In bringing case in Tx Geo is relying on an alternative provision CWRN implies Geo snuck into a later draft-however I believe the limitation of that alternative NAFTA provision (I will double check in this juggling act ) is that Geo is limited to arguing recovery for its actual investment (I would post such NAFTA provision here except for PC problems and limitations of these posts as to volume and pulling all this stuff together-it has been posted before)
Calif case is much broader-30 defendants w 13 causes of action w punitive damages of 5-10 million on some counts plus CWRN argues Geo was unjustly enriched by selling CWRN stock for as much as 5.3 million in apparent violation of restrictions-thus reaping much more than they sowed,plus 1.2 million irregularities plus 1 million retention and on and on
any award in Tx case is, as to subject matter jurisdiction, is basically limited to Geo contributions- CWRN claims Geo hasnt even proven the min of 2 million-Geo was in charge of receipts from sales-receiving buyers payments-and then forwarded to CWRN supposedly CWRN's share- only CWRN is saying they didnt receive their share and Geo commingled funds and GEO put funds in their own accounts from which Geo et al profited personally and corporately
Some of what CWRN is asking for is noted below in this shortened version to highlight what CWRN is asking for-
CWRN is asking for many many times more than Geos contribution-which is why I say Tx case becomes at least partially useless if CWRN receives even a fraction of what CWRN is asking for in Ca case- and what Calif case- occurring first- proves is persuasive on Tex court
Geo is probably limited to a max award of 2 million in Tx ASSUMING it wins
CWRN is asking for more than that in unjust enrichment alone-plus 5 million punitive damages for each plaintiff from each of 30 defendants -sec 54,59 etc (which would be redundant)
and in sec 48: "each Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in the amount of at least $10,000,000.00 against each of the Defendants, respectively."
thus except for possible rare high risk maneuvers, I cant fathom why Geo is apparently defaulting the Calif case unless as you have suggested Geo et al know they would lose (and dont want to produce the records or have so commingled records and funds they cant produce records)
