-Top Gainer - DD// -

[deet49]

if you've read the 92 page complaint<<<

there are 3 Non-parties

9. AZCUB@, a nonparty to this case, is an alter ego of the Cub@n Government.
AZCUB@ is a state-run monopoly that “possesses”, “manages”, “uses” or “holds an interest in”
all of Cub@’s sugar growing land, including land confiscated from Francisco.

10. Empresa Terminales Mambisas de la Habana (“Mambisas”), a nonparty to this
case, is an alter ego of the Cub@n Government. Mambisas presently “possesses”, “manages”,
“uses” or “holds an interest in” all of Cub@’s ports, including the Port of Guayabal.

11. Corporación Azucarera del Perú, S.A. (“Coazucar”), a nonparty to this case, is a
Peruvian sugar company. Coazucar served as consignee for a shipment of Francisco-grown sugar
exported from the Port of Guayabal to ASR’s refinery in London, United Kingdom.

in the 92 page complaint they point out that 'non parties' are 'traffickers' too
so have they not been named in the suit?

k' the big question where did Frazcisco get the evidence???
I think it was from the three mentioned above
either they helped or we have at least 3 more suits ahead

92 page complaint FRAZcisco VS ASR Group International INC.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=163727453

GLTA