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.
There is no opposition.
Read the filing.
FAKE NEWS!
Rontan’s council did not object to the status conference but an agreement could not be reached on the stipulation of current ownership of Rontan
“Counsel for GDSI certifies that he has conferred with counsel for the Defendants in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion. Defendants counsel indicated that he has no objection to GDSI’s request for a status conference. There is no agreement as to GDSI’s requests for stipulations pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16.”
Any statement to Rontan having an avenue of “opposition” to this motion is FAKE NEWS”
More, NOT FAKE NEWS.
Dated: October 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted, PAUL WEISS RIFKIND, WHARTON & BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP GARRISON LLP William A. Isaacson, Esq. still representing GDSI, contrary to statements previously posted to these boards.
Ohhh look, NOT FAKE NEWS,
DE 244. Procedural motion for Status conference. Wonder who said that.
Rontan had many opportunities to submit documents to support a defense of damages during discovery. They proceeded to ignore court orders and failed to produce any required documents or accounting. Pretty much the reasons the Judge issued the default judgement in the first place as noted in his final order for judgement. The default judgement encompasses all these issues in the ruling, it was not only because Rontan failed to retain new council.
IMO there is maybe a 5-10% chance the hearing is allowed, the hearing would require Rontan to provide all the documentation that they have already been ordered to provide and failed to do. IMO there is zero chance the default judgement is set aside.
I know what it looks like to me, it’s probably a procedural motion, Give it a few days, with the recent court rulings concerning PACER it may take longer than usual.
GDSI is not asking for money from the bro’s.
30 days!
No he didn’t. He said Isaacson was still our Attorney.
Public Policy.....Bolzan’s did not honor their obligations to the signed contract. Public Policy judgement for GDSI.
Sovereignty. ......No issue of GDSI planing to move the company or remove someones allegiance to Brazil. So another finding in GDSIs favor. ( this issue is usually addressed in child custody matters)
Lastly. Human condition.... LOL. This is two corporations in a legal dispute. There is no “ Human condition” to address. Corporations are not humans.
I’ll reconsider any of these if there is one single corporate judgement that you can site from the Brazilian Superior Court docket or journal that references a single one of these issues.
This is complete fantasy, there is no grounds or precedence for such an assumption.
Good thing it’s Bill Isaacson by name representing GDSI and not just BSF and their gaggle of lawyers. Bill and Karen made BSF the superior litigation firm it was. Now that moves to Weiss.
But you know that. So not sure what relevance this article has unless you are just assuming most people will not read it.
LOL. the role of judges is not the same everywhere else as it is in the US.
But thanks for agreeing with what I actually said. Judges decide what the law says. Not lawyers.
Lawyers gibberish.
Not a sitting Judge one signed on to that cover letter.
Like I Stated. I’ll take the Civil code and Courts Precedence over a lawyers blogs.
That would more likely be a partnership before competition. IMO
Your stickie is one lawyers opinion. What I have stated is the ruling and decisions of the court (judges).
Lawyers don’t decide law, Judges do. I’ll go with what the judges have said and their past practice as my guide. Not some lawyer doing blog posts.
The process and timing for a judgement in Brazil was revised and amended in 2015 enacted 2016. While this gives you a nice history, the amended civil code provides a much faster process from initiation to execution.
That’s exactly my point.
That’s what I was saying, if it’s not quoted it’s essentially delisted with out the legal process. I was summarizing the effect. Either way if it is not quoted DL taking custodianship of that tick is worthless till well after the custodianship has terminated.
Not sure that makes it profitable for DL to risk his money and time on basically reinstatement and RM which would be the new pops for a custodianship.
It’s 2 years out for enforcement and I have seen a lot of these rules later get scrapped rescinded before enforcement was implemented.
Will be interesting to see how this works out.
Actually it looks like it does, non reporting stocks will be delisted rather than be allowed to continue trading in a delinquent status. That would indicate to me that there will not be entities to gain custodianship of to begin with.
That’s my take on the rule. Maybe someone has a more detailed analysis.
How a judgement works in the real world AND What happens next IMHO.
First there is a finding (breach in this case) Which has been decided in GDSIs favor in this litigation default judgement was entered.
Then there is the awarding of damages, currently under consideration.
Once the award is rendered the case is over as far as this litigation is concerned.
Manner and method of Collection for damages awarded by a court is not a matter that is immediately addressed by the court in an order unless it is argued at the time of litigation. GDSI has made no such request at this time.
This judge will not make an order for collection of the judgement with his awards ruling.
GDSI would have to make demand for payment or settlement of the award and a reasonable amount of time would have to pass before any court would consider legal remedies to resolve the collection of the award judgement. That’s the law. That’s how it works in real life.
After looking over the filings associated with the award. My opinion is that the final judgement will come in between $165m and $195m. There are some assumptions made in the pleadings which while they are reasonable are probably not supported from a legal stand point.
Once the award is rendered my opinion is that GDSI will make the Bolzan’s an offer that they can not refuse, which would mean an adjustment to the award judgement, in a private settlement.
The very old and frail Bolzan’s risk having all their financial misdeeds brought to light in a civil procedure in a Brazilian court which would then lead to a stay in the luxurious Brazilian jail system.
IMO once the US court hands down the ruling for the award the Bolzan’s will settle the matter. NO involvement of the state department. NO Superior court of Brazil, NO recognition proceeding Just GDSI et al and Rontan et al, sitting in a conference room working out the details.
In the mean time. PALS contracts with FedEx, UPS, Prime, GS, Boeing, Airbus, Raytheon (Beach) or whatever they are calling themselves now and a slew of other aircraft manufacturers will come out. GDSI will sell or lease the rights to the technology so they only need to build one working unit. Most inventors do no manufacture their own inventions they sell the rights to someone else and collect a royalty.
GLTA $GDSI
Secondly what you are espousing here is NOT a “restraining order”
Wrong. The legal system does not work that way.
This is so far off base there is no need to further explain. It’s simply not a legal option.
More than willing to admit I’m wrong if you can link a single example of this ever being done.
Have a wonderful weekend.
This again...............
You file Injunctions against Corporations not “restraining orders” and neither would be a legal remedy for this matter to begin with.
The remedy would be a seizure of assets ( bank accounts) Rontan holds no US banking accounts so that to would be useless.
Even if a restraining order of some kind were issued the order would be to stop doing business with Rontan which results in exactly zero dollars recovered. So again. Not a viable remedy even if it were done.
You can not take relief against non party company C for a dispute between companies A and B.
Awesome question.
Because it’s doubled in a year if you traded it right it’s Tripled.
That’s a 100% return on your investment, My bank is only offering 1.05% apr on my savings. 100% is much better.
After the award ruling and/or settlement, regardless if it’s 90days ( the average time for the Superior Court of Brazil to affirm a default foreign judgement as reported in the courts official record)
-or-
A “very long road” of 2-5 years, the end result is a book value of$0.38 and an EPS of $0.1643 ( based on Rontan’s official revenue for 2015 of $115m taken from the court filings)
That’s 800% more from today’s pps or 1600% from a year ago.
For 100% apr I’ll hold for a very long time.
$GDSI
LOL. I knew it. Pps is up and sure enough. PB has a post. Thanks PB.
I wouldn’t change it for these Jamokes. Those here who are familiar with Lazar know what it is and this is a Lazar room. Not a stock room. The bashers can pissoff as far as I’m concerned.
LOL. No it’s not. Assuming the video was produced by the company and not a private individual.
The information is not unavailable to the general public. Anyone can go see that facility.
Besides. The video and the PR were all done while markets were closed so that alone avoids any conflicts.
I don’t think so. I would have to read it again but I believe they are commenting that he has been running Custodian Ventures LLC since 2018. Not XMET.
Lazar States that “the company has issued 8.3b shares ................ in excess of its Authorized shares of 75m.........”.
The 8.3b is in no way shorted. Could there be additional shares outside the 8.3b that are shorted? Sure. This does not change the facts, The company ISSUED 8.3b shares, 8.2b more than its stated Authorized of 75m.
Let Lazar fix this self inflicted wound and then worry about any supposed “naked short”.
If a company with 1.2trillion, yes with a T, can go from .0001 to .0012. Then certainly 8.3b can.
That’s the best you can do, your glider mounted Go pro? GS and FedEx have been using Gary’s system for years, unlike motorized gliders, real aircraft require periodic upgrades to their systems.
Please do show us the portion of the filing to support your claim of “Toxic financing”.
I think Uber and the Motorized Hang Glider we’re unavailable.
LOL. A “ Pilot” who does not know that ground testing is always done first with anything aviation.
Brilliant analysis.
I don’t think they are concerned at all. Judges don’t like to lose a decision on appeal any more than a litigant. Judges generally take the time to find supporting case law to support their decisions.
I doubt very much that there is any discussion between BSF and The Judge. That would be inappropriate.
Generally the only discussions with the judge would be for clarifications of an order or something along those lines. They would not cross over to specifics about the case.
That’s what the Motions,Replies and Responses are for.
GLTA. $GDSI
Default judgement was already granted. DE 206 as posted.
Bolzan’s are attempting to have the judge reconsider.
The order stands until something happens to reverse it. There is a 0.5% chance it is reversed. So far the Bolzan’s have provided no legal grounds to revers the order.
The Bolzan’s have not remedied any of the grounds for which the order was granted there will be no “set aside” IMHO.
They may succeed in getting to be heard on the issue of incidental damages ( 20%-30% chance imho) This would require them to produce all the documents they failed to produce already which led, in part, to the default judgement in the first place.
So yes. The judge already ruled on the matter. All that remains is damages incidental to the Default Judgement and Specific Performance.
Specific Performance is the remedy for the default Judgement.
Incidental Damages is the offset of undisclosed liabilities to Specific Performance ( execution of the contract/SPA).
Specific Performance is an ordering of a party to execute an agreement as written in a contract ( the SPA).
In this case. It is the ordering of Rontan to fully execute the contract they agreed to. Then offset by the Incidental damages award ( which has not been fully adjudicated)
GL
DE 206 : ORDER granting 193 Motion for Default Judgement
I know this one is hard to miss on the docket.
Judge Middlebrooks made a decision. Again. I know this is hard to find on the docket.
LOL. Answers your own question.
Brilliant!
Leaving out the easiest, quickest and most common resolution. Once the court renders the final Award $$. All that needs to happen is for Bill to make the brothers a deal they can’t resist.
Settlement means no need for Brazilian courts.
This will be over 30-60 days after the ruling if not sooner.
See ya on the other side $GDSI
In a garage no employees zero revenue. No BOD, No investors and IBM was their competition.
In a dorm room, zero revenue, no board of directors, no investors, no employees.
Sure they were teaming with enthusiasm and the future was bright at that point.
You missed the point.
The same would have been said comparing Those companies to IBM AT&T or the NYTimes at the time.