations in accordance with the applicable law." SPA §5.13. As described above, it is undisputed that Defendants breached this representation.
As it(s) admitted in deposition, as of the date of the SPA, "Rontan had not timely paid all of its federal, state, and municipal taxes." [D.E. 138 at Ex. D (Depo. Tr. Clovis Paulino at p. 217:23 - 218: 10) 4]. He further admitted the unpaid and undisclosed tax liabilities were not limited to 2015, but that "there were amounts outstanding for previous years," and that, as of October 2015 (when the SPA was executed), Rontan's undisclosed "tax liability was in the hundreds of millions of Reals."
GLTA
$GDSI. .0200 close 02/20/2020
I was bored. Needed something to spark the board and see if anyone was paying attention today.
Finally got someone to turn loose of some shares yesterday and today but have to pay the premium. No sales at the bid. Stingy bastards.
Me too!! LOL