InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 7
Posts 810
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/13/2005

Re: None

Friday, 09/20/2019 2:56:53 PM

Friday, September 20, 2019 2:56:53 PM

Post# of 50023
For those of you that may need clarification. I am not arguing his opinion on the case. Everyone has an opinion.

I have been trying to point out the errors in his opinion when they are stated as if they are legally grounded.

Both legal teams will do their best to get the verdict they desire. This case if far enough along that it would be surprising to see even a partial summary judgement awarded but it could happen. In a court of law. Anything can happen.

IMO

3.1.11 is very powerful in supporting GDSIs position.

Depositions-

GDSI would have no reason to insist on forcing KPMG to a deposition since that information is already available to them. Rontan would be self serving to have an agreement with KPMG to make sure certain proprietary and “trade secrets” are not released in any of the statements or documents they may supply to the court in testimony. Very common practice and nothing should be supposed or implied by the agreement. It’s in the normal course of litigation just as the original MTD was and the MSJ is now.

Sometimes limited partners will be released under such motions if they can clearly show they are not a party to the litigation. I don’t see this being the case. Again, It’s a court of law. Anything can happen. O.J. walked.

My opinions will always be preceded by notation of IMO. Facts speak for themselves and can’t be changed by opinions mine or anyone else’s.

I sure hope you all are not completely consumed by this litigation. While a settlement would be nice. It’s a one time shot in the arm. The real prize is the HarmAlarm deal and PALS. Stay tuned should be an interesting few months ahead PALS revenue is expect in 2Q 2020. GLTA