The tax issue is not a “legal tactic” it is a discovered malfeasance of the defendant(s).
Leverage to force mediation/settlement can come in any form.
Mediation is done outside the courts and is not bound by any legal standards normally associated with litigation. It is exactly what it says, Mediation, Two sides coming to an agreement on how to resolve an issue and end their dispute. The outcome of mediation is accepted as remedy for the legal proceedings.
Most mediation details and evidences used can be kept sealed since Mediation is not a public forum. This would be very enticing to the Bolzan’s if they intend to keep their financial shenanigans private and away from the Brazilian government and the public eye.
Rontans Motion to seal the records showing the alleged tax fraud was denied. Along with it, their MSJ was denied. They were given a very short period of time to refile/submit their exhibits. They did not submit the documents detailed in the motion to seal. As instructed, they filed the exhibits referenced in their MSJ less the 3 documents in question from the motion to seal.
As is the case with all motions denied or dismissed without prejudice a remedy is afforded and once take the issues is moot (no longer legally relevant)
Motions decided without prejudice and remedied:
GDSIs original complaint:
Original complaint is retained in its entirety and contained within the First Amended complaint, ( not “tossed”) amended to resolve the issues concerning the granting of Rontans MTD without prejudice. MTD is now moot.
Rontans motion to seal and MSJ denied without prejudice:
Motion to seal has not been amended.
MSJ was submitted and exhibits were entered without the 3 crucial exhibits that were the subject of the motion to seal and noted in the judges order to deny the original MSJ that was incorporated in the ruling to deny the motion to seal. (See ruling 9/27/19)
Rontan in their MSJs rely heavily on 10.1 of the SPA which deals with amendments to the SPA. Section 3 of the SPA was never amended to eliminate GDSIs rights to waive any provision of section 3 (Conditions) as spelled out in 3.1.11. GDSI never amended the SPA it simply exercised its rights under 3.1.11.
Defendants can not prevail in justifying their action by siting information that was not know to them when they performed the alleged action. IE Rontan can’t claim they breached the contract because funding was not available to GDSI even if the claim is true because the breach occurred without that knowledge and thus is not an affirmative defense for such actions.
( I can’t claim I shot a man because he shot my neighbor if I didn’t know he shot my neighbor before I shot him)
Most if not all of Rontans MSJ and their reply/response to the FAC relies on an Affirmative defense which I think will be denied since Rontan did not know the information before acting. And section 10.1 of the SPA which I have already addressed.
IMVHO- Mediation will take place 11-7-2019. No trial. Bolzan’s can’t afford it.
