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.
Wow. Sounds exactly like every single company that was ever started at one point or time. Google, Facebook, Apple. All were seconds from Bankruptcy at various points in their early history.
GDSI has more store front than Apple when it got started. Give it a rest.
All the Judge cares about is the legal aspect of the case. He is uninterested in other people’s personal opinions of their business dealings and certainly not from a message board.
Rontans “Affirmative Defense” is crap. Summarily defanged in the GDSI response. You can’t claim a wrong even if there was one if you had no knowledge of it at the time you took action. Besides the remedy would have been a lawsuit. Not a unilateral withdraw from the engagement.
As to the financial standing aspect. There is nothing in that SPA that required any sum of cash at all to be exchanged at the time of closing. Zero, Nada. El zippo! This alone ruins Rontans stated grounds for the Affirmative Defense ploy.
The only reason it was raised was to preserve its use later on should something come to light, AD must be asserted at the very beginning of a litigation or it is lost.
GLTA. Your favorite Court “Monitor”. Whatever that is.
Yeah! You could tell, especially when he issued a Default Judgement in favor of the “fraudster”.
Makes perfect sense. Judges do it all the time.
Glad there is someone here that is melded to the Judge and knows his every thought and feeling.
So we are back to the Bolzan’s throwing themselves on the ground, kicking and screaming till they get their way.
Great response.
LOL. Ok, Just ignore the fact that the judgement has nothing to do with the Incidental Damages.
Judgement stands, Specific Performance will stand.
Incidental Damages are a separate issue that can be challenged or modified and have zero to do with the Judgement itself.
The court does not determine the purchase price, that’s in the SPA. The court only determines “Incidental Damages” and what that offset will be. Has nothing at all to do with the “Specific Performance” remedy for the breach of contract which has already been adjudicated in GDSIs favor ( Default Judgement).
Conflating the two is a mistake.
The judge could decide no award on Incidental Damages, Specific Performance would still be enforced. There is no debate on the remedy for the Default Judgement for Breach, the remedy sought was Specific Performance. Incidental Damages to Specific Performance is a separate issue.
There is no monetization to specific performance.
The Default judgement already establishes the remedy of specific performance. It is not a monetary judgement as Specific Performance is not Damages.
There ya go. The ever shifting narrative LOL.
So Rantans only response now is to throw themselves down on the floor and kick and scream till GDSI goes away. ????
You seem to be confusing the award of “Incidental Damages” with the already entered judgement for “Specific performance” two different issues.
Default Judgement already carries the award of Specific Performance ( the conveyance of ownership via share exchange as per the SPA).
Incidental Damages for the unpaid tax liability is a separate issue. ($292m )
Not sure where the “Bust” is, GDSI has already won judgement on the ownership factors. I guess as far as that goes we agree. GDSI is the owner of a $128m yearly revenue generating enterprise.
There are other factors.
HA/PALS is another and probably worth more overall.
The $1.09 is the value to GDSI of Rontan.
GL. $GDSI
Price estimate for GDSI after Award ruling.
From earlier Filings, Rontan had annual earnings of $128m.
Using an estimate of 700m shares of GDSI stock outstanding (actual is about 650m at the moment) that gives you an EP of $0.18 per share.
Since Rontan is in a repayment plan with the Brazilian BK court at the moment we can use a very low P/E of 6 to give a conservative estimated pps going forward in the $1.05-$1.15 range.
If “Specific Performance” is the remedy then GDSI would take control of 100% of Rontan.
My guess would be that all monetary exchanges would be negotiated out to zero since the Bolzan’s would otherwise be required to repay any monies taken since 2015/16
This is simply an educated guess based on the facts presented in the legal documents associated with this litigation. Notice that this does not include any of the $292m in Incidental damages being asked for because that is monies owed to the Brazilian government for back taxes.
The key point of the litigation is already decided in the Default ruling and Specific performance ( ownership of Rontan)
The majority of the $292m is to pay the liabilities for back taxes not disclosed prior to the signing of and in violation of the SPA. These are not compensatory damages so they add no value to the overall transaction. Using the numbers in the GDSI filings I am not convinced the full $292m will be awarded. I think it will probably be in the $170m-$190m range. I’m sure the discrepancy will be clear when the final ruling comes out.
There could be some damages awarded for lost revenue since 2016, that’s something the judge will have to decide going forward. This would be in addition to any “Incidental Damages”
GLTA. $GDSI
Million Dollar Bill DelGetOro brings riches to his investors.
GDSI up 100% last 12 months
SHMP up 110% in the last 60 days
Roll with the Gold standard in OTC Mr Million Dollar Bill!
GLTA
Hmmmm. Wonder why that was never raised in their defense? Probably because it was not relevant to the consummation of the SPA. The price and number of shares exchanged could have been adjusted to reflect the price as agreed. Very common practice in acquisitions and RMs.
Share price was in the .40-.95 range during the time of the SPA before Rontan breached.
Backed out?? When you back out you send a letter stating your position and reasons for withdrawing from the process. Rontan didn’t do that. Rontan, as has been determined by the court, breached the contract.
LOL. Many may remember QBID or CMKX. CMKX said there were 600b OS. Court documents years later showed it was actually 1.2-1.6t yes trillion, It went from .0001 to .0012. QBID the summer before had gone from .0001 to .03 with an OS of 70b in about 4 months. 8b ain’t nothing but a number. There are many many more. Those are just the most extreme numbers I recall over the years. Several in the 2-20b range with similar results.
That’s what was reported. Later court filings showed it was actually 1.2t - 1.6t.
Either way. It still moved easier than this thing.
CM had 1.2t and moved faster than this. This only has 8b.
On the damages maybe a 10-20% but then they would have to provide evidence that they have refused to provide for the past 12 months.
On setting aside the judgement. Next to ZERO since they still have not provided the information they were ordered to provide.
Judge Brannon was already considering and had written an opinion to Judge Middlebrooks to consider a Default Judgement before Osario withdrew because of their refusal to comply with the courts orders. So far Rontan et al is trying to act like the only thing they did was miss this one event. The Judgement was not due to the one event as was made clear in Judge Middlebrooks order. It was an accumulation of all the events. This one just made it a lot easier. I see nothing in the Rontan filings that even tries addresses the other material deficiencies that led to the Default Judgement.
DE 243 yet another iteration of Daniela Bolzan’s re-re-remembered sworn affidavit NOTARIZED! And “fully executed” So now we know this one is the truth.
There is also one other item that is getting glossed over. All documents are transmitted in both English and Portuguese to all parties, as per the courts orders.
Just because the Bolzan’s only gave the English copy to the new attorney does not mean that was the only ones sent or received.
It’s quite a stretch to believe that suddenly after 15 months that there is somehow a breakdown of communication over a language barrier.
They are not practicing law in Florida, they are in Brazil. Read the Definition provided from the very source you have used several times. It says nothing about practicing law in the jurisdiction or appearing before the court. It say
“ or represents a party and is so acknowledged by the court.”
It does not say represents a party in the court, in this proceeding or appears in the court.
Judge Middlebrooks has Acknowledged Brazilian Counsel.
Brazilian Counsel represents Rontan ( a party) in Brazil.
By definition Brazilian Counsel is counsel of record. As such Brazilian Counsel has been noticed by the court and opposing counsel throughout the litigation.
Maybe someone can explain how an attorney not on the record is entitled to be noticed?
Pretty sure that violate a whole host of Rules.
Hey. Maybe that will be Rontan’s ticket out of this when it comes to Recognition. Or maybe the Brazilian Counsel IS an attorney of record after all.
Look at that. 35 posts on this alone. Might be a record for the board.
Good talk.
I did a quick chart on 5 of his listed Tickers that were still for sale ( No RM). Every one of them went up 5x-20x just on the granting of the Custodianship. That seems pretty immediate to me and certainly not a year wait.
Very nice post if you are planning to “ appear” before the court.
I don’t believe Rontan’s Brazilian Counsel is planning to appear.
They do however “represent” a party before the court in other matters not before the court, namely their clients Brazilian interests and they have been “Acknowledged” by the court as evidenced by Judge Middlebrooks order that “Brazilian Counsel be noticed” Judges don’t just arbitrarily order notices be sent to third party attorneys that are not on the record. Pretty sure that would violate a civil rule of procedure or two.
By definition, Brazilian Counsel is an Attorney of Record for Rontan.
There may be a “Local rule” that governs this that I have not found yet and may designate such counsel by a different legal term. If anyone else has found it feel free to post it.
Brazilian Counsel for Rontan is not appearing before this court so this rule does not apply.
ATTORNEY OF RECORD
THELAW.COM LAW DICTIONARY & BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 2ND ED.
The attorney who has appeared in court
OR
REPRESENTS A PARTY AND IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE COURT
They represent Rontan and have been “acknowledged” by the court as evidenced by Judge Middlebrooks instructing BSF to notice ( send documents) to “ Brazilian Counsel”
Judge does not order documents sent to other attorneys arbitrarily Rontan’s “Brazilian Counsel” is acknowledged by this action and is a representative of Rontan’s.
Re: your PM. I got it. I was surprised it required a response. LOL.
Bill will take care of all of that in the end.
An appeal would not sow the process of collection simply by filing.
They would have to have their appeal be accepted to be heard and then request the court grant relief from the original Order. Such relief is generally not granted unless there is an obvious expectation of success.
Most decision are appealable at this point in the process.
The question is, will the appeals court hear the appeal.
Your own quote.
or by being so designated or appointed by the court.
He is not bringing a case there. And he does not practice in Florida. Neither of these criteria need be satisfied to be an Attorney of Record. Two requirements.
Represent a party and are ACKNOWLEDGED by the court.
Instructing opposing council to notice another attorney is acknowledgement.
Don’t know why this is somehow important but ........
Judge Middlebrooks.
And
Magistrate Judge Brannon.
ATTORNEY OF RECORD
THELAW.COM LAW DICTIONARY & BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 2ND ED.
The attorney who has appeared in court
OR
represents a party and is so acknowledged by the court.
They represent Rontan and have been acknowledged by the court as evidenced by Judge Middlebrooks instructing BSF to notice ( send documents) to “ Brazilian Counsel”
Nice analogy. But it is wrong. An attorney of Record does not require appearance. My personal attorney is an attorney of Record if I instruct the court to deliver documents to them directly.
Attorney of record:
The attorney who has appeared in court
OR
represents a party and is so acknowledged by the court.
He would not be receiving legal documents unless he were “on the record” as an attorney for the Defendants who is entitled to receive such documents directly. He IS an attorney OF record for defendants. He is the Defendants “Brazilian Counsel” as stated in the documents.
My misuse of Council v counsel does not change the facts in evidence or the nature of the statement. res ipsa loquitur.
He seems to rule pretty quickly on these type of motions. Think the longest delay I recall was 15days.
Expect something any time between now and eom. I think there is even an instance where he ruled the following day. We shall see.
As noted in 6. Rontans “Brazilian Council” (from 6. “she was advised by the company’s local Brazilianattorney, Marcelo Siqueriaes Silva,”)
She is being advised by local Brazilian Council. Who was sent all legal documents since the litigation began. This one line alone is fatal to their defenses.
The legal document were indeed sent to Rontan’s local council of record. Once again Rontan shoots themselves in the foot.
At the end of every document of record filed by BSF. Is the following:
document was served by email upon the following:
Rontan
c/o Daniela Bolzan
Rod. Sp 127, km 114,5,
Tatui, Sao Paulo, Brasil
Email: dbolzan@rontan.com.br Telephone: +55(15) 3205-9500
Jose Bolzan
Rod. Sp 127, km 114,5,
Tatui, Sao Paulo, Brasil
Email: jcbolzan@rontan.com.br Telephone: +55(15) 3205-9500
Joao Bolzan
Rod. Sp 127, km 114,5,
Tatui, Sao Paulo, Brasil
Email: jabolzan@rontan.com.br Telephone: +55(15) 3205-9500
Brazilian Counsel
c/o Marcelo Siqueira E Silva
Rua Francisco Neves,
159, Sorocaba, Parque Campolim, Brasil Email: marcelo.siqueiraesilva@uol.com.br Telephone: +55(15) 3233-2242
Selective doesn’t work with me.
Using only one side of a litigation to support a narrative will not be supported by the superior court of Brazil during Recognition. It will be a relatively short process.
Quote :
“The Superior Court Brazil does not make any judgements on Merit or judicial discretion, only that the process was followed. If Middlebrooks rules that proper notice was given that is all that will matter because it was within the scope of the process. “
So I said exactly that, The Judge ( Judge Middlebrooks) will decide if proper notice was given. Not the Brazilian Courts. This is not a function of Recognition. Recognition only looks to see if Middlebrooks followed the process which has been constantly done throughout this litigation.
That is not the evidence of record. Bolzan’s statements ( affidavits) are disproved by direct evidence to the contrary of their statements.
All dates were set prior to the withdrawal of Osorio so claiming they didn’t know the dates is complete hog wash.
No grounds here that can even be considered during the “Recognition” anyway. The Superior Court Brazil does not make any judgements on Merit or judicial discretion, only that the process was followed. If Middlebrooks rules that proper notice was given that is all that will matter because it was within the scope of the process.
I reject your nonsensical interpretation of my post. The facts in evidence disprove all of your assertions.
Do your DD and read all the filings. They are very enlightening.
Have a blissful day
Incorrect. All filings and notices were made in a timely manner. That’s why good law firms keep correspondents and replies.
From the exhibits:
Brazilian Counsel
c/o Marcelo Siqueira E Silva
Rua Francisco Neves,
159, Sorocaba, Parque Campolim, Brasil Email: marcelo.siqueiraesilva@uol.com.br Telephone: +55(15) 3233-2242
OMG!! Is right. I guess you missed the exhibits filled by GDSI showing all documents filled in both English and Portuguese that were sent to Bolzan’s & their Brazilian Council. And that Osario Explained the consequences to his leaving the case as he was instructed to do by the judges order before he was allowed to withdraw.
The amount of an award is not under scrutiny under any of the provisions of Recognition.
Even if it were it would fail for this reason alone. If they didn’t want to be subject to an “ excessive judgement” they should have paid their tax bill.
Provide any link to any information that demonstrates that GDSI has violated any provision of the Brazilian Recognition Process.
To date, all your stickies/quotes or re-quotes have been of the Rules governing Recognition in Brazil.
None have stated a fact or opinion as to what exactly GDSI May have done to violate any of those provisions.
Quote:
“Actually, I have and many times. It doesn't take a rocket science to figure out what is in writing.
How many links to I have to provide so people can do their own DD? “
You highlight the provisions of the law. I asked you to share in what way these provisions were violated which you have not done in any of the posts you asked me to read back through.
You simply keep repeating the same thing without providing a single instance by which the provision would apply.
Example. It is illegal to speed. (A provision/law/rule)
Repeating the provision over and over does not make anyone guilty of speeding.