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.
Go ahead and post the order dated 9/27. Prove me wrong. Show the board what a liar I am.
Good luck with your DD.
I wouldn’t dispute any of this.
As I stated in an earlier post, I have seen these type of cases where the plaintiff wins the judgement but the judge feels that the case was petty and while finding for the plaintiff only awards $1 in damages. The big difference here is we are talking about a jury trial and juries always award much higher awards.
I still feel a settlement is more likely and that any settlement will be based more on how badly the Bolzan’s want to maintain confidentiality of their financials than it does on the merits of this case.
While the Company (Rontan) May have been in bankruptcy since the signing of the SPA there are lots of questions surrounding assets and cash rumored to have been siphoned off by the Bolzan’s. If this was done after the filing of the complaint the proceeds would be subject to recovery as damages. This all assuming GDSI is successful.
Should be an interesting 30-60 days ahead.
Downloaded what was available which was not much at all.
Short version is Rontan asking for more time (1 week) for expert opinion on valuation. The “Expert” is asking for the additional time.
Unfortunately the order on this motion was not attached to the download so don’t know if there was any opposition to the motion or if it was granted. Deadlines mentioned were 10-1, 10-4. Motion was to extend to 10-11 and a Daubert challenge was set for 10-11 extended to 10-18.
We don’t know what is in the orders that just came out. There could be orders on motions for more time etc etc. I’ll check it out later and see what’s in there.
Just technical stuff nothing of substance there. I only buy the orders when available. Motions don’t mean a thing you can put anything you want in a motion. It’s the ruling that matters.
IMO- We will have a better idea where things are going when the deadline to file the amended MSJ passes. If Rontan amends, then MSJ back in play. If they don’t. Then documents stay out of the public eye for now and Rontan will be in a vulnerable position since the judge has already ruled that they must turn over those records in discovery. This is why I expect to see a settlement before the trial date. Probably see something before the deadline for discovery. Time will tell.
There are lots of legal maneuvers that can be used during discovery and pre-trial motions. No point in trying to explain them all ass most would not apply. It’s better to wait and see what they decide to do then discuss that.
Rontan wanted to seal the documents and they were needed to support their MSJ claim/motion. Both motions had to be denied because their is no legal basis by which the documents in question can be removed or held out (sealed) from the public record.
It appears that after the ruling was made on sealing the documents, Rontan decide not to submit the documents in support of their MSJ. This in turn left the MSJ with no supporting documents for its claim so it to had to be Denied. As you might see this is a “technical” issue. The Judge is not ruling on the merits of the documents. He is ruling on sealing them which he can not do.
“without prejudice” So here we see how and why this ruling is used. This allows Rontan to decide to go ahead and submit the documents as public record to support their MSJ and amend the filing to include those documents.
Once this is done. The former MSJ and the ruling are legally irrelevant all that stands is the amended MSJ. Neither Side May reference the original MSJ or the ruling as a result of that MSJ once the amended MSJ is filed.
Hope this helps. This is exactly what happened with the original complaint by GDSI and the MTD associated with it. Once theFAC was filed the preceding filings were irrelevant legally speaking.
I will point out. My attempt at clarifying what is posted is purely from a legal stand point. Some times what is done in due process of law looks like something different to the every day observer.
You will notice I have given Rontans Denied MSJ the same standing as I have to the MTD. The orders are the same and can be remedied in the same manner. If there is no amended filing of the MSJ. The ruling will stand. Again a short version, there are a number of other technical remedies that could be employed.
From my reading of the order. The exhibits ( documents) were not filed with the MSJ they were entered by reference and were then submitted with the motion to seal which can not be done in US courts.
So the act of asking for them to be sealed barred them from being used as evidence(short non technical version). It leaves the ball in Rontans court as to their decision to let the documents be public or not.
Disclosure. I have not read all the supporting documents for the MSJ. Since I am not deciding anything, I prefer to comment on the legal basis of the ruling. You can put anything you want in a motion. In the end the only thing that matters is the judges ruling.
My opinion at this point is this.
If Rontan really wants to keep those records out of the public eye. They will settle. If not we go to trial.
Rontan has inadvertently tipped their hand and has exposed their flank on the issue of the financials. Which in my opinion is the crux of the case going forward.
If their is no settlement offer I expect GDSI to attempt to apply more pressure on gaining more information on Rontan and the Brothers financial dealings.
Up on Low volume 203k traded.
The GDSI perspective is. Rontan basically shot them selves in the foot by requesting the sealing of certain documents germane to their MSJ. GDSI does not have to do anything as without the documents there is no evidence to consider for the MSJ. The MSJ would fail on the grounds that it offered no evidence to support its motion.
IMO- Rontan won’t refile the MSJ if there is information it wants kept private. This will be the tipping point on their decision to go to trial or settle. If they go to trial, these documents will become public.
It means it is denied and Rontan must fix the errors which were procedural in nature as they were asking that documents that were germane to the motion be sealed which is not legal in the United States.
Once Rontan files an amended motion with the request for sealing removed the motion and ruling become moot and the judge will then hear the motion on its merits. If Rontan decides not to refile, then the motion is denied and the order stands. This would include both the motion to seal and the motion for Summary Judgement.
Motion for Summary judgment, DENIED! Motion to seal. DENIED. docket entry 9-27-2019
Both orders made “Without Prejudice”.
Rontan will have an opportunity to fix the errors and refile.
I have time while at work to respond to this nonsense so I do. There are lots of real issues that could be raised if someone wants to do that. It is common in OTC companies to have less than completely open disclosure. Talking about those issues would be much more interesting.
My only issue is when information is deliberately misrepresented and presented as factual when it is not.
Where did I say it disappeared? LOL. I said it was legally irrelevant.
“With prejudice vs without prejudice. “
Completely different rulings.
Look them up. Should clear up your misunderstanding of this issue.
MTD and it’s ruling (54) is legally irrelevant and can not be used by either side.
Facts are facts
There is a trial date therefore it is not dismissed.
See civil procedures on rulings with and without prejudice.
Legally, The MTD you keep posting about has no standing, it is moot, It never happened.
Dismissed complaints do not have trial dates set after a”dismissal”. They end right then.
GDSI vs Rontan has a trial date set. Not Dismissed.
He is sore that a simple thing like what exchange a stock is traded on made him look so bad. Hard to believe someone would invest $15,000 on a companies stock and not even know what country it was registered in.
Rontan will have a difficult time defending their actions and the violations of the conditions outlined in the SPA.
I believe they are fighting the discovery of their financial records because the Brothers have been cheating the Brazilian government for years. Not to mention their employees and financiers in years past.
Looking forward to the settlement. A settlement is the only way Rontan can keep that information from becoming a part of the record and public knowledge.
Hope to see it in the next few weeks. Judge Brannon has clearly sent them a message that dragging their feet in turning over the requested information will not be tolerated.
If you are wondering how a judgement would be imposed to recover the damages from a Brazilian company, should this be decided by the jury, You can possibly attach their assets or sales in countries with treaties with the US. I am not sure what the relationship between Brazil and the US is at this time.
Prophecy is registered on the TSX (Toronto, Canada exchange) not the OTC. The total volume of shares traded are accurately recorded on the TSX.
U.S. entities only report shares traded on U.S. exchanges. Not those traded on foreign exchanges.
Volume on Prophecy runs on average about 1m shares a day for the past 10 days.
Like I said. OTC is not the registered market for prophecy. If you were a real investor you would know that. Volume today is 669,882
If you don’t want to wade through that Rule 50 posting here is the layman’s definition for a “Directed Verdict”
Once a case is heard by a jury. Either side may ask for a Directed verdict in which the judge will “direct” the jury to find in a certain way because either the plaintiffs case is overwhelming ( find in favor of plaintiff) or the plaintiffs case is lacking in some legal (by law) standard for an affirmative verdict to be rendered for the plaintiff. In other words “direct” the jury to find in favor of the defendant.
The short a sweet version.
As you can see. It’s not a likely outcome. Which I had eluded to in my post when I said “doubt it will happen”
Didn’t realize I mentioned anything about motions for new trial. But I do wonder, if these are your motivations. Where is the one dealing with rulings “with and without” Prejudice. And the one dealing with summary judgement? Or even on Directed verdicts.
Not sure what your point is here. Rule 50 applies equally to a defendant or a plaintiff.
I was most surprised that the judge went far beyond the scope of the original SPA and extended the decision to include the years 2015-17.
IMO- This would indicate to me that they are preparing for the penalty stage in advance of a verdict. Doubt it will happen but at this point a directed verdict in favor of GDSI is not out of the question.
Judge Bannon’s ruling on the court record 9-20-2019.
Supports everything I have posted. Do us all a favor and go read it before you respond to me again so that we may have an informed conversation.
The Judge proves you wrong. I’ll go with the judge since his interpretation is the only one that matters in the case. And as you like to point out, is a part of the docket and his ruling. Non-Party KPMG.
That’s fine. It’s just inaccurate in a legal sense as it pertains to this litigation and the SPA. Lots of people don’t understand the usage. Kinda like With or without Prejudice. You can explain it, some people just chose not to accept the fact that their very different rulings.
You might want to read the latest ruling by judge Bannon.
In part. Rontan has been ordered to turn over financial records not just for 2013-2014 as stated in 3.1.1 but to turn over 2013-2016.
He also ordered Rontan to turn over all tax returns for the period of 2013-2017
This should be of particular interest to you as it is directly related to 3.1.1.
I am sure you are conflating 3.1.11 with the final paragraph of section 3 (which is not a “condition”) dealing with conditions which is separate from 3.1.11 it states in part ( not a direct quote) that ……purchaser may waive at it sole discretion fulfillment of any condition of seller ……in writing signed by purchasers legal council ……(does not require signature or permission from seller)
You really should read the ruling of 9-20 the judge would not order them to produce records they already have.
IMO Rontan just lost one of the biggest fights in this litigation they must turn over all financial and tax records by 9-26.
There is no longer an issue of conditions Precedent or failure to state a claim. Both are pretty much affirmed by this ruling.
Since I have said “Legal” every time. It appears you have an issue with it. Not I.
Let me quote Judge Bannon. “KPMG a NON-Party” in his latest ruling on the docket for 9-20-2019.
Nope Friday was 900k+. What are you looking at??????????? It’s 10day average is over 1m. Probably should have another look.
LOL. You are entertaining I’ll say that.
So now you say it’s not a 250k daily average as you stated? It’s you flipping 300k of the 1m traded daily? Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Their not third parties. They are NON-Parties doing work for and on behalf of the purchaser (GDSI). They are producing Due Diligence reports for GDSI. They have no legal standing in the litigation or the SPA.
If they were parties to the SPA they could sue GDSI and/or Rontan for breach of contract.
Actually that is exactly what 3.1.11 says. Paraphrasing it says GDSI/Delgado May waive conditions of its Due Diligence which is exactly what condition 1 and 2 are.
I would still like for you to point us to the exact location that you claim the word “seller” is so important to your argument. 2 weeks of asking now and you still have provided nothing to support your statement.
Also condition 1 states that KPMG will provide an opinion letter after viewing Rontan Financial records. Rontan refuses to produce the records, thus Rontan violates the conditions of the SPA under condition 3.1.1. Under Condition 3.1.11. GDSI/Delgado decided to forgive the violation and waive 3.1.1 (this is a condition of Due Diligence performed for the sole purpose of the purchaser) in order to move the deal forward.
By virtue of the Rontan violation of 3.1.1, Rontan also causes the violation of 3.1.2 which GDSI also appears to have waived under its rights via 3.1.11 as this is also for the sole benefit of Purchaser.
I would suggest you read the very favorable ruling just handed down by Judge Bannon in favor of Plaintiff. Should make the direction very clear to everyone. Rontan Violated the SPA by withholding the financial records ( violation of 3.1.1).
IMO
Claim stated conditions met for adjudication.
Of course it is. That’s why the SEC has suspended trading. What? SEC has not suspended trading? Ok my bad. Not a scam.
It trades around 1m on average. Not 250k
Wrong again Wakebe. PRPCF Up .06 on almost 1m traded. Why did you sell your shares at .25? Very costly 600k x .12. That has to sting a bit. Hope you do better next time.
GL
Another item you have wrong. KPMG and GAMC are not “third parties” they are “non-parties”. Neither has any standing in this litigation or the SPA.
Wait till you see the latest ruling by Judge Bannon. Not looking good for Rontan. Rontan Ordered to turn over all financial records 2013-2016 and tax documents from 2013-2017. A few other little tid bits also. Will make for a fine read when you get it.
IMO. Its not sounding like there is much interest in granting of the MSJ. Until we get the ruling tho anything is possible.
Remember 3.1.11 gives Delgado every right to waive any condition he wishes concerning Rontan. Which is any third party information for GDSIs benefit as a result of Due diligence.
Again. Thanks for reposting the SPA and everyone can look at 3.1.11 and come to their own conclusion.