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.
Which portion of the litigation brought violates this provision? please do explain exactly how this section is violated.
Good luck.
So like Rontan and their many replaced lawyers, you can not name a single item from your “sticky” that would apply to overturning this litigation by the Superior Court of Brazil?
I didn’t say anything about “proving” it. I simply asked on what grounds you thought Recognition of this judgement could be denied. You keep saying it will be denied or partially denied but give no justification for that opinion.
Thanks for proving the point. None of those issue exist with this case as I stated. “In this case” the superior court will only be examining the process and that it was followed.
Brazilian constitution, on Recognition and the Revised Civil Rules of Brazil, Amended and Adopted 2015/2016. The 2015/16 rules streamline the process and greatly reduces the time from filing to Adjudication.
If there is a specific issue you can identify from the outdated list you provided we could certainly examine those more closely.
No it does not. The only issues the Brazilian court looks at, as far as this case is concerned, is if jurisprudence was followed.
They do not in any way “Judge” the Judge or his decisions.
The only questions the Superior Court Brazil will look at, in this case, is if the legal process was followed.
They do not consider any other aspect, they do not retry the litigation, they do not seek additional evidence, they do not render their own decision, they do not re-examine the merits.
They simply review that the legal process in/of the jurisdiction ( southern district of Florida) in which it was adjudicated were followed.
This is how it works. Sure. Petition for a new judge, which means a mistrial and start all over again. Or. Let the motions play out. Judge denies them and move on.
No PR has ever enhanced the value of any company. So in that respect the answer is No.
DE NOTICE Reset Deadlines as to [224] MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing, [222] MOTION to Set Aside Default Final Judgment and Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Replies due by 7/15/2020. (ls)(per DE #238) (Text entry; no document attached.)
My guess after the 15th the Judge will deny the latest motions and move forward with the damages award.
As far as PRs. What is there to PR about? As far as this case, it’s all in the docket and does not require additional costs for filing 8-Ks. If Bill were to send out a PR stating what is in the Docket he would also have to file an 8-K.
I am looking forward to a PR on the aviation side of things. They should have something pretty soon in regards to PALS. Maybe by the end of the month. I expected it last month but there is this COVID thing so I am sure certification was delayed.
Hope this helps.
It’s a court of law and certain rules must be followed.
BSF didn’t oppose the request for time because it would have taken longer to respond and reply than the delay was requesting. Sometimes the quickest way through an opposing motion is to let it go. Old saying. Never interrupt opposing council when they are digging their own grave.
Fully considered. See DE 206
Have a blissful day.
They had lost the case the moment it was filed.
As clearly stated in GDSIs response
Rontan failed to site any “ relevant case law”.
The Judge chose to allow a “reply” because GDSI addresses “Reconsideration”. Smart move. GDSI council. Notably ( Isaacson) still on the case. Addressed any future attempt by Rontan et al to file a new motion for Reconsideration. Rontans council will now have to address that here and now. Not 6 weeks from now with a new motion.
This is why Isaacson is there.
I have no problem with allowing a “reply” in this circumstance.
As I predicted. GDSI is in possession of numerous emails, phone conversations and text messages that demonstrate that the sworn affidavits are lies and that false statements were made to the court in the Motion to set aside.
Rontan was fully aware of the Judgement and the risk of judgement well before the dates they claim in their motions and in their sworn affidavits.
Can’t wait to read the judges Denial of Rantans motions. Should be quite the read.
This is Rontans motion. They don’t get to “reply” to GDSIs Response unless the Judge orders a hearing and oral arguments, which I seriously doubt.
Rontan has failed to support their motion with a single relevant case study or matter of law by which the Default Judgement can be set aside. Their motion will be summarily denied or outright dismissed IMHO.
Poor Mr Gottlieb is going to read this response, check to see if he has received any payment yet, then withdraw. Just like all the others.
Thanks for the heads up. How many attachments of Emails between council and Rontan et al were there. Rumors had it at 15. 5 for each party?? Or have you seen that part yet? Nothing on Birdie yet. But they are pretty slow sometimes.
43360
Which one. Her first affidavit of lies or the second? One or both are clearly lies.
She disputes her own sworn statement so clearly it’s not indisputable.
Don’t need to read Rontans motion. I read Judges Orders. See DE 205,206, 207 Order of Judgement for Plaintiff.
Which motion and affidavits is the judge to believe. The first one that contradicts their filed motion and admits to knowing their attorney quit and there was a judgement pending prior to the date in the motion they filled? Or the affidavit that tries to change their first sworn statement LOL.
Just wait till you see the response by Plaintiffs council. You seriously think there was no correspondence between Plaintiffs attorney and Rontan et al after their council quit.
Hint: Read the last part of that Order really close. It says contact Defendants and the Brazilian council at these specific email addresses. Guess what. Emails have dates encrypted. Rontans motions are DOA!
Putting lies in a motion do not make them true.
Correct. He has already won the Rontan case. See DE 206/207.
This statement supports the facts on the record. Isaacson ( if in fact the statement is referencing him) “transitioned to a new law firm” not the case. Moving your files from one firm to another is grounds for an extension. Even if you didn’t consider any of the other information.
All Mrs. Bolzan,s affidavit has done is prove that she had correspondence with plaintiff prior to the date they stated in their motion. Therefore they knowingly filled misinformation ( lied to the court).
This is going to be one heck of a response on the 2nd.
The denied order should be an interesting read.
New Rontan et al ambulance chaser withdraws for the case forthwith.
“Transitioned to another firm”. Not left the case/team
Isaacson is still the lead. He just works with Weiss now instead of BSF.
It’s on the OTC site
GDSI now OTCQB Certified! 6/25/2020
Only thing that’s going to happen on the 2nd is we get to read the response by GDSI to Rontans new council. Then we wait a week or two for the judges ruling.
Has anyone seen Gottlieb’s motion to withdraw as council yet?
Mr Gottlieb is going to be very upset when he does not get paid and he finds out they lied to him.
Devastating response coming from GDSI lawyers. This is going to be brutal for Rontan et al.
New DE filed. 229,230 Extension of time requested and granted by/for GDSI to respond to 222, extended to 7/2/20 from 6/19/20
The saga continues.
(DE222)The motion to set aside.
My guess is that BSF will eviscerating this Motion in part if not wholly on the 4th criteria set out in the rule. As so nicely presented by the “ new council” for Rontan.
“”In order to have adefault judgment set aside for excusable neglect there are four factors for the court to consider, (1) the danger of the prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. “”
The judge repeatedly noted in the final judgement that Rontan had failed to follow the courts orders on numerous occasions and had not complied with numerous documents requested. This alone is probably all that one need address to dismiss this order to set aside as (4) is the easiest to document.
Will be an interesting week. Response due 6/19.
The way things have gone. I imagine GDSI wants the Damages ruling in hand for leverage in a settlement. Either way. Still need an attorney for that to happen.
Cha Ching.
Denied! Next?
To be fair. This is probably just a formality so that the judges ruling can be sent to an attorney of record.
Prior to this. Rontan had no representation on record. Now there is an office to send legal documents to other than just the Defendants.
Judges do what judges do. They have complete control.
Since the judge has already mentioned Rontans repeated attempts to delay the court. I am looking for a swift judicial response telling Rontans new council to go pound sand. We shall see how this goes. Time for notice of appeal has already passed so the only reason to file this notice is to try to delay once again.
It shall be interesting to see this part unfold.
Wonder if this new council was smart enough to get paid up front. LOL
Probably nothing as the case was already ruled on. But it’s a judge and sometimes they do funny stuff. But this will be interesting.
Could get anything from the judge telling new council to politely go F off. To let’s hear your argument and then politely telling them to go F off. We shall see.
DE 221, Rontan is trying to insert a new attorney. Shall be interesting to see the courts response to an appearance 60 days after adjudication.
LOL. Notice of appearance 2 months after adjudication. This should get interesting.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
? ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2019
Flight testing and certification took place after 12/31/2019. Would not be in a filing for the FISCAL YEAR ENDED 12/31/2019
LOL. For a hang glider? LOL
That’s some funny shit right there
No idea who that could have been. Shhhhhhh
You mean you are not going to freak out after reading a 10-K that puts everything in writing that you already knew?
The important part is the award of damages, which will give GDSI legal rights to complete the original agreement. Once that’s complete GDSI then has a reported $100m-$130m annual revenue stream from the ongoing operation of Rontan ( Revenue disclosed for 2015 by Rontan). Tack on another $35m-$100m in annual revenues from PALS ( based on Rev from gen 1 1995 in today’s dollars). Appears the OS remains at 643m no increase from the last 10-Q, we shall see where it is with the new Q due in a few weeks.
Just using what we know. EPS would be .15-.30 with a conservative PE of 6 could see $0.90-$1.80 (based on an OS of 700m) rough quickie figures but in the ballpark. Based only on Revenues projected or previously stated no weight given to the dollar amount ($292m) of the “award”.
$GDSI Delgado Delivers .025 pps up 150% winner winner chicken dinner and it’s not done yet.
The conclusion has already been drawn with the ruling on the merits. The findings are in favor of Plaintiff.
The only unknown is the exact dollar value of the Ruling. That will be decided in the awards phase.
Just like you get found guilty of a crime.
Then there is sentencing. Two parts to the same ruling.
Being placed on probation over jail time does not mean you were found innocent or that you won. The state won on the merits and you were sentenced based on their win. Not yours.
No codification will state it’s a “win” layers are smart enough to figure that out on their own.