Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
re: Doug Furth
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 23716 / January 10, 2017
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Douglas Furth, Civil Action No. 14 Civ.7254 (LDW) (E.D.N.Y.)
SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against Douglas Furth
On December 22, 2016, the Honorable Leonard D. Wexler, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York, entered a final judgment against defendant Douglas Furth. The final judgment permanently enjoins Furth from future violations of Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 9(a)(1) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, orders Furth to pay disgorgement of $56,000, which is deemed satisfied by the forfeiture order entered against him in a parallel criminal action, and imposes a penny stock bar on Furth.
The SEC's complaint, filed on December 12, 2014, alleged that, from at least September to December 2010, Furth engaged in a fraudulent broker bribery scheme designed to manipulate the market for the common stock of SearchPath HCS, Inc. through matched trades. The complaint further alleged that Furth engaged in an undisclosed kickback arrangement with an individual who claimed to represent a group of registered representatives with trading discretion over the accounts of wealthy customers.
The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this matter.
For further information, please see Litigation Release No. 23157 (December 15, 2014).
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2017/lr23716.htm
Awwww, no munny for anybuddy who's nott already on the restitution list.
Bummer. Maybe a call to Moskowitz and he'll send some tickets to the Touro JV basketball games.
Some of the later issuances were from WorldWide. Most were from Olde Monmouth.
Who was the transfer agent worldwide transfer?
re: Dennis Ringer and SpongeTech.
I looked a little more into the Administrative Proceeding filed against Mr. Ringer by the SEC. That Admin Proceeding reads, in part, as follows:
"4. Ringer purchased the 78 million shares from RM Enterprises in fifteen transactions,
and at discounts from market prices...
8. Ringer purchased the shares at a discount to the then current market price. On May
12, 2008, Ringer paid RM Enterprises $80,000 for the four million shares, or $.02 per share. The
market price of Spongetech stock on that day ranged from $0.037 to $0.047 per share.
9. On May 14, 2008, RM Enterprises transferred four million Spongetech shares to
Ringer’s brokerage account. The shares were transferred to Ringer’s account without an
appropriate restrictive legend. On May 16, 2008, after holding the Spongetech shares for only two
days, Ringer began selling the shares in the public market at prevailing market prices. Ringer sold
the four million shares at prices ranging from $0.03764 to $0.05300 per share, resulting in profits of
$93,867.31. These transactions were not registered with the Commission, and no exemption from
the registration requirements applied.
10. Between June 2008 and July 2009, Ringer continued to obtain Spongetech shares
from RM Enterprises at significant market discounts."
I cannot reconcile what the SEC said in the preceding paragraphs with the information available in the TA Transaction Journals. For instance, I only see 12 issuances made to Ringer, not the 15 claimed above. I don't see any issuances made prior to Sept 5, 2008. None were showing in May or June 2008, as the SEC claimed. Finally, I only see 65+ million shares issued, instead of 78 million shares.
I balanced with the number of issued shares the TA's and the SEC reported in the original SEC Complaint. That total did not include all of the 78 million shares the SEC has now claimed were issued to Ringer.
Another outsider named separately for selling unregistered shares of SPNG was Curt Kramer and his entity, Hope Capital.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10239.pdf
Kramer's Hope Capital received shares of SPNG from the same transaction in which Ringer received 10 million shares on Jan 13, 2009.
Kramer was also charged in a subsequent case with purchasing misappropriated shares of Bederra from the owner of that company's Transfer Agent.
"According to the SEC’s order, Kramer and Mazuma Holding Corporation acquired more than one billion shares of Bederra in 2009 and 2010 through 21 separate transactions from the principal of Bederra’s transfer agent, who had misappropriated the Bederra share certificates. Again they purchased the shares at a significant discount from prevailing market prices. Kramer and Mazuma Holding Corporation re-sold the misappropriated Bederra shares to the public without any registration statement for a profit of $934,404."
https://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370540410863
I don't see how Ringer received almost 13 million more shares than the Transfer Agent reported. But, as we see from Kramer's purchase of Bederra shares, anything is possible.
Sorry, butt those who failed to submit and Affidavit of Loss by the deadline, and thus y'all won't see a penny of any munny recovered.
That's just a fact, as stated by and ratified by the Court and also the SEC.
What one thinks "should" happen is entirely irrelevant.
Notice was given (and I and others even tole all peeps on this board at the time):
https://www.scribd.com/document/197761540/USA-v-Metter-Et-Al-Doc-343-Filed-08-Jan-14
"...The Affidavits of Loss
At the outset of this case, THE GOVERNMENT USED print advertisement as well as A SECTION OF THE WEBSITE of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York to identify victims of the defendant’s fraud..."
Ya snooze, ya lose.
So, no munny for you!!
We certainly should get our money back. A significant number of unregistered shares were sold by people who were previously convicted of this same offense, and they were ordered to repay investors in those cases. SpongeTech investors are entitled to equal protection under the law. I expect Pete Sessions to enforce the law, once he is confirmed as our new Attorney General. I have no delusions about Loretta Lynch paying any attention to the law at all, at least not publicly and with full transparency. This is especially true since she was the chief prosecutor in the SpongeTech case as the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
and that form was mailed or emailed to shareholders
I have an uncle norman pet sponge, I bought on line years ago, with a carwash sponge, piece of shit fell apart before I washed my whole car.I'm saving the pet sponge for... who knows?
"any chance get some of are money back still have my shares"
Nope. Anybuddy who had nott submitted their claims and were put on the restitution list will gett NOTHING. That deadline has long passed.
Those on the restitution list with the court will be lucky to get a penny on the dollar of their losses, if that.
You and Jay Booth and anyone else nott on the restitution list will gett exactly ZERO.
As it should be.
vegasrob, they actually were. Bought 2 at separate times. EOM
Are the Sponge Bob sponges in Walmart yet?
Actually you still do in some ways.
The revocation just was for the corporation and trading of stock.
The stock itself, for what it is, still exists.
It still, as always - represents your ownership of a possibly forged share in a corporation that was made to commit a stock fraud, had no real operations of any kind (except to promote the fraud), with minimal assets at anytime (far outweighed by unpaid liabilities to creditors) and certainly none for the past few years (especially after any even remotely being one were sold for chump change) when disposed as part of a dissolving Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and has had its registration and rights to be traded revoked.
One could get the idea it is and never was worth anything...
topsy267, SPNGQ was revoked. Nobody holds any shares. EOM
The idea he clings to is used only to QUICKLY (6-7 years is NOT quick), as in days/weeks maybe months - seize assets that are at risk of being lost by when the (known and underway) legal proceedings that would restore them are resolved. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.....
Completely impossible at this point in the game...and there is NOTHING BUT THE MOST ADMINISTRATIVE matters left. Nothing even suggesting any other recovery is forthcoming. Again - Relief or Nominal Defendant is NOT ACTUALLY a RECOVERY! It does not ever get dispersed (or seized) unless there is ANOTHER case where it would be needed and is at risk of being lost if not seized NOW and then that other case is decided for the prosecution and these assets are in fact found to be the correct ones for repayment. (See years later...if your even able to suggest the stuff is still able to be located and handed over --- it is clearly not at imminent risk of being lost). Duh. The he/it with it is NOT considered to have done anything wrong....simply holds the item of value subject to an ongoing (pretty well defined) case. And even he see's the only actions (if actually any) are entirely administrative...ad not even in prep (actually complete opposite - in tieing up...not starting any new) prosecution or legal actions.
"A relief defendant is a person or entity who has received ill-gotten funds or assets as a result of the illegal acts of the other named defendants. A relief defendant is typically named because the plaintiff(s) seeks injunctive relief to protect the sought funds or assets and apply them to any eventual recovery in the case. A relief defendant may also be called a nominal defendant."
Nope...Cowtown, with all his great understanding, I guess because of the great conspiracy against him by all those so much more foolish they actually didn't make a bad investment in this stock of destiny....and instead were involved with wasting their time in institutions - regulators - and disclosures saying others shouldn't either is left to insisting (again) 10 ways from Sunday on another thing that is ridiculous 11 ways from it!
Yup...games over - he's not finished - please just give him his money back!
Why not? Because there are more shares in the market than the company issued, placed in the market by illegal naked short selling, even while the company was on the RegSHO Threshold Security List.
that is absolutely and completely 100% wrong again cowtown.
the shares showed up on the RegSHO list because M&M illegally sold restricted shares.
this has been known for years and only ignored by those who refuse to accept the reality that Moskowitz and Metter ran this share printing scam.
any chance get some of are money back still have my shares
"that's completely false, they weren't outsiders, they were the people that the scammers behind SPNG, Moskowitz and Metter, used to illegally sell shares at a discount."
So in other words, they were members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network. A network which included dozens of people who illegally profited from the sale of unregistered shares. This includes several people who were recidivist offenders. That's what I have been saying for years. It's good to see this Pandora's box being opened, and I still look forward to seeing dozens of more people charged for this particular offense.
Will the disgorged money be returned to injured investors, as is routine in cases like this, and in previous cases against some of these recidivist offenders? Well, that's a problem, because the government has not identified SPNG stockholders. Why not? Because there are more shares in the market than the company issued, placed in the market by illegal naked short selling, even while the company was on the RegSHO Threshold Security List. There were thousands of such transactions, everyday, for months at a time, as I previously reported to the Court.
The evidence is clear. The law is clear. The SEC and the DOJ are intentionally negligent in their duty to protect the investing public.
The SEC has now charged three outsiders with selling unregistered shares.
that's completely false, they weren't outsiders, they were the people that the scammers behind SPNG, Moskowitz and Metter, used to illegally sell shares at a discount.
are you actually still defending M&M, the two crooks who ran this POS are are ultimately responsible for scamming the shareholders?
there are still no magic NSS, that joke of a consipiracy was old years ago.
I suspect that there was a third Administrative Proceeding in the SpongeTech case in October.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/34-79113.pdf
Quite literally, this is Panama Papers stuff. Foreign banks arranging for Panamanian shell registrations.
Interesting. I seem to recall Judge Irizarry granting permission to travel in this regard.
I wonder if Mary Jo White is leaving the SEC 3 years early because she is fed up with the DOJ's refusal to enforce the law. Or maybe Trump wants her for something. US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York? That might work out pretty well.
Hi, berta! Good to see you.
Issuances made to members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network were fairly highly structured. When I would see an issuance made to Ringer, as in this case, then I could pretty well guess as to what other beneficiaries I would expect to see getting shares in that same transaction. The same applies to the cancellations. The shares issued to the various beneficiaries in a single transaction, would typically all be canceled at the same time time in a subsequent transaction. Not always, but often.
The SEC has now charged three outsiders with selling unregistered shares. The total amount being disgorged is now about $4.5 million.
There are also the four people I talked about in Dec 2011 who made $15 million, according to IIROC, who have not yet been charged by the SEC. But, the gates are finally open, as I expected they would be once Pensley's case was closed (at least for now). I'm still looking for dozens of people to be charged with selling unregistered shares, and a total disgorgement of about $390 million, excluding penalties, for this particular offense.
DENNIS RINGER
Cert # Holder Name Iss. Date Can. Date Denomination
3838 DENNIS RINGER 06/18/2009 06/24/2009 5000000
Spongetech Share Issuance
Selection Criteria AsOf Date: 06/26/2009 Sort Criteria Primary Sort Account Number Ascending Certificate List (Upload Date: 06/26/2009)
http://spngbane.angelfire.com/
On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds that:
1. Dennis Ira Ringer, 52 years old, is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. Previously,
from 1983 to 1985, Ringer was a registered representative associated with several registered
broker-dealers.
2. From May 2008 through September 2009, Ringer sold 78 million shares of
Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc. (“Spongetech”) stock to the investing public in violation of the
registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act and for profits of $2,152,923.20.
2
3. Ringer obtained these Spongetech shares from a Spongetech affiliate, RM
Enterprises International, Ltd. a/k/a RM Enterprises International, Inc. (“RM Enterprises”). As
noted in Spongetech’s public filings, RM Enterprises was the majority shareholder of Spongetech
and was controlled by Spongetech’s CEO and CFO/COO. Ringer negotiated the purchase of the
shares with Spongetech’s CFO/COO.
4. Ringer purchased the 78 million shares from RM Enterprises in fifteen transactions,
and at discounts from market prices. In many instances, RM Enterprises transferred the shares to
Ringer the same day that it received the shares from Spongetech.
5. After Ringer received the shares from RM Enterprises, he quickly sold the shares in
U.S. public markets. The discount that Ringer received enabled him to immediately sell the
Spongetech shares at a profit.
6. No registration statement was filed as to any of the shares that Ringer sold to the
investing public, and no exemption from the registration requirements was applicable to these
transactions.
7. For example, on May 12, 2008, Ringer signed a subscription agreement with RM
Enterprises to purchase a block of four million Spongetech shares for $80,000, at a price of $.02
per share. The subscription agreement stated that the securities were not covered by a registration
statement. The agreement further stated that the securities were being purchased for investment
purposes and not with a view to distribution or resale.
8. Ringer purchased the shares at a discount to the then current market price. On May
12, 2008, Ringer paid RM Enterprises $80,000 for the four million shares, or $.02 per share. The
market price of Spongetech stock on that day ranged from $0.037 to $0.047 per share.
9. On May 14, 2008, RM Enterprises transferred four million Spongetech shares to
Ringer’s brokerage account. The shares were transferred to Ringer’s account without an
appropriate restrictive legend. On May 16, 2008, after holding the Spongetech shares for only two
days, Ringer began selling the shares in the public market at prevailing market prices. Ringer sold
the four million shares at prices ranging from $0.03764 to $0.05300 per share, resulting in profits of
$93,867.31. These transactions were not registered with the Commission, and no exemption from
the registration requirements applied.
10. Between June 2008 and July 2009, Ringer continued to obtain Spongetech shares
from RM Enterprises at significant market discounts. In each of these instances, after receiving the
shares from RM Enterprises, Ringer promptly resold them in public markets – sometimes within
days of when he received the shares. These transactions were not registered with the
Commission, and did not satisfy any exemption from the registration requirements.
11. In total, Ringer sold 78 million shares of Spongetech in unregistered transactions
and obtained illegal profits of $2,152,923.20.
12. The Respondent used the mails and other means of interstate commerce in
connection with these offers and sales of Spongetech shares.
13. By engaging in the conduct described above, Respondent Ringer violated Sections
5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, which prohibit the direct or indirect sale or offer for sale of
securities through the mails or interstate commerce unless a registration statement has been filed or
is in effect, or an exemption from registration is applicable.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10259.pdf
I'll just reply with what I wrote to a group of shareholders.
"Yet another SPNG Administrative Proceeding filed yesterday, this one against Dennis Ringer.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10259.pdf
When was this case initiated? They don't tell us. Could this go back to the three Litigation Releases that were filed with the details being intentionally omitted? I've said previously that I thought the facts clearly indicated that at least one of those filings concerned SpongeTech.
If the SEC is trying to avoid naming Relief Defendants en masse in this case, because they don't want to say that shareholders lost $390 million from this activity, and that they don't want to identify the shareholders, because that would expose the naked short shares, then they should be quite busy with these individual filings in the immediate future. There should be dozens of people named, and there aren't too many days before the new Administration assumes office, complete with a new SEC Chairman and new Attorney General."
"another $2.5 million"
Which the SEC will most likely keep, and to the extent they don't, none of it is going to anyone who is nott on the restitution list.
Which means recidivist letter-writer to DaCourts, Jay Booth, won't be getting a penny of it in any case - as dat name iznt on the restitution list. Whoops-oops!!!
AND, which is another example that there are no 'naked shorts' who were responsible for the SPNGQ scam. This disgorgement comes from a Moskowitz neighbor/friend who gott the shares directly from the company via Moskowitz's and Metter's RME. Transferred IMMEDIATELY upon issuance via RME - owned and controlled by Mosky - the same Mosky who, as CFO, had to pre-approve the issuance and instruct the TA.
So much for the boolsheet conspiracy theorists.
So much for 'potentially life-saving medical procedures'.
LOL!!! Happy Thanksgiving!
Texas morphine
Another SPNG Administrative Proceeding...another $2.5 million.
"I expect to see dozens of Relief Defendants named as we go on."
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10259.pdf
Enjoy the unicorn hunt.
I'm looking forward to the continued progression of this case. I like the two Administrative Proceedings that were filed in this case in the last week or so, and I expect to see dozens of Relief Defendants named as we go on.
Sorry, man, butt that's just so totally wronGGG.
It's OVER, man.
Denial will nott change that FACT.
It doesn't make sense that the SEC would charge the company with selling 2.5 billion unregistered shares, and then only charge two people for their roles in selling a combined 121 million of those shares. This is especially so when a huge number of those 2.5 billion shares were sold to the public by recidivist offenders.
Loretta Lynch's Department of Discretionary Justice is on the hook here, and rightly so. The lack of enforcement is understandable, since Lynch's office was the one that brought the narrowly-focused criminal case in the first place, before she got the nod to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General.
This case is far from over, and I'm not going anywhere. In fact, I've never felt better about our case, especially now that we have a new Administration preparing to take office and "drain the swamp." The plug is in the Eastern District of New York.
Nope, that's nott how it works. The SEC cases re: both Pensley and Kramer are now settled - and for PEANUTS. There are no criminal charges against either of them nor will there be. Well, Kramer might at some point gett nailed for something else, butt nothing related to SPNGQ. That door's closed.
The SEC would never settle a civil case for peanuts if a criminal case was pending or even under consideration, as it would totally undercut any criminal prosecution.
The defense would cite the fact that the SEC settled the cases for peanuts and point ~OUTT that as evidence it was a nothingburger.
Nice try, though.
Time to face the FACTS. SPNGQ is OVER. The money is GONE. The criminal proceedings against the miscreants are OVER.
Facts are facts.
It's like the die-hards who CONtinue to claim that Al Gore won the election in 2000. They can rant as long as they want, butt it's all MOOT. It's over, like SPNGQ - a fait accompli. Fini.
"Pensley financial accounting OVER."
I believe that it's the criminal court judge, not the SEC, who has been waiting patiently, for years, for Pensley's financial accounting. Am I mistaken?
Also, Curt Kramer is one of the dozens of Relief Defendants I expected to see named in this case. He is now only the second non-company defendant named, to date, for selling unregistered shares of SPNG.
I think we could be seeing a whole new chapter beginning to open in this case.
Yup, Pensley is resolved. Case closed.
How's the 'case' coming along, Jay?
I love defunct companies like SPNGQ. These scams keep on giving entertainment value long after they're gone.
"Taboada kept a supply of soap-filled sponges made by Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc. in the office, three of the people said. He told them he made millions of dollars trading shares of the company, whose chief operating officer pleaded guilty to securities fraud after it went bankrupt."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-30/wall-street-attracts-chop-shops-20-years-after-wolf
On the topic of NSS and use of State courts:
Understand - as stated time and time again - short selling INCLUDING naked short selling is NOT against any law.
A co-ordinated attack on a company stock to lower its price MAY be...and if that includes naked short selling - maybe yet more so....but here - we've heard it too many times already:
A company making a sponge which costs more to make than it can sell it for, with fraudulent books, fabricated customers, all done as a pump and dump scheme (and condfessed as such by the promoters) is the exact opposite of where short or NSS could even be considered anything except the CORRECT way the market allows someone to take a position. The company was a fraud....a scam ...there can be no damage from shorting something that had only a fake inflated value. Short selling did not take down the value of the company - there was no value...except as part of a scam.
And all the Court did was say really was anyone/thing wanting jurisdiction can have it....basically they don't want anything to do with the whole thing! They did not in any way give any credence to any of the suppositions of the NSS crowd...in fact - the opposite.
First find a state with laws about NSS (only a few even have it)...then try and fit this in (you can't) and more importantly - see if any would ever consider pursuing it either...they won't. They didn't want to in the cases presented opting to say they couldn't - so the lusa's went to the S Court to get the decision that the State can ...but - they won't. Unless it is a real clear stock manipulation.....not a stock fraud.
How about just quietly waiting for the naming (and seizure of assets) of all those affiliated groups from a decade ago - (or whatever you want to call them)...a very infrequently used thing and only then very quickly after an event where those participants and the assets are easily identified, seen and reachable....which is also normally then fought about for a decade in court. Or maybe hold on - the recovery is getting near the $50 a person it takes to disperse. Ooops....fee's for doing so is lowering it!
yeah, that is the only "air shares" there were, for lack of a better term!!!
So, in this case you are defining "air shares" as the shares that were issued by SPNG illegally by using non-existent attorneys to write the fraudulent opinion letters to make the shares freely tradeable
and not the "air shares", that are claimed by the whacked-out tin foilers, that result from naked shorting by the EVIL NAKED SHORT SELLERS FROM MARS...
correct?
yep, a fair market allows short selling....logically, it must...
of course, illegal manipulation is, well....illegal!!!...long or short...but seems 99.9% of the time it is to pump up stocks to dump them, such as was the case here....
and same with "air shares", seems the vast majority (all??) of the time they come from someone looking to exploit the long side as well....as was the case here with the unregistered shares from SPNG themselves....
don't get why this is so complicated to understand???
madeindet, there are no more SPNG shareholders. EOM
you realize it was SPNG insiders who ripped people off, right???...not some mythical shorts, gesh.....
"It's a crooked system."
The system needs to be redesigned. Right now, our equity markets are largely governed by:
Self-Regulatory Organizations (SRO's), that have
discretionary authority, but don't have
subpoena power.
Watching over them are unelected bureaucrats, who also have discretionary power, and who also report to a politically-appointed chief.
What could possibly go...right?
It's a crooked system by design.
Fines against market participants should go in a fund that's goes to the shareholders. Ie: UBSS fined for naked shorting, Penson violating reg sho, the Canadian regulator fine against their broker.
Why don't they disclose the companies that were victimized by UBSS and Penson for their violations?? Allow the public and companies to sue for damages. These slap on the wrist fines go to regulators who are far from being the victims. It's a crooked system
This case is exactly where I/aye/eye want it to be right now. It's between those who administer justice, and those who seek justice. Perfect.
Too/to/two badd that the applicable statutes of limitations for state court claims against SPNG and associated parties have long since expired. No claims of this sort (state court claims only) can be brought against anyone for a SPNG-related matter.
This has zero applicability to any Federal court matter involving the SEC or DOJ.
So, this issue is OFF-TOPIC for SPNG, as it has zero applicability.
SPNG promoter Doug Furth (a/k/a 'Soapy Bubbles') just has his home foreclosed on by the bank:
https://www.dln.com/foreclosure/details/ref_index/128417
Date Filed May 31, 2016
Case Number 864049
Case Type Foreclosure
Judge Judge M. Clancy
Defendant
Douglas G. Furth, et al.
6442 Dorset Lane
Solon,, OH 44139
Plaintiff
Filed by.
Fifth Third Bank
9200 Montgomery Rd., Bldg 7b
Cincinnati, OH 45242
I believe that Aguirre is representing one such victimized company in a state court now. I also believe that he will be a formidable force in this effort (assuming that you're quoting comments made by Gary Aguirre).
In a search for a contractor to replace my roof I had 5 estimates provided from 5 different companies. STEVEN MOSKOWITZ of Renovex LLC gave me the best price by over a couple thousand dollars. This was too good to pass on, so I hired Renovex to do the job.
Steve immediately demanded 60% of the cost to be paid upfront. I was hesitant so I told him once the material arrives on site I would give him the 60%. He rudely told me "I am not a bank, and I won't lay out that kind of money." We eventually came to an agreement. The following day, 80% of the material arrived and so I paid him in good faith. That was my second mistake. My first mistake was hiring him in the first place. I was initially promised that the entire job would be completed in 3-5 work days. Over the course of 3 weeks I've heard one excuse after the other. It went from bad weather (which never came) to family emergencies, to sick days (6 in a row, with no communication) This company left my roof unprotected which lead to a semi-major leak in multiple areas of my home. I am currently in the process of filing a claim against his insurance, which I'm beginning to think is fraudulent. I have gotten no where. After over three weeks from the start date they were only competent enough to complete 45% of the job. I had finally had enough of the excuses and contacted Steve. I told him I have no other recourse at this point. I need to hire someone else to complete the job. His response was, "Why didn't you tell me that my workers haven't been there in over 5 days? You are just trying to steal my materials and I will see you in court!" As if I'm responsible for managing his labor force. Save yourself the headache, don't use Renovex LLC for ANYTHING! It was a waste of my time and money in the long run. It was the least professional management I've ever dealt with in my entire life. PLEASE DON'T BE TEMPTED BY THE LOW COST, IT IS A FACADE THAT IS WELL WORTH AVOIDING!
Ross G. and 1 other voted for this review
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |