Easy sparky, once again you missed the point, you questioned the FACT that gdsi had legal counsel in brazil when i stated they did....you were adamant the only legal rep was Paulo Tedesco which i again clarified was not the legal team i was referring to....again i stated to phone bill directly to get your FACTS as i do therefore knew there was a legal team in brazil.....FACTS matter not opinions and "opinions based on facts" do not exist.....in short gdsi has had a legal team in Brazil for sometime proceeding with collections and no it is not Paulo Tedesco.....to also clarify GDSI hires the legal firm in Brazil not parabellum and BSF as you state if they where to do so the legal firm would be representing them jointly and not gdsi and therefore parabellum and BSF would be liable for the fees.... geez louise, smh and lmfao......
BTW, here is another tidbit of info directly from the horses mouth, it is their OPINION that the appeals court may not even hear the case to resolve default judgement on non participation. Bear in mind an appeal has not been filed it is only pending, it may never happen......
Dog, it is public information, their counsel they hired was for the purpose of researching the tax liabilities. In fact, one of their attorneys testified at the evidence hearing. His name is Paulo Tedesco. His examination began on page 98 of the transcript. Mr. Tedesco has the equivalent of a masters degree in tax and he specializes in tax. He is is not a litigator. So unless you talk to Bill and know the name of the attorney they hired, it is not of public record. BTW, Mattos Filho is a phenomenal law firm. Mr. Tedesco is the only lawyer who testified at the evidence hearing. So maybe I'm ahead of Bill. BTW, it is Parabellum and BSF that are hiring the law firms in Brazil. Not Bill