It doesn't seem that Rontan's lawyer understands that the court already ruled that GDSI can ask for specific performance and incidental damages. As you know, his argument is a derivative conditions precedent argument based on a waiver argument which once again seems that the lawyer truly doesn't understand the facts of this case. Waiver is an affirmative defense which has zero relevance on damages but only has relevance to liability. Liability has already been established through the default judgment. He can not reargue liability. I would also note he 100% concedes the real estate liens.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
