Replies to post #22104 on UnderSea Recovery Corporation (UNDR)

[gumzsa]

.0091 nice update!!!

[Farmboynate]

Now the company needs to put out a PR ASAP and let the SEC know whats going on so they don't halt the stock

[captain53]

Weeeeee;-)

[madras50]

thank you Emily. saw your post on BB board that got me into this.

[kex0414]

It's been stickied.

[Guardian]

Thanks do you think will get an official or from company?

[mick]

Wow judgement finally agreed on ADDITIONAL UP; $UNDR Courtesy from Emily THANK YOU,

ORDER granting Motion for Default Judgment and Motion for Default Judgment.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of UnderSea as follows: (1) damages for breach of contract in the amount of $10,000,000;

(2) pre-judgment interest in the amount of $5,824,388.97; and

(3) attorneys fees and expenses in the amount of $128,391.26.

Since there are no further claims or issues remaining,
the Clerk is further DIRECTED to close this case.

Signed by Judge Steven D. Grimberg on 06/03/2021.


=================================================================

NEW FILING 04-13-2021]YESTERDAY UnderSea Recovery Corporation (UNDR)'

UPDATE JUDGEMENT; 05-04-2021
I WILL STICKY FER YA YA YA EMILY 'UnderSea Recovery Corporation (UNDR)'


To all... READ THIS AFFIDAVIT of Herbert Leeming (CEO of UNDR) that
was filed with the court last Wednesday (28 Apr 2021):

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/K3RRXXI/UnderSea_Recovery_Corporation_v_Madero_Holding_SA_de_CV__gandce-19-00286__0043.1.pdf

Herbert explains all the addendums that were submitted as additional evidence. On page 9, he states the following:

"In summary, the four total projects were conservatively estimated
to be valued at $400,000,000. Of this, Undersea Recovery would have netted approximately $100,000.000."

That was when Madero was going to take over the exploration and
recovery operations.

Now it will be Undersea Recovery that will be overseeing the
exploration and recovery operations,
along with valued partnerships they have been cultivating for almost
10 years.

How much do you think your shares will be worth in a couple years???
ans;
i may not live dat long


The company has patiently put together this lawsuit
and are following the judge's instructions to the letter.

They have everything in their world riding on this judgment so I
ask that all of you please find some patience
and understanding that Undersea Recovery is really doing everything
in their power to win this lawsuit.

Winning it is the most important thing so if it takes several more days,

weeks for the judge to review the 100+ pages of requested evidence,
let it happen.





===================================================================
NEW FILING YESTERDAY - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

UNDERSEA RECOVERY
CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
MADERO HOLDING, S.A. de C.V., Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-00286-SDG

UNDERSEA RECOVERY CORPORATION’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

UnderSea Recovery Corp. (“UnderSea”), Plaintiff in the above action,
submits the following for the Court’s consideration during the evidentiary hearing scheduled for April 14, 2021.

I. EFFECT OF DEFAULT
Defendant Madero Holding, by its default, has admitted Plaintiff UnderSea Recovery Corporation’s well-pleaded allegations in the complaint. Maus v. Ennis 513 Fed. Appx. 872, 880, 2013 WL 1150140,

at *6 (11th Cir. 2013) (“After a default is entered against a defendant, he is deemed to have admitted the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded factual allegations, and on appeal, he is barred from contesting those facts.

Thus, ‘[a] default judgment is unassailable on the merits,
but only so far as it is supported by well-pleaded allegations.’” (quoting Eagle Hosp.

Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009)). Because all well-pleaded allegations set forth in the Complaint are admitted, UnderSea has established
(1) the existence of a valid contract binding Plaintiff and Madero,

(2) Plaintiff’s performance under the contract,

(3) Madero’s nonperformance under the contract, and

(4) damages suffered by UnderSea as a result of Madero’s nonperformance.

II. PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
In the “Notice Setting Evidentiary Hearing” filed February 18, 2021,
the Court expressed concern that in its complaint UnderSea seeks prejudgment interest of 1.5 percent pursuant to O.C.G.A. §7-4-16,

but now is seeking prejudgment interest pursuant to O.C.G.A. §7-4-2 which provides for a 7 per cent rate.

O.C.G.A. §7-4-16 provides for a prejudgment interest rate of 1.5 percent per month
(effectively, 18 per cent annually)3,

but this statute applies only to past due debts arising from commercial accounts, not contracts. Noons v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 307 Ga. App. 351 (705 S.E. 2d 166) (2010).

Where a contract specified no rate of interest and complaint merely prayed for “interest” without specifying rate thereof, prejudgment interest only at the applicable “legal rate” of seven percent was authorized pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 7-4-2(a)(1).

Gold Kist Peanuts v. Alberson, 178 Ga. App. 253 (342 S.E. 2d 694) (1986). As this
Court stated in SEC v. Price, 108 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (N.D. Ga. 2015):

Georgia law provides that a party recovering money damages is
entitled
to prejudgment interest if the amount recovered is liquidated.
O.C.G.A.
§7-4-15; Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 362 (11th Cir. 1987).

A
debt is liquidated when it is certain how much is due and when it is due. Dalcor Mgmt. v. Sewer Rooter, Inc., 205 Ga. App. 681,
(423 S.E.2d
419, 421 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)
… Where a contract does not specify an
interest rate, "pre-judgment interest accrues from the date of demand
at
a rate of 7 percent per annum."

Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 753 3 Am. Aluminum Prods. Co. v. Binswanger Glass Co., 194 Ga. App. 703, Hn 6., (391 S.E. 2d) (1990) (citing Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v.
Strickle Props., 861 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1988)) ... 108 F.Supp.3d at 1348.

Because UnderSea discovered its error in demanding in the complaint
the commercial open account rate of 1-1/2 per cent per month
(18 percent per year),
it is therefore conceding that it is only entitled to 7 percent interest, as provided in O.C.G.A. §7-4-2(a). See S. Water Techs. v. Kile, 224 Ga. App. 717, 720 (481 S.E. 2d 826) (1997).

Since Undersea is not seeking to increase its prejudgment interest damages, it should not be required to amend its complaint,
since the Defendant could not be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s seeking a lesser amount of damages than sought in its compliant.

Nor, would the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c) be violated since the judgment would not exceed in amount,
what is demanded in the pleadings, but would actually be less.

III. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
UnderSea believes that it is clearly entitled to recover its costs
of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-1. It has been held that Case 1:19-cv-00286-SDG Document 39 Filed 04/13/21
attorneys’ fees of 15 percent pursuant to O.C.G.A. §13-1-11 are reasonable.

“A plaintiff who is entitled to summary judgment on a document establishing 'evidence of indebtedness' within the meaning of O.C.G.A.

§13-1-11(a) is also entitled to a judgment for attorneys'
fees thereon." Dalcor Management v. Sewer Rooter,
205 Ga. App. 681 (423 S.E. 2d 419) (1992) citing Woods v. Gen. Elec. Credit Auto Lease,
187 Ga. App. 57, 61(2), (369 S. E. 2d 334) (1988).

An award of attorneys’ fees is justified under O.C.G.A. §13-6-11
due to the evidence of record showing Defendant’s bad faith and its cause of unnecessary trouble and expense to Plaintiff.

Examples of this include Madero's repeated verbal and written
assurances that it would fulfill its contractual obligations.

4 A party's steadfast refusal to perform its
obligations under a contract can constitute bad faith.

S. Water Techs, supra. at 720, citing Walther v. Multicraft Constr. Co., 205 Ga. App 815, 816 (2) (423 S.E. 2d 725) (1992).

UnderSea asks the Court to consider the exhibits attached hereto
and made a part hereof, describing the legal fees and expenses
UnderSea has incurred to date in bringing this action.

Exhibit A is the fee analysis from the firm of Greenberg Traurig LLP, listing its work on behalf of UnderSea from March 10, 2016 through March 13, 2020,
reflecting attorneys' fees of $88,301.50 for 175.8 hours billed
and paralegal fees of $5,558.50 for 132.7 hours billed.

Exhibit B is a statement from Sr. Carlos Diez,
an attorney in Mexico retained by UnderSea for tasks related
to completing service on Madero by publication. His bill of
$5,000.00 was not stated in hours worked nor his hourly rate.

Exhibit C lists the legal fees and expenses incurred by UnderSea
from its undersigned counsel from May 12, 2020 to date,

and includes attorney's fees of $25,312.50 for 40.5 hours billed, paralegal fees of $225.00 for 2.6 hours, and a list of related costs.

The total costs of UnderSea's attorneys' fees to date totals $118,613.50, paralegal fees of $5,783.50 and expenses are $3,994.26.

Georgia contract law is the substantive law governing this action,
and it requires that attorneys' fees and related costs be proved at trial.

Cont'l. Cas. Co. v. HealthPrime, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103116 (N.D. Ga., Oct.10, 2006). Thus, these exhibits are offered for the
court to consider as damages. Alternatively, if the Court directs,

UnderSea will also comply with the requirements of submitting a motion for its attorneys' fees and costs after judgment is entered, pursuant
to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(d)(2) and LR 54.2.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons UnderSea asks that the court enter a
default judgment against Madero and award damages to Plaintiff to include the principal sum of $10,000,000.00,
prejudgment interest of 7 percent, reasonable attorneys' fees,
and costs of litigation.

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Donald C. English
DONALD C ENGLISH
Georgia Bar No. 248875
Attorney for Plaintiff

DONALD C. ENGLISH, LLC
3512 Knollhaven Drive, NE
Brookhaven, GA 30319
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

UNDERSEA RECOVERY CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
MADERO HOLDING, S.A. de C.V., Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date served the within and
foregoing UnderSea's Supplemental Brief for Evidentiary Hearing
with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to the parties and attorneys
of record, who have entered appearance(s).

This 13th day of April, 2021.
/s/ Donald C English
DONALD C ENGLISH
Georgia Bar No. 248875
Attorney for Plaintiff


DONALD C. ENGLISH, LLC
3512 Knollhaven Drive, NE
Brookhaven, GA 30319
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

[abazaba375]

Watch for fire works this afternoon to obvious

[Farmboynate]

guess it doesn't matter the company gives a rats arse about us investors no pr no 8k just leave us in the dark

[captain53]

WAKE UP call for idiots!!!!!