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.
Those actions were dismissed by FINRA and SEC according to latest records shown, if you have a new link to something current that would be good to see.
This is one of the reasons I like this stock. Not a bunch of BS PRs about the next greatest thing since pockets on a shirt. No hype. Filings all up to date and only see a PR when there is reason to put one out. Financing appears to be very well put together. No open ended toxic financing that never gets paid off.
Probably the last chance to see this in this price. Their letting a few go at .01. Get em while you can.
The sooner this Rontan fiasco is cleared and funds are available from the settlement. The better it will be.
There is very little left to complete the testing and begin marketing of the upgraded PALS system. This will be a source of Rev projected to begin the first part of 2020.
IMO the PALS deal has way more potential going forward than the Rontan settlement. This settlement will pave the way for a secure path forward for GDSI and eliminate the need for future outside financing.
All the reasons I have invested in GDSI are still here. Financing deals with defined parameters (nothing toxic). SEC filings brought up to date and any issues in past filings were amended. SEC dropped its complaint after the afore mentioned items were completed. Share structure has stayed within reason for a startup without surprise additions. All former actions brought against the company have been resolved with little or no financial hardship imposed on the company. There is a real product in the pipeline preparing to be marketed in the very near future. NO huff and puff PRs of little or no substance as is usually found with “pink” offerings. For these reasons I am here as an investor.
Settlement talks are underway. Mediation is set for Nov. 7th a meeting in which any unresolved issues could be settled, if not, then there is a second mediation date set for just before the trial. Rontan had asked for relief to attend the Nov 7th meeting by phone. I would imagine this would be granted as long as their ( Rontan et al) council is present at the mediation.
Here is a more detailed and precise wording of my last post.
Settlement talks are ongoing. The date of mediation will be when anything left unresolved is “mediated”. If there is still an impasse there will be more settlement negotiations and a final mediation date immediately prior to the start of the trial.
All motions will be ruled on before the beginning of the trial. That’s how the system works.
The trial date will not change again without there being some extenuating circumstance.
Mediation has already begun. The date for mediation will be a time for each side to try and work out anything that has not already been worked out. As noted, there is already a second date for mediation set right before the trial starts in the event that there is an impasse at the Nov 7 meeting.
No wonder GDSI went to a highly respected international business law firm NOT in the state of Florida.
Middlebrooks and Brannon. Are beginning to use harsher and harsher language when dealing with Rontan’s ridiculousness. I’m sure their both looking forward to the settlement so as to get Osario and his nonsense out of their court rooms.
Interesting. I have not found any reference to the exhibits as it relates to this MSJ.
Not saying it’s not acceptable I have just never heard of exhibits for a separate motion being referenced for a pending motion for which there has been no ruling.
Motions are heard on their own merit. Seems they would risk losing all their MSJs if a single aspect of any were denied/dismissed because the dismissal would squash the exhibits so attached making them unusable.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure each motion must be accompanied by its own exhibits even if duplicated in other filings.
This guy for Rontan seems more like a one man clown car show than an attorney.
Not seeing it yet. Maybe later today.
So they sent in exhibit F? Or something their calling ex. F.
Where are exhibits A-E. ordered to be submitted by the 25th? Are they there also.
The walls are coming down on Rontan/Bolzan Bros.
Settlement announcement could come at any time now.
GL
Rontan was ordered to file the exhibits that were NOT a part of the motion to seal. They did not file those exhibits.
The only exhibit that there was to be discussion about for stipulation, were the ones regarding the motion to seal.
Rontan appears to have failed to submit ordered documents to support their MSJ on two occasions now with the final deadline being 10-25. This will end the MSJ. Unless for some reason the court was slow in updating the docket and the exhibits were filed on the 25th, as ordered.
Rontan offers no relevance to seal public records in a civil case.
Rontans argument is “ because we have a confidentiality agreement with the Bolzan’s”.
That is not legal grounds and will be denied
It’s a new decision and it’s still tied to the MSJ in the latest ruling.
The judge further points out that Rontan has continued to fail to submit the required documents to support their MSJ. They were given to 10-25-2019 to file the documents not related to the Motion to seal.
Since the 25th has passed and there are no documents filed. It looks like Rontan is allowing the MSJ to die. Or. The court is behind on posting the filing.
“Settled”. Case over. No reason to beat that dead horse. There is no pending class action against GDSI. And at least one was settled by the insurance company and didn’t cost GDSI a dime.
Pretty sure GDSI just purchased the licensing, distribution or marketing rights and then became an R&D partner for PALS with HarmAlarm.
Of course. Because when some technology is 20 years old there is no way the inventor would ever think of upgrading and developing a new version. That would just be crazy to even think of.
However this Rontan thing gets settled and wether it’s $1 or $100m, the PALS testing continues in Houston. Probably saw some weather delays with the flooding and all. I imagine we shall get some news soon concerning areal testing or FAA approvals. Looking forward to getting down to the real business here.
That’s a fair assessment but I think it discounts the reason the funding was pulled in the first place. The Bolzan’s/Rontan hid assets ( embezzled/ committed Fraud) or whatever ends up coming to light and can be proven. So in my opinion there is a bit more to it than just a break-off fee.
Thats not educating anyone.
Rule 15 section 1 applies to complaints previously not amended. It does not require any “Leave” from the court. The complaint may be amended 21 days after filing for any reason.
Section 1 applies if the original complaint was in fact “tossed”.
It does not apply if the original complaint was amended.
Rule 15 section 2 applies if the complaint has already been amended once and a second amendment for any reason is desired.
Section 2 applies if the original complaint was not tossed but amended.
Summarizing
Section 1 applies in this case if;
a) Original complaint was in fact tossed
b) No leave or consent is needed
Section 2 applies in this case if;
a) original complaint was not tossed but amended
b) Leave and or consent for further amendments would be in order.
It’s one or the other. Both can’t apply to this complaint. You have repeatedly stated that the complaint was “tossed” therefore no Leave or consent is needed to amend.
We can have
Tossed and No leave
Or
Not tossed (Amended) and leave to further amend needed.
Please educate me.
which section of Rule 15 are you relying on and why?
Thanks.
So your argument is that the first complaint was already amended under rule 15 section 1 (21 day rule) and that the FAC can only be amended under section 2. Correct?
You don’t stand behind this statement you just made (post 43136) Or you now realize it was made in error?
“That's why I think the Court will deny any motion for leave to amend.”
Either you are claiming they require leave to amend or this statement is deliberately misleading.
Which provision of the rules of amendment are you claiming applies to this issue? Rule 2 or rule 1?
As stated in the deposition “ no definitive proof”. It was not till discovery that it was learned that documents exist to support or refute the claim.
Once the documents are surrendered as ordered by the court. A determination can be made as to the validity of the claim.
If there is sufficient evidence in the documents to support the claim, then the claim may be added to, an amended complaint, moved to be designated an aggravating factor, referred for criminal charging and/or a combination of or all of the above.
You don’t need “leave” to amend. You simply file said amendment and Defendant then files a response.
I doubt they waste the time with an amended complaint anyway.
I think GDSI will simply file a motion for a finding of aggravating circumstances for their award once they have the definitive proof required, if it ends up going to trial.
With the information now available it looks less and less likely it goes to trial. This will probably be settled in mediation.
LOL. You can not challenge an amendment to a complaint. You can only file a response.
The potential Fraud/ Embezzlement was discovered during discovery of this litigation, its relevance does not require any finding by any other jurisdiction to be germane to these proceedings.
You can not claim that which you do not know. Now that they know of potential fraud and/or embezzlement (through discovery) they can amend the complaint or move to have the proof of Fraud be an aggravating factor. This all assumes that there is enough evidence to prove the fraud allegation. They won’t have that proof until the records are provided.
Currently Rontan is attempting to seal and have not provided these documents even though there is a court order requiring them to be produce.
That’s a correct statement in that “Discovery doesn’t modify complaints” however. It is 100% irrelevant. No one has claimed it does. I said a complaint can be amended based on discovery.
Your assertion that the defendants don’t have to defend themselves from items not specifically spelled out in the complaint is incorrect. Wrong doing discovered during discovery is part of the case.
In this case, should GDSI prevail and if the allegations of Fraud are reasonably proven then GDSI can use that as a aggravating factor during the awarding of damages. (This would probably come in the form of a motion closer to the end of the trial, before the awarding of damages)
In most circumstances an aggravating finding will increase the award beyond what is being sought.
They could also choose to pursue the Fraud by modifying their complaint to include the Civil Fraud aspect purported to have been committed.
Defendant will have to defend its self against any allegations discovered during discovery regardless of how it is raised by the plaintiff
or
they can ignore it and allow the accusation to stand
or
they could stipulate to the allegation as being true.
There does not need to be anything about fraud in the FAC. That’s what discovery is for. You can amend the complaint any time discovery uncovers something relevant.
Or
The Fraud can also be used to support other claims in the FAC or to rebut claims made by Rontan as to their financial standing.
Incorrect. Not even close to “BLACK MAIL”
If records indicate fraud it is very relevant and we already know that the KPMG audit did in fact uncover potential fraud and the Bolzan’s and Rontan then refused to deliver the records that would prove or disprove the fraud.
If the records come to light and there is in fact fraud then it is a claim by which reliefs can be granted.
No “BLACK MAIL” needed. Just follow the evidence.
The point I am making with the Bolzan’s welcoming a settlement is that it’s in their best interest.
GDSI could care less why they settle. Either way. The Fraud would be a factor in either a jury trial or a settlement.
Exhibit E: Dagrosa dep.
“Third, there was concern in regards to tax issues that started out at a relatively low number. And by that I'll say call it 100 million of Reais, and I think were starting to amount to potentially three or 400 million as reported to us by KPMG. And there was concern, although no definitive proof that we may, may step into issues surrounding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and that was clearly a concern of mine . . .”
Short version. Evidence of Fraud. So much so that Dagrosa felt it was approaching the standard of proof to violate federal law.
The only reason he states there was “no definitive proof” is because they (Rontan/Bolzan’s ) refused to turn over the records as required under the SPA.
These are also the records that are the subject of the motion to seal that was denied. These documents have still not been provided.
IMO. They will never be provided because there will be a settlement in mediation which will allow the Bolzan’s to retain the records confidentially.
Fraud is always a claim by which relief can be granted.
Civil Fraud is not tried in a criminal court proceeding.
There is criminal Fraud which is prosecuted by the state in criminal court and does not require there be a victim. There is also Civil Fraud which is what we are looking at here with the Bolzan’s. Criminal and Civil Fraud are two different charges/allegations legally speaking.
The case is GDSI vs Rontan and each brother individually. Their financial situation and purported fraud is relevant.
It’s in the most recent filing of exhibits by Rontan in “support” of their MSJ
Exhibit “E.” Dagrosa Dep.
It is in the deposition filled with Rontans Motion for Partial Summary Judgement.
IMO. Rontan should not have included this deposition in their filing. It is very damaging to their claim in the MPSJ.
Since the brothers are named parties in the complaint and if there is a finding of fact for fraud on the part of the brothers then the judge can impose and/or instruct a jury of the finding so that additional financial penalties above and beyond what is sought in the complaint may be awarded.
Yet again another reason the Bolzan’s should welcome a settlement before everything becomes public.
Wrong again. The Bolzan brothers have assets that far exceed the sought damages.
Rontan May be broke as a company. The Bolzan’s are not. Why do you think the Bolzan’s are trying to hide the evidence of their alleged wrong doings?? Answer is; that’s where all the money has gone and is also where the funds to payoff the settlement would come from.
Bolzan’s would be very wise to agree to the settlement of this case outside of court. Once all this information becomes public their in deep…….
Tax evasion in Brazil is punishable by 6mo-2years in prison for each offense and financial penalties of 2-10 times the amount owed.
Rontans current Financial condition is irrelevant to the litigation. It’s condition at the time the Complaint was filed is all the matters.
The Bolzan’s have reportedly embezzled $100s of millions from the company ( disclosed in depositions) each brother has assets that far exceed the sums sought in the complaint.
Rontans ( the company) current financial condition is irrelevant to the outcome of the proceedings.