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.
SPNG went from .006 to .25
Bummer for you. Ain't happening. I'm shure Steve Mnunchin is going to send a personal reply letter 'soon'. Just as soon as he getts done with that tax thingy. Your letter is next on the pile in his 'to-do' box.
Butt Metter and Moskowitz have plenny of munny for potentially life-saving procedures.
Ripped-off SPNG investors need to write to Mindy Moskowitz, document their losses, and demand that she pay reparations. It's the only hope for any munny back from this obvious SCAM.
I agree that this is a very big deal, and I would also like to see Congress examine this issue.
This is exactly why I wrote to Secretary Mnuchin, and asked him to escrow any funds disgorged in the SpongeTech case, for the eventual return to shareholders, from whom that money was stolen, as opposed to being transferred to the Treasury's general fund, as the SEC proposed. As I told the Secretary in that message, this amounts to nothing less than the immoral conversion of funds rightly belonging to shareholders.
Justice Sotomayor "noted that the money received often goes to the government rather than victims of the fraud." The question that the Court slept right through is "WHY isn't disgorged money being returned to the injured investors from whom it was stolen?"
Bummer for you, dude. No munny ever comin' from SPNG fraud to you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-to-limit-sec-power-to-recover-profit-from-fraud/2017/06/05/13fc02b8-4a02-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html
The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously limited the federal government’s power to recover the profits made from illegal behavior.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Securities and Exchange Commission must abide by a five-year statute of limitations in seeking “disgorgement” from those whose fraudulent actions resulted in illegal profits.
It is a favorite tool of the federal government; in recent years, the SEC took in nearly $3 billion in disgorgements, more than double what it received in penalties, according to court filings.
The question for the Supreme Court was whether disgorgements were a form of a penalty, which is subject to the statute of limitations, or a remedy for unjust enrichment that simply restores the offender to the situation he would have been in if he had not acted illegally, as the government claimed.
It appeared not to be a close call to the justices.
“SEC disgorgement bears all the hallmarks of a penalty: It is imposed as a consequence of violating a public law and it is intended to deter, not to compensate,” wrote Sotomayor, who noted that the money received often goes to the government rather than victims of the fraud. “The 5-year statute of limitations therefore applies when the SEC seeks disgorgement.”
It was one of the first cases heard by new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch after he was sworn in in April, and he joined his new colleagues in overturning a decision from his old court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver.
The case was brought by Charles R. Kokesh, a Santa Fe, N.M., businessman who was convicted of misappropriating money from four investment companies he controlled from 1995 through 2009 and using the proceeds for a lavish lifestyle.
A judge in 2015 ordered him to pay a $2.4 million civil penalty. But because the SEC has interpreted disgorgement to have no time restraint, the judge said Kokesh must also pay $35 million, the calculated amount of illegal profits dating back to the initiation of his illegal behavior.
With a five-year limit, Kokesh’s disgorgement would be reduced to about $5 million.
Dixie L. Johnson, a securities enforcement lawyer in Washington, said the ruling “shatters” the SEC’s view of disgorgement.
“Those who previously paid disgorgement purportedly for ill-gotten gains more than five years after the relevant violation will be reviewing their situations against this case to determine whether the disgorgement award should have been allowed,” she said in a statement.
Are these scammers refunding folks via the instruction you provided?
Anyone who has lost their entire 'investment' in SPNG can demand a full refund by providing brokerage account records showing the purchase(s) and price(s) of your purchase(s) of SPNG stock and a recent brokerage account statement proving that those SPNG shares are still in the account.
Submit your demand letter accompanied by the documents noted above to:
Mindy Moskowitz
13624 71st Rd
Flushing, NY 11367
Send your correspondence either via US Mail with certified mail return receipt requested or Express Mail or by FedEx with signature required.
Sorry, butt the corporation is revoked. The ticker is a zombie ticker - there is no underlying corporation, so the shares are simply shares in nothing.
The ticker hasn't been revoked, butt the shares you have are zombie or phantom shares - you own shares in a corporation that no longer exists.
A ticker is nott a corporation. It's a trading ticker. Only the SEC revokes those and it takes many years to decades before they gett around to that, so the tickers of dead companies stick around after the companies are long dead.
Simple legal fact. The Delaware incorporation is no longer. The corporate entity is G-O-N-E. The corporation was liquidated in Chapter 7. It was revoked by the Delaware Secretary of State. It no longer exists.
If you were to somehow find someone to buy those shares from you for value, you'd be subject to them later suing you for fraud, as you sold shares in NOTHING for value, and I've now put readers on notice that the shares have no value, so they can't claim they didn't know when the shares were sold to others. It's straight-up fraud.
Whether or nott the SEC has revoked the ticker yett is immaterial. It's grey market-only crapola with zero underlying value, as they are shares in - literally - nothing.
Again, my brokers (both) say different. My account has Spongetech shares in it, so not revoked.
Provide the SEC document that declares revocation of SPNGE and I'll concede. Don't waste your time providing the SEC's attempt to revoke during the BK. I was in court when the judge refused the SEC's request (2010/11 as I recall).
So whatcha got from SEC, the controlling authority, on revocation?
Spongetech and Spongetech Delivery Systems, the FORMER Delaware corporations are indeed REVOKED. Neither is a legal corporate entity in Delaware (or anywhere else).
All that is left is a zombie ticker that doesn't trade.
All corporate assets were lost in the Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy, and the corporation no longer exists in law.
And all the munny is G-O-N-E, and no number of useless letters or emails to anyone is ever going to change that FACT.
I never said anything about making money. Just pointed out an error in logic. Spongetech stock is not revoked. That's a fact. The rest is speculation until revocation occurs.
Whiplash_Investor, 20 years from now nobody who held their Spongetech shares will get one even penny back from their holdings.
Good luck
As Whip correctly pointed out the first time you made this statement, the stock is not revoked.
Wrong...still got all my shares. Ameritrade and Fidelity both say I can't get them out of my account until revoked, which they haven't been. So guess again.
cowtown jay, SPNGQ stock is revoked; there are no more shareholders because there are no more shares.
Good luck.
The important thing to me is that SpongeTech shareholders receive equal protection under the law. To date, the SEC has convicted insiders with selling $52 million dollars worth of unregistered shares, and they are seeking disgorgement of that amount to be paid to those who self-identified with authorities as victims of the fraud.
That's a complete farce. Insiders will be required to pay less than what I used to pay for child support each month.
Also, the identification of shareholders is not the responsibility of those shareholders. This identification is actually required in bankruptcy proceedings. The requirement was ignored because the judge and the trustee felt that there was no way to make that identification. The trustee stated that he didn't even think that the SEC could determine who the shareholders are. This is absurd.
In addition, MOST of the ill-gotten gain realized by selling unregistered shares, which I estimate to be about $390 million, went into the pockets of outsiders, people who were members of the SpongeTech stock distribution network. There were dozens of these individuals, but only three have been convicted to date. The amount disgorged from these convictions is, for the most part, slotted to be transferred to the general fund of the US Treasury. Effectively, our money is being stolen again, this time by agencies of the US government.
Yes, it's less than a shell. The corporation has been revoked. The stock is nott trading. There is no corporate existence for SPNGQ anymore. The liquidation (Chap 7) bankruptcy is long closed.
Spongetech is G-O-N-E and it isn't even a trading shell anymore and cannot be acquired for a RM or any other purpose, as it literally has ceased to exist.
No thorn, no briar patch, just OVER and G-O-N-E, baby.
But the ticker will never return, right? Thanks!
I think it is MORE than a shell. It could be described as a thorn in the side of government agencies, but I also think it is even MORE than that. It's more like a briar patch these agencies are going to have to work their way through.
The biggest bombs still haven't dropped.
Is this LESS than a shell? Thanks!!!
I have some of these dead shares as well. I tried to removed them from my Scottrade account and they couldn't because the transfer agent shows them as restricted. It'll happen at some point. Was looking to take the loss against other gains. It's the only value I see in these. LOL
TDA...ditto. However this is dead, move on.
Never bought into the illegal short propoganda. Did think alot of news put out was the type of news a "real" entity would put out. At the end of the day I didn't keep in mind this was a penny stock. Sadly I had the opportunity twice to make $200K on a $27k investment, lol let's call it a bet. So I lost the $27k instead. Expensive lesson. Greed that led to stupidity. I call it my investestor tuition.
As an individual investor you need to understand you will NEVER outsmart the market makers. Learn how to follow...
Hahahahahahaha am I on that board back then? Might be under munz951
I know... look @ the posters on this board...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36741813
SpongeTech, corporate sponsor of Bucs and Rays, charged with securities fraud
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/venturebiz/content/spongetech-corporate-sponsor-bucs-and-rays-charged-securities-fraud
Spongetech yes, they had banners here at Dodger stadium also I believe. Thought that was real made few bucks off them. But then I gave it all back then
Some
They had big banners in TAMPA football games...
I probably could find the old images if ya want...
every game we went to back then had SPNG signs all over da stadium... we used to laugh about it - even though we were in it and should have known it would end badly
People still blame me
Not revoked until SEC revokes it. As long as shares are in users accounts (everyone I know still has them). Ameritrade won't remove them from my account until SEC revokes them.
Yea, saw that after read few posts...
BoilerRoom, SPNGQ was revoked and does not trade anymore. EOM
The munny ripped from the SPNG scam is looong G-O-N-E. Never to return.
Metter and Mosky are living well - plenty of coin for potentially lifesaving medical procedures.
Wow this scam still trading? I remember seeing banners for spongetech at baseball games 9 years ago. Wow
I knew this was a scam when I purchased a couple car wash kits at Walgreens, and they had a wrong sponge in each of them! They were putting the pet sponge in the car wash kit! That's just one example but a funny one.
The pet sponge itself was terrible. I wouldn't dare trying to wash a kid with the Spongebob sponge! The desperation at the very end was hilarious. Remember the Boat Sponge and the football sponge? Yeah try cleaning barnacles with a wimpy sponge! Football sponge? Really? Bunch of sweaty guys going to get naked while tailgainting and use a football sponge in the stadium parking lot? LOL!
Doug Furth got off too easy it seems. His ill gotten gains in SPNG was much worse than that. Anyhow, thanks for posting.
Thanks for your efforts.
Lost considerably on this and didn't get on the list as well.
LOL! Really?
Oh my!
I'm shure that will gett absolutely nothing, just like all your prior 'communications' with judges, Loretta Lynch, etc.
Meanwhile, Metter and Mosky have plenty of munny for potentially life-saving medical procedures.
In fact, Mike Metter is living the high life right now. He's all over the party circuit in CONnecticut and New York.
But futile gestures are always appreciated. So please keep shipping those letters and emails directly into the circular file/spam folder/autoanswer queue.
Please keep us posted hourly on Steve Mnunchin's action on this top-level important matter. I'm shure he'll gett right on it.
FAVORABLE (?) jury verdict regarding SPNG's primary clearing firm.
"Hall repeatedly lied to Penson about liens on his additional collateral while obtaining fraudulently over $5.5 million in additional loans and other payments from the firm."
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2017/lr23759.htm
"1. These proceedings relate to approximately $100 million in failed margin loans made
by now-defunct Penson Financial Services, Inc. (“PFSI”)—which was once the second largest
clearing broker-dealer in the U.S.—to certain of its customers. PFSI made the bulk of these margin
loans between 1999 and 2008 to Christopher J. Hall and his affiliates, including a company named
Call Now, Inc. (“Call Now”), who invested in risky, unrated municipal bonds. Hall was the
Chairman of Call Now’s board of directors, and in 2006 Call Now became a large shareholder of
PFSI’s publicly traded parent company, Penson Worldwide, Inc. (“PWI”)."
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/33-9914.pdf
Yep, it shure does. Nott that any knowledgeable person put any credence in that goofy hypothesis anyway ...
SpongeTech's Transfer Agent Busted
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2017/33-10303.pdf
CONvicted felon STEVEN YEHUDA MOSKOWITZ has plenty of illegally obtained munny to pay for his 'potentially life-saving medical procedures'. Munny that Moskowitz swindled from SPNGQ shareholders.
At least Stevarino and his fambly have DaMunny and it ain't never coming back.
As far as former SPNGQ shareholders are CONcerned, DaMunny is all G-O-N-E.
To be more correct and as clear as possible:
NO MUNNY FOR ANYONE.
The filing made it possible, if certain amounts were ever recovered (enough to clear the custodial fee's and prior claims) and realistically - (albeit the zealot believers are anything but realists) - that ain't going to happen.
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!!
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: |