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.
Etrade already blocks trades on thousands of sub pennies including GDSI. What’s your point? It’s not anything new or revealing.
Just as a point of reference. The value of the judgement;
$192,000,000/ 700,000,000 shares is .27
I use a smaller judgement and a larger share count. For convenience
GLTA
$GDSI
Plaintiff is awardedincidental damages in the amount of $192,448,000.00
Securities Counsel
Lucosky Brookman LLPOTCQX Sponsor
101 Wood Avenue South
5th Floor
Woodbridge, NJ 08830
New info on OTC markets.
News- Audited Financials completed. Form-10 incoming.
Again. Not relevant to the damages hearing as the filing and judgement you raise here has already been litigated and a default judgement was awarded to plaintiff.
The default judgement, by law incorporates all pleadings of the prevailing party as to being true, and a finding of fact in the eyes of the court.
Anything that brings up these old previously decided filings is irrelevant to the damages hearing.
Yep trying to “re-litigate”
Whoosah........
I missed it? It’s irrelevant to the points I was presenting.
Idk about the date. My guess is that the settlement would happen directly after the ruling is published.
This gives GDSI the strongest position to negotiate from.
That’s just wrong. Now I’ll give you that it does little good if all you are trading is a few K and looking for a 10 bagger. Charting and indicators will make you tons in the 20-50% gain range all day long in the pennies. You just have to learn to not be greedy. Take your profits out and hold your small position that’s paid for and eventually you will get your 10bagger. Meanwhile I have traded 50 stocks for 20-50% gains. Some multiple times. Do the math.
Easy answer. To avoid the hassle of collection.
Unlike the SHMP RAS patent and projected sales from production that never happened. There was a huge rumor of Whole Foods looking to acquire the company, a buy out that was in the $1.00-$1.50 range.
In this case, we have a judge and the defendant ( Rontan) that has already ruled/accepted/pleaded that the SPA will be executed.
In short GDSI already owns Rontan.
Not even a Brazilian court is going to overturn a judgement in which the Brazilian company (Rontan) has pleaded for the judgement in its own fillings.
The question pending is how much the offset on the purchase price will be allowed for the tax liability.
I am kinda hoping the judge disallows any incidental damages.
If that were to happen and GDSI were to go ahead and execute the transaction. Hahahaha. My money would be on a much larger entity being interested in the manufacturing facility. There are 11 EV companies with very deep pockets coming on the market this year.
Do you really think any of them will be scared off by a 250m tax liability in a multi $$billion EV sector. Especially one that comes with a fully functional and staffed manufacturing facility. That $250m will be paid of in 15min.
Some fun DD. Do a search of Copper mining in Brazil ( needed for EV batteries) who owns copper mines in Brazil. Bolzan’s?
If Bolzan’s settle they stand to get a market premium for their Copper, avoid a long legal battle to settle their tax burden and or “recognition” for a case they have already recognized themselves.
the recognition process will not be their savior at this point.
RONTAN ALREADY ADMITTED FAULT IN THEIR OWN FILING! They ask in their own filling for the remedy of specific performance. This is all over but the signing.
The Bolzan’s will settle thus eliminating any possibility of the “recognition” process starting at all.
GLTA $GDSI
I get a kick out of this new lawyer trying to use this “Damages” hearing to try to re-Litigate the findings of fact.
The default judgement accepts all of the prevailing parties pleadings as true and factual as a matter of law.
The court has already ruled for plaintiff on specific damages. The court has already ruled on plaintiffs entitlement for Damages Incidental. Those rulings are not open to re litigation in this hearing or this filing.
There was no evidence presented to contradict the courts previously adjudicated findings as a matter of law.
There was no evidence presented to contradict the amounts presented by plaintiff. The finding of fact in the default judgement establishes that figure at $290m+. Defendant can only present Proof beyond reasonable that plaintiff reasonable estimates are wrong. That was never done not even in this filing.
They attempt to shift the burden back to plaintiff which is not the burden at plaintiffs feet. It is the burden at Rontans feet.
$GDSI
Easy summation of what I just read by Rontans Counsel (DE 269)
First a default judgement for plaintiff establishes all pleading by the plaintiff as true, factually accepted by the court and is a conclusion of law.
It is then the defenses burden to prove and to present evidence to contradict the conclusion of law or findings of fact that the court has already accepted.
At not time in the hearing did Rontan present a single shred of evidence to refute any of the findings under the default judgement which would include the claim by GDSI that Rontan owed and still owes $900m reals $246m USD in back taxes, nor does it point to any such proof in this filing.
The tax burden is the basis of the litigation in the first place and is well pleaded throughout GDSIs filings.
This is a slam dunk easy call. Rontan is once again trying to project their misdeeds on to GDSI.
I like the way the first case sited is not a case involving a default judgement with already established findings of fact by the court. They try to convolute the two. Nice try but it took all of 15 seconds to break that down.
GLTA $GDSI
Looks like they are in a good position to control expenses from farm to market.
Where did I post anything about collecting anything from the lawsuit?
My figures are based on court records and Rontans own financial disclosures for 2015.
My numbers have nothing to do with this lawsuit, the lawsuit is not even referenced in my post.
My calculations do however have everything to do with reported revenue and share structure.
A complete breakdown is available in a post on this subject back in October or November of last year.
Absolutely, if you think US courts are offended by the disregard for Jurisprudence wait till this gets before the Superior Court of Brazil.
And that solves their tax liability and the judgement to completing the SPA which they have already agreed to do in their own filing how?
Glad you are increasing your position. Making up excuses for why it would fail seems to be counter to your claim of ownership.
Good luck trying to appeal a default judgement, lost for not participating in the proceedings. That will last all of about 10 seconds.
I’m pretty sure the Bolzan’s are not dumb enough to waste more money to file the appeal in this case anyway.
IMO, They will settle because that will be the easiest and least expensive way for the Bolzan’s to proceed and still end up with some kind of monetary gain from the sale of the business.
Based on Rontans financial documents submitted with the SPA 2015 revenue and using an OS for GDSI of 700m. The fair market price for GDSI shares with a PE of 6 will be in the $1.02-$1.15per share range.
$GDSI up 87% today
NOTED AND CORRECTED !
Short answer is at no time has defendant made any argument that GDSI knew of the extent of the tax liability prior to attempting to close on the SPA.
This document is in fact the very first time this argument has been raised.
I could be wrong but I believe the “default judgement” finds GDSIs claim that they did not know of the tax liability is affirmed.
Already explained all that. Sorry you missed it.
Have a blissful day!
Ok sparky.
Natural shrimp reports conversion of red herring to Vera Bluemundi!
From Rontans filing, this is their proposed wording of the order they wish to get.
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. ............
The rest is concerning their contention that incidental damages not be awarded.
It’s not an “if” they did this. They did it.
This language would be quite different if they intended to preserver their contention that the judges default judgement was in error.
Who said anything about “ Proposed Findings of Fact”
What posts are you reading??
Just for clarity. In between 0 and 292m can be 1 or 291. I’m confident that in this case the “in between” will be on the upper upper end of that scale.
??
I posted a while back that I had some questions about the figures and that based on what I saw and calculated the tax liability was in the 180-210m range. Not 292m.
I don’t have all the information so I can’t say my figures are any more accurate than theirs.
I have been told, by those who witnessed the last hearing, that it was higher and that GDSI does in fact have the actual numbers now.
None of this has been confirmed by the company as yet. I expect we will find out after the final orders are entered.
The deal with with Para is based on the level of recovery. There is no funding due at closing and the taxes will be paid by the Corporation no matter who owns it. So the taxes are paid from revenues generated just as they would have been if Rontan still controlled.
At issue is the valuation and agreed purchase was based on there being no tax liabilities.
GDSI would have simply offered and paid less in the original SPA had there been full disclosure of the tax liabilities.
The court is now deciding what level of off set there will be due to this omission
Since the SPA provided for ongoing payment to the Bolzan’s from net revenue the offset can include the reduction or elimination of these payments till the tax liability is satisfied along with the elimination of any other monetary consideration that was due, share exchange, cash, dividends etc etc.
Hope this helps.
You need to freshen up on what exactly takes place in a Recognition proceeding in Brazil.
By taking the position to accept and request the execution of the SPA, Rontan has closed the legal door to challenging that decision during the recognition process.
It was good. The very worst case is that the SPA is completed as originally drafted, the best case is GDSI gets everything they asked for in damages on top of executing the spa as drafted.
In reality we get something in between.
Even if the extension is denied, BSF still files a response to the Rontan filing so the ability to argue the damages is not lost, you are just making the argument from the worst case ( Rontans proposed order) instead of from the best case ( Whatever BSFs argument or filing would have said). The outcome is more than likely the same either way as the judge will make his decision based on the information at hand.
LOL. You don’t understand the wording in the SPA. There is no cash due on closing by GDSI. The funding was a guarantee at the time. It was not a source of funding. More like and escrow.
That would be one way it could go. The bigger point is that this is Rontans proposed order. Which means the minimum outcome is GDSI and Rontan complete the SPA as originally written.
The final outcome can be no less than what is set out in Rontans own filing and suggested order.
Read my post carefully. I did not say it would not go through the process. I said that Rontan just forfeited their argument to challenge during the process.
It will get rubber stamped like every other Default foreign judgement that has come before the Brazilian superior court.
I think you all are missing the important part of what Rontan just filed.
They are saying we want to execute the SPA now.
Defendants proposed order .......
@ 16) Plaintiff is awarded specific performance and the parties to comply with the spa to close the transaction.......
This is Rontans proposal.
This alone would eliminate their challenge in a Brazilian court during the long touted “Recognition “ process. Rontan would have to challenge the US courts ruling in the default judgement. Rontan has essentially closed that challenge door here with this admission.
This is essentially over boys and girls.
There is no longer a challenge under the recognition process in Brazil. Rontan just slammed that door shut!
The information is for a single product line out of the many they have.
It is insignificant to the total revenue and would unduly influence investors ( an SEC violation) to only state the exceptional revenue results from a single product line.
Besides. You think they gave it away so there would not be any “revenue” numbers to share.
Maybe you are right and they gave it away and I am right it shows it is a desired product.
I will take the benefits of a quality marketable product for now.
Solid PR. Good info, shows that they have a stable clientele base with the ability to purchase the product
“Reorders” indicate that the product was well received and desired.
You don’t reorder something you don’t like even if it was given away. You don’t go back for more free food that you don’t like!
“Bilky Delgado scam” SHMP up 400%, GDSI up 120% ECGS up 750%.
I’ll take a Bilky Delgado scam every time.