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.
When Eco gets current with their filings it should take right off. There is a very low float here, between 5.2-5.6m.
I’m watching for a form 10 to drop with audited financials.
Becoming current alone with what has already been disclosed will easily take it over $1.00.
I’m sure the MMs are looking for this also. When you see them moving shares like they did today, it usually means something is afoot. I’m looking for something to drop tomorrow or Friday. MMs told us so ;).
Yes. Isn’t it amazing that they were not around for a dump to .04.
It’s still sitting there.
I have a hard time believing that was actual retail as I was sitting with a bid @ .08 when they printed the .043.
Accumulation? Yes
News? Soon. Probably this week if past trading is any indicator.
$1 pps EOY is my target
We shall see
Go see how many millionaires are listed from any South America country. Then ask yourself if you really think that’s all there are.
You already know, from their tax liabilities, they don’t exactly report everything they own.
If I didn’t have business contacts in Brazil and specifically São Paulo I would not have any idea what their business dealing were.
The Bolzan family enterprise
The Bolzan’s own mining facilities, retail outlets, manufacturing facilities, textile manufacturing and distribution along with a number of other businesses throughout Brazil and South America.
But sure. They have no assets.
Appreciate the info. Could not get link to work this morning.
From what I ascertained from other sources this is done and may see a slight reduction in the final figures. 10-20% if any.
They did not think Rontan supplied any basis for their arguments that would carry through.
Catch ya at the party. ;)
LOL. Ok let’s play your game.
If something is “available” does than mean the judge did not award it?
C O N T E X T in law.
You need the context of the entire ruling to understand. Specific damages were awarded as a result of the default judgement. Incidental was asked for so that GDSI could make a decision as to peruse the specific performance remedy.
They can still take the specific performance remedy without incidental damages. If they do chose.
You don’t understand the ruling then. That’s ok. It’s a legal matter and a little complicated. Don’t take it personal.
The “turn over company” part is already decided in the default judgement.
This hearing is for incidental damages.
Turning over the company is the ruling for the breach of contract and the finding for “Specific performance” which means to complete the deal as written.
The only issue to resolve is the incidental damages and what that will amount to. Once this is decided it is then the option of GDSI to move forward with the SPA, with or without the incidental damages.
To quote a famous lawyer.
“ that is silly”
Do explain how you “dilute” a stock that is already Max diluted.
This should be an interesting explanation.
The entertaining part will be when Middlebrooks dismantles the response by stating the obvious,
Should look something like this
“ Had defendants participated in the litigation in any meaningful capacity they would have been well prepared for the possibility of an unfavorable judgement on their defense and being subject to the incidental damages sought by Plaintiff” ......... “in addition defendants have been aware of the damages as presented by plaintiff at the very latest since June 12th when they suddenly reappeared with new counsel at which time they could have complied under discovery orders and submitted their expert report at that time or any time since they chose not to”............
This will go like the last time, none of the cases sited in support of their response are even remotely similar in nature to the events of this litigation.
Middlebrooks however should allow their “expert witness” and his “ expert testimony” as it relates to the damages portion that were litigated during the trial/discovery ( of which there was none), then weigh it with the appropriate consideration ( which would be zero) and finally proceed with his ruling at the conclusion of the hearing.
b) is what some here say would work. As noted in Middlebrooks denial of the motion to set aside. The dates and times for all proceedings were known to the defendant prior to the exit of counsel. They did not maintain contact with the court or opposing council as directed.
You go with that. I’ll go with the law. If they try to appeal that decision on that motion the 11th will deny it and send it back to Judge Middlebrooks. See US vs General Flynn. Motion to dismiss, motion for recusal, etc etc. appeals court sent it back for Sullivan to rule on the States appeal of his original decision or lack there of.
It’s the same rule that’s why I reference it here. I know you will try to conflate it as being different because one is civil and the other is criminal the rule is the same will be the same outcome.
Rulings on motions are appealed first to the rendering Judge before they can be appealed to the appeals court. There is no appeal filled as yet to the denial of the motion to set aside. If one is filed. Middlebrooks would be the first to act on that appeal. Then to the 11th court of appeals after the final judgement is entered.
The final judgement will not happen till after the 12/2 hearing. Then you will know.
Again. You are conflation the reconsideration of his decision on the motion and the appeal of the final judgement.
The conversation is on the motion decision which is not the Final Judgement.
I guess you missed the part about it being filed 60 days past the allowed date.
They can certainly put it in the appeal. The only way the appeals court grants a “stay” on the judgement is if there is a likelihood that the appellant would be successful. There is no such likelihood in this case.
The decision on that motion is only appealable to the judge rendering the decision within 10 days of the decision.
It appears you are conflating the decision on the motion with the final Judgement which are two completely different issues and require two separate methods of remedy.
Decisions on motions are appealed through the deciding judge within 10 day or by local rule before they can be a part of an overall appeal on the final judgement.
Middlebrooks would in fact be the first remedy in reversing his decision to deny their motion.
That’s not what I said. Read it again.
You appeal motion decisions with a request to the original judge within 10 days( or the time allotted under local rule) of his decision. So middlebrooks would be the judge reconsidering his original denial of their motion.
If such reconsideration is not requested at the time of the decision it is barred from an appeal of the final judgement.
Didn’t forget it,
You need a lawyer for that.
Search * Rontan Reply to (DE 251) plaintiffs response to (DE 247)motion for continuance - file not found -
Next Rontan filing includes attorney withdraw 5-1
COVID 3-1
a dog ate the filing 8-1
Another continuance 2-1
Never hear from Rontan or their attorney again 5-2
Correction. The judge explicitly stated in DE 248 that Rontans reply to GDSIs response due on 11-12 is due 11/13/2020. The 11/19 is the courts normal 7 day period. The judge has already set the time for the reply.
The Judge has already stated that once GDSI has responded he will consider the motion “ripe” and may rule with or without additional correspondence from Rontan.
He could rule to hold the hearing on the 17th pending some extraordinary pleading from Rontan.
Imho. We will have a hearing on the 17th unless Rontan presents some very compelling reasons to support a continuance. Right now they can’t even get the medical condition consistent. One filing says pneumonia the other says a sever cough. So your guess is as good as mine. I’m sure someone will have COVID by Tuesday afternoon.
I think it will totally depend on the answer to two questions 1) what testimony will Mr Bolzan give that no other person can attest to. 2) exactly what is the ailment and how long would be required.
If the judge finds the answers inadequate he could deny the extension. Mr. Bolzan would have no material information to offer that is not available through the daughter or other brother.
And no specific health issue or time of recovery can be stated.
How hard is it to get on a computer? He is still running the businesses right?
GDSIs opposition was a sound piece of reading and legal maneuvering.
Gdsi could not at this point be looked upon as “attacking a sick man”
Gdsi presented the argument that the judge could use in refusing the extension based on past behaviors.
At this point it’s a 60/40 against any kind of extension.
The judge could deny the extension for medical reasons pending a response to the issues raised by GDSI. Should the judge find Rontans response to be inadequate the hearing would proceeds as scheduled.
Good PR on the JV
$2m+ in product/extract value.
Extract facility online and producing.
$ECGS
Rontan’s Filing.
1 witness, a CPA.
0 documents/exhibits.
The 17th should be short and sweet.
GDSI. 30 witnesses and Exhibits
It will go something like this;
Gdsi presents evidence and testimony.
Rontan witness says No.
judge asks Rontan witness for evidence to support, witness provides none
judge rules for GDSI.
Repeat for each GDSI claim.
This could end up with a ruling right then and there.
The end.
That’s like 4 posts after 46305. Hmmmm
LOL. It’s funny how he is giving Rontan 14 days to submit documents that they have been ordered to submit on 4 different occasions now.
My guess is it goes something like this, New Rontan council files to leave the case for non payment.
Judge Denies the request stating new council was fully aware of the non-payment issues when they took the case.
New council then files for an extension.
Judge denies again siting the now 2.5 years Rontan has had to gather the information.
Judge rules on the evidence provided by GDSI. Case over.
It’s very good for GDSI. I would be willing to bet that Bill Isaacson is quite pleased with this Docket Entry.
There will be a hearing to determine damages and GDSI has asked that a stipulation/determination be made that the Bolzan’s still hold their shares of Rontan and can legal transfer said Shares without encumbrances.
In all likelihood Rontan will fail to show and/or produce any evidence, it was all evidence that should have already be submitted during discovery. The failure to have already produce this documentation is part of the reason the default judgement was rendered in the first place.
In short. There will be a short hearing in which the judge will hear GDSIs arguments for judgement and Rontans lawyer will show up and either argue for a continuance or will not show up at all. In either case the judge will make a ruling on damages right then and there or take a week or two and then rule. My guess is we get a ruling at the hearing if Rontan fails to show or produce documents. End of story.
What ever you say sparky.
Didn’t think it was possible for someone to rival Mr Starrs. The internet never disappoints.
Rontan was ordered on several occasions to produce the information they would have to produce to contest GDSIs claims in the damages hearing coming up.
It’s called “ Discovery” There are at least 4 instances where the judge ordered Rontan to produce the documents. They refused to do so.
It’s also referenced in DE 244
That’s Balls and Strikes.
If you are going to claim to be calling them. At a minimum try to use the same strike zone as the court to avoid confusion.
Have a blissful day.
Yes. Rontan has yet another opportunity to submit the exact same evidence they have refused to provide for the past 2 years, as noted in this ruling and every evidentiary hearing from day one.
If ya think that amounts to some kind of victory for Rontan. Then obviously that’s your prerogative.
Idk. I would think the ground work has already been done pending the outcome of this ruling. So I’ll look for something by EOY but won’t be surprised if it’s early next year.
Personally i would think that if they have done a lot of the groundwork already. They could have this wrapped up by the end of Nov.
We shall see.
All in all. This was an excellent outcome for GDSI.
Once there is a final ruling with damages.
GDSI can make an offer to Rontan et al to settle the matter. Which is probably exactly what will happen.