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.
This was your statement
“PALS is a scam. ZERO money spent on R&D. Not a penny, per their own quarterly SEC filings. “
“Zero money spent on R&D. Not a penny……”
This is incorrect as is pointed out in their 10-Q.
Software is a component of every avionics modification.
A casual observer of the aviation industry can recognize that.
$64,000 is more than zero.
The Florida office is called a “Resident Agent” very common for companies to have a resident agent in the state they are incorporated in. It also helps to keep whackos from showing up to your house when you work out of your home.
Nothing nefarious about using a resident agent.
R&D for PALS is on the very first page of the 10-Q
Listed under assets are “Software Development costs” $64,000+. That is the prepaid cost of development for the PALS system. It’s right there in the 10-Q.
Seems the continued airworthiness process is underway. Any one in the aviation industry knows that there is no “approval” application made to the FAA before all airworthiness and flight testing has been completed and the Engineering Reps have signed off.
“The FAA Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs) are responsible for final approval of all aircraft modifications, have been assigned to oversee the process. The DER for the PALS project has approved the engineering analysis with the final installation process expected to be completed shortly. “
FAA approval would not be applied for until after all in flight testing is completed.
FAA approval is not required for research and development.
For those wondering,
Rontan showed up to the mediation meeting.
That is all
$GDSI
If any of this were remotely true you would be collecting a multi million dollar check from Rontan off your contingency fees for saving them from a $190m judgement. A modest 30% would net a legit lawyer close to $50m.
Last year SHMP .03 Today .45
Gdsi .011 to .045.….
ECGS. .04 to .35.
Looks like this “scammer” delgAdo is really sticking it to those investors, What a shame.
If you believe that to be the case, and you stand by the comment that the appeals court does not make decisions based on the merits, under what circumstance could the appeals court overturn or reduce a decision rendered via default judgement?
The trial judge was very clear on the rule of law and his decision based on Rontans refusal to participate.
The appeals court would have to ignore presidence and the rule of law. To get where you are trying to go. They would have to weigh in on the merits of the default judgement itself to overturn any judgement in this case.
You mentioned that GDSI knew about the taxes. This could have been raised during the course of trial but was not it is a decided merit of the case. The trial judge addressed this in his rulings. The appeals court may not change that finding of fact according to your prior statement.
Further …
As I said, I think the judge is taking a short cut to dismissing/ denying the appeal.
If Bolzan’s fail to respond to the mediation order as has been their past behavior. He would have all he needs to dismiss/reject/decline to hear the appeal.
The .002 is the actual value to shareholders, in other words, if there were nothing else to value the company on, each month the value would go up .002 per share off the interest accrued alone. To date the accrued interest would add .012 to the share price in basic equity.
$18m a year and GDSI has minimal overhead in generating that income.
The argument can be made -“ they still have to collect it” - that’s true. It’s true with every business in existence.
The $1.5 is divided by the outstanding shares ie. $1,500,000/700,000,000=$0.002 per share in basic equity.
It’s the value of the interest spread across the outstanding shares.
If this is what you are asking.
Not a waste of time.
Consider this, do you really think that after 3 years of non participation that the Bolzan’s are suddenly going to show up for mediation?
If they don’t. How long do you think it will take the appeals court to toss this appeal?
This judge appears to be taking the short cut to dismissing this appeal.
Accrued interest of $53k a day, $1.5m a month. Since judgement was rendered.
At 700m OS that would be a basic increase to shareholder equity of .002 per month. And that’s not funds that will be going to pay taxes or fees.
OTC Removes “shell risk” tag.
Have a blissful day
Easy. The Brazilian court will look at Rontans filing here and say you admitted to breach of contract, objection to recognition denied!
Or
Your contract says you agree to litigation in the United States. Objection Denied.
Brazils judicial system is much more interested in the rule of law, they don’t cut any slack like the US. They will find against Rontan if they even take the case because of the history of the case and the default judgement. A fact your sticky fails to address, There are a handful of foreign default judgements in Brazil. They were all affirmed by the superior court in less than 60 days.
All were child custody cases.
Not international business litigation with binding contracts and mutually agreed venues of jurisdiction.
The Superior Court of Brazil will not take up any objections to this judgement.
My opinion of course. We shall see.
From DE 263 filed by the defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS:
16. Plaintiff is awarded specific performance and the Parties are ordered to comply with the SPA to close the transaction.
Go find it. The link to the docket is in your sticky. It’s in pain text. You should have no problem fining it.
Check your sticky..
Good for you.
Since the contract is the binding rule, statutory limits are not generally applied in most cases.
If statutory limits were to be in place I believe the judge would have mentioned that and the statutory local rule by which he would make such ruling. Instead he cited the contract language.
The contract reads “all litigation expenses”
If not for the litigation is there an expense of the 27.5%??
Certainly the judge could deem such as excessive and reduce it but as you said that would be another litigation or issue that Rontan would have to raise.
So far, Rontan has enough trouble just showing up to or following the direction of the court.
Maybe they succeed in having this reduced. Idk. But it is specifically spelled out and directly referenced in the judges final order.
That’s not what the post I responded to has posted. I’ll go with the plain reading of what was posted. proceeds received.
They don’t need the courts in Brazil, Rontan has already agreed to completing the transaction through their Counsel.
It’s in their motion following the Damages hearing.
There is also no recognition process for this judgement as Rontan signed a contract in which the Southern District of Florida was to be the venue of any disputes.
Recognition is reserved for judgements in which no such contractual language exists.
The Brazilian courts will not hear this case. IMHO.
This of course does not prevent The Bolzan’s et al from trying.
So at best if the conveyance of Rontan is the proceeds, the 27.5% of $100m is far less than $56m. Looks like $27.5m which is a litigating cost and may be recoverable as stated in the SPA and expressly referenced in the judges final order.
The company is not receiving any proceeds, according to some.
So there is nothing to base the 27.5% on.
Update. To an earlier post (VALUATION)
As stated earlier I will not comment or discuss the judgement as in my opinion it is of little to no consequence to the company as it moves forward.
The only take away is that the Bolzan’s through their counsel have agreed to execute the SPA. That means that GDSI will own and control 100% of Rontan.
Now that that is settled. Let’s look at what that means
Through a contact in Brazil who looked up some information for me concerning Rontan and it’s financial condition we have the following.
For 2019 (2020 is not yet available) Rontan reported $136m (USD) in revenue EBITDA. my previous post had this at $126m. They also reported $20m (USD) in net profit, this is net of ALL expenses, wages, dividends, utilities,loans etc. information I did not have previously
This along with the information from the damages hearing will be used below.
GDSI OS is 665m
Rontan valuation of hard assets $176m ( from damages hearing)
$136m/665m = a PE of $0.2045
$176m/665m = a book value of $0.2647
$20m/665m= .0300 per share Net of all expenses.
Normally for a valuation of a company for the purposes of net value you use 3-7 years revenue plus it’s book value. In this instance I’ll just use the Net Profit of $20m x3 years and ignore the EBITDA revenue
this gives us a valuation of $236,000,000/665,000,000= $0.3549 pps
No industry or sector PE ratio added. The conservative pure valuation of the company has the share value @ .3549pps
It’s currently trading @ .065
$GDSI
Unlike others if the information I have changes I correct my posts.
If it were me. I would make them an offer to mitigate their losses and settle this in a timely fashion. We shall see what happens now.
That seems to be the case lately. I have theories but the all end with conspiracy. LOL
He expressly used the exact amounts asked for because they were below the “expert witnesses” projection of the actual amounts owed and felt GDSI was being conservative and therefore entitled to the full amount sought.
He also left it open for additional damages in the form of litigation costs above the statutory $5m limit in that he specifically mentioned that “all costs of litigation are covered under the SPA” so The cost of litigation is covered 100%.
He also awarded unspecified damages of Interest. Which while not a barn burner is still $420.00 a day at today’s interest rate accumulative of the unpaid daily balance, compounded annually until judgement is fully paid.
Don’t know about you but I’ll take a free $420 a day. That’s to GDSI not any other entity.
Like I posted. Instead of arguing every post about the judgement how about forget the judgement and just look at the hard assets and revenue. Those are actual and separate from the judgement and in the end. The only thing that matters going forward.
For the sake of non-argument I choose to ignore any further senseless comments about the judgement when the hard assets and annual revenue dwarf the judgement.
Hard assets $176,000,000 per expert witness during damages hearing and Rontans own CFO.
Annual revenue as reported by expert witnesses during discovery and stated by Rontan $126,000,000 EBITDA.
Total hard assets and annual revenue $302,000,000.00. I no longer care about the $192,000,000. The taxes are accounted for and business carries on as a GDSI asset. Case closed.
If you all want to continue to debate the one time value of the judgement beyond the most important part of the ruling,
conveyance of the Rontan to GDSI.
You all can knock yourselves out.
Fair enough.
None are Lazar stocks when RSed.
Why would you post something so misleading?
I sleep when tired. Central. Hell it’s only 12:30.
Ok have it your way. Old time conventional valuation. .18 PE no modifier + .2514 book value = .4314 net asset. No modifiers based on 700,000,000 shares outstanding which is higher than the actual.
Happy now?
This has been a long time coming, I’m sure there were many who had .0025 shares that were ready to get out. So they did. The market will market and eventually the traders will lose interest and the market and investors will reap the rewards.
To make some happy. Just forget about the judgement other than it conveys to GDSI all the assets of Rontan valued at $176m plus the annual income reported to be $126m EBITDA. OR as I posted earlier .18 a share from annual revenue and roughly .2514 per share in book value.
There. That should cover all the bases
$GDSI
GLTA
Regardless of this litigation the annual revenue stream from Rontan equates to a share price of .18 at an OS of 700m current OS is lower. That is without any PE modifier. So the current share price is a very good value.
Using a low PE ratio of 6 would put the market value around $1.08
e) To the extent that the monetary final judgment award is not satisfied by payment or setoff of the purchase price, Plaintiff shall be entitled to enforce and recover such unsatisfied portion of the monetary final judgment award against any or all of Defendants, who will be jointly and severally liable for any unsatisfied portion.
(f) This judgment shall bear INTEREST at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
( computed daily and compounded annually from the date of judgement 2/3/2021. Not the date of breach as I previously posted)
(g) Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff is "entitled to recover all reasonable expenses relating [to this action] (including attorney's fees and expenses) from [Defendants] . . . ." (See DE 55-1 at 15â??16). If Plaintiff intends to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, it must do so within 14 days of the entry of this Final Judgment.
(3) The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE THIS CASE.
(4) All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
(5) The Court will retain jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorneys' fees and costs and to consider, if supported by the facts and the applicable law, any future request by Plaintiff regarding its election of the remedy of specific performance with incidental damages.
SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 3rd day of February, 2021. Donald M. Middlebrooks United States District Judge
b) In exchange for the transfer of the shares, Plaintiff's obligation to pay the purchase price (whether the cash, stock, or earn-out amount, as defined by the Agreement) shall be met by setting off against the purchase price the amount of the monetary award for incidental damages set forth below until such time as
(i) the monetary final judgment award, including payment of INTEREST, is fully satisfied and
(ii) any fees and costs award relating to this action is fully satisfied. Until then, any consideration that Plaintiff may owe to Defendants pursuant to the Agreement shall, when it matures, be credited against the unsatisfied portion of the monetary final judgment award and any fees and costs award.
DE 276 Final Judgement is Entered.
Case closed
Your post is extremely misleading.
The judge clearly states in section (e) the liability is that of all the defendants. And can be satisfied by any or all. It does not say Bill or GDSI assumes liability via Rontan once they take control of the company and it’s assets. Brazilian tax law also makes this distinction very clear.
You are more than capable of stating your opinion of what the interest on $192m will be over 6 years. My estimate was $100m. Not misleading at all.
looking at Brazilian tax law. The tax debt is the responsibility of the controlling party at the time it’s incurred. It’s not Bill or Rontan’s this will effect, its 100% the Bolzan’s.
Bolzan’s financially benefited from the tax evasion under Brazilian law and as adjudicated in this ruling. The Bolzan’s are 100% liable.
The tax liability was at not time conveyed upon the purchaser within the SPA. That would have been the only way it could be transfered from the Bolzan’s to GDSI or Rontan.
By the way. Interest begins from the time of breach. Ouch! Tack on another $100m for the past 6 years.
That’s my reading any way. FWIW. I’m sure there are some exceptions.
Why did you leave out (e) which address what you are trying to insinuate and shows why you really should read the entire judgement.
Section (e) which is right after (iii) reads as follows
To the extent that the monetary judgement award is not satisfied by payment or set off of the purchase price, plaintiff shall be entitled to enforce and recover such unsatisfied portion of the monetary judgement award against any or all of the defendants, who will be jointly and severally liable for any unsatisfied portions .
(f) the judgement shall bear interest at the rate prescribed by 28 USC 1961..
(g) pursuant to the Agreement, plaintiff is entitled to recover all reasonable expenses relating to this action including attorneys fees and expenses from defendants........
So no. Bill did not bore did the company assume any debt or liabilities from Rontan or the Bolzan’s
$GDSI GLTA
It’s an open forum you are more than welcome to post your own opinion of what the judgement means. I clearly stated I used the figures I used for “convenience”
If you know the exact value of the company then by all means make a post that includes that. I only know what the SPA was for, I have no information on the actual value of the company. I do know that GDSI was awarded $192m in incidental damages that is the value of the judgement in MY opinion.
NEWS- $2,000,000 in projected revenue, contracts in place. Orders going out, hiring more sales staff.
Just for the new 454 SKU bags.