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.
There is no shell anymore. Nothing to buy.
Shell being purchased yet with shares intact?
And there ya go - stack up all those bullshit 'relisting' posts and you have a ZERO.
Tomorrow at 12:20PM. If it doesn't happen then, it won't happen.
my account just shows 849109103
im pretty sure that is my spng shares
were my shares
l;ol
The SEC tried to revoke our shares,
and they did.
and the Bankruptcy Judge denied the revocation.
the judge has no authority to do that.
this is over.
JAY P. BOOTH lost all his munny in SPNGQ. Pays to read the rules BEFORE buying stuff like OBVIOUS PENNYSCAMS like SPNG.
Too late now - his munny is G-O-N-E and it ain't never comin' back.
FACT!
All JAY P. BOOTH can do now is piss and moan and wait by the mailbox and phone for Steve Mnuchin to gett back to him after all the letters JAY sent to him over the years.
The Nevada law is extremely unfair to the issuer. It should be struck down. It's nice that the shareholders can be reimbursed for their loss, but the issuer is a victim, just as the shareholders are.
Incredible incompetence by Nevada regulators. They should go after the people who illegally sold shares short, and the brokerages who allowed it.
cowtown_jay, SpongeTech INVALID shares can-be made-VALID like it was done recently with XMET?:
When they were INVALID?:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1819006/000121390020026664/ea126845-1012ga1_xxstream.htm
But now they are VALID again per more recent filing than the one above?
What are your thoughts about this?
The SEC tried to revoke our shares, and the Trustee agreed with them. But we argued and the Bankruptcy Judge denied the revocation. At least we have a record of holdings by the brokerages, who said they couldn't verify the authenticity of the shares that they sold to us.
He was with BMA Securities.
cowtown_jay, wasn't Avi MIRMAN with BNP-Paribas or BMA-Securities during his SpongeTech involvement?
Oh?!
What are your thoughts about this?
MY-SpongeTech shares EXIST IN my-ACCOUNT, at-my BROKER?
ALL of MY SpongeTech shares are still there and EXIST?
Just waiting on a CUSTODIAN like David LAZAR, to restart the company?
Because MY shares ARE there, right? i.e. it EXISTS?
SEC don't make things that EXIST stop EXISTING, right? This is not their MISSION, right?
What are your thoughts about this?
Does this pink pos even trade?
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the former company Spongetech and the former stock SPNGQ?
JAY P. BOOTH has lossed all his munny in SPNGQ.
Never to be scene again.
Whatashame. Whataburger.
Mebbe Whataburger is hiring the elderly?
I'm familiar with Greenberger's denial of a theft loss deduction, but I have not heard if anyone else tried to take the deduction, other than you.
Regarding your allowed theft loss deductions in the other cases you mentioned, were charges filed in those cases against any individuals or entities that were not company insiders?
In SPNG's case, I'm only aware of the SEC/DOJ trying to recover the $52M made by insiders.
Has anyone been able to successfully apply the "theft loss" deduction for Spongetech under Schedule A of their tax filings ?
This article (https://www.parkertaxpublishing.com/public/tax-pump-and-dump-stock-capital-losses.html) explains why it was not allowed in the case of Robert and Penny Greenberger, who bought their shares through that crook Douglas Furth...
I have tried to take this deduction several times with IRS but they have denied each time. I have, however, tried the theft loss deduction in the case of many other stocks such as USXP, LLEN, NEWL...and the IRS has allowed those losses to be deducted as "theft losses"...back in 2013 I heard someone successfully obtained a theft loss deduction for SPNG...Anyone ?
JAY P. BOOTH has lossed all his munny in SPNGQ.
Never to be scene again.
Whatashame. Whataburger.
Mebbe Whataburger is hiring the elderly?
Taurus69, there is no such thing for a revoked stock like SPNG. EOM
Why would it be relisted? No company, no stock. Simple. Good luck.
I don't see why not.
The otcm should put it up on pink no info expert tier.
You mean, write you. Hey Klee.
Good to see you, KLee!
SEC charges BNP Paribas Securities with Reg SHO violations
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2020/34-89177.pdf
"On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds
that
Summary
1. This matter concerns BNPP’s violations of Rule 203(a)(1) of Regulation SHO,
which prohibits lending shares to settle sale orders marked as “long.” From April 2016 through
July 2016, BNPP routinely loaned a hedge fund prime brokerage customer (the “Hedge Fund”)
securities on settlement date to settle purported “long” sales. These sale orders were all executed
away from BNPP at another broker-dealer (“Broker-Dealer A”) on behalf of the Hedge Fund."
None of the three Issuers who were impacted by this was SpongeTech. But, BNP Paribas was a participant in SpongeTech's market.
The SEC's response was also what they Ordered in the SpongeTech case.
"C. BNPP, shall, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, pay a civil money penalty in
the amount of $250,000 to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commission may
distribute civil money penalties collected in this proceeding if, in its discretion, the Commission
orders the establishment of a Fair Fund pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 7246, Section 308(a) of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Commission will hold funds paid pursuant to this paragraph in an
account at the United States Treasury pending a decision whether the Commission, in its discretion,
will seek to distribute funds or, subject to Exchange Act Section 21F(g)(3), transfer them to the
general fund of the United States Treasury. If timely payment is not made, additional interest shall
accrue pursuant to 31 U.S.C.§3717."
Again, in my opinion, this is a conversion of investors' funds.
It will never be relisted. Why would it be? The symbol was deleted, and the cusip suspended. The shares are there, but they are worthless. Just declare them worthless, or have the brokerage get rid of them for you and take the tax loss. That's the only real value left for them. Not sure what the ebay link is for, as the company no longer exists.
Taurus69, I-have my SpongeTech-SHARES? Renamed-to a weird-number, in my account, at my online broker?
What's the problem?
I HAVE IT?
These are not VIRTUAL or NAKED/UNEXISTING property?
So yes, RELIST IT?
IT'S THERE, I HAVE IT, IN MY PROPERTY?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/SpongeTech-Car-Wash-System-3-Pack-Combo-Soap-Wax-Degreaser-Chamois-NEW/202582001739?epid=1547313231&hash=item2f2ad4084b:g:ZRYAAOSweI1cUixM
What are your thoughts about this?
My restitution check is $117.75 since June 8, 2018. In 2 years the total amount in restitution I have received is $117. I went to work in those 2 years and earned over $20,000 working in 5 different warehouses. That means in those 2 years I need over $20,000 to live. So far, I have received $117 on restitution.
I see dpilon is back. What nonsense.
highlandernew, people bought and sold SPNG stock in the open market;
Some people made money selling their shares to other people who thought it was better to buy the shares. People that did not sell the stock they bought from someone else before SPNG stock was revoked are owed nothing. As Zorax stated nobody is trying to recover anything.
Good luck
Court-appointed shareholder Estate Representatives were granted subpoena power to obtain a list of shareholders, electronic bluesheet trading records, etc.
In the criminal case, the DOJ did not place shareholders on a claim, or contact shareholders to get on the restitution list. They issued a public statement instructing shareholders on how to get on the list. Shareholders should not have had to self-identify themselves to recover their money.
Zorax, in other-words?: You DON'T want United Statesian to get Justice and Repair for loss from fraudulently obtained funds?
You actually fight AGAINST United Statesian healing?
Wow?
What are your thoughts about this?
First, the judges and agencies had everything including the real list of shareholders, which are insiders, warrants, preferred and receiver of shares on the corporate ledgers as recorded holders. Common shares are not on the corporate ledger as individual holders, only as a group number and a corporation need not know common shareholders by name. Proxies are sent out by the corp TA or the company brokerage to the street name holders individually, not the company itself.
Second, you are likely a foreign s-p-ng common share owner, who was on a gang street name broker list and your name would never need to show up. Your retail name is known only by your broker and not the company. Common shareholders are the bottom level losers of all litigation against scams.
The judges and agencies have the brokerage bulk street name lists, ex: etrade would have 1000 common shareholders, but would submit just the total holders, the names are not significant in this case. Should there be actual litigation that effects street name common shareholders, it is easy to get the names from the associated brokers if ordered by a judge.
There isn't any litigation to return anything to the common shareholder in s=p=ng, all common were cancelled. They're totally written off.
There is no legal or officially sanctioned class action suit in s-p-ng for the commons. Never has been, and any claim there are any is delusional.
And lastly, I never heard of a statesian.
Zorax, SPNG-case was handled-by United Statesian 'Justice' system, yes?
United Statesian = An inhabitant or citizen of the United States of America
i.e. NOT and "American", because Mexicans ARE Americans, and Canadians ARE Americans, and United Statesian are just like Mexicans and Canadians, i.e. inhabitants of America?
And why United Statesian Judge had NO LIST of shareholders produced in SpongeTech case using records, transaction journals, logs, ledgers from brokers and clearing agencies like PENSON, or Olde Monmouth, or DTCC, for example?
United Statesian Judge relied on a FAKE list of shareholders built on a "subscription" basis?... from "lucky few" shareholders who learned about it by mistake? What about 99% of the real list of true shareholders who NEVER received any letter from their broker telling them there was a list to subscribe to for CLASS ACTION/LEGAL CASE?
So that means I'M NOT EVEN ON THAT RIDICULOUS LIST?
So how extensive is that "lucky few" "subscription" list?
Approx. 1% of the actual REAL list of SpongeTech shareholders?
2% max?
Wow?
United Statesian must be soooo proud of their 'Justice' system?
Jay CLAYTON will make United Statesian 'Justice' system and SEC and bankruptcy Judges better?
You're asking him a LOT?
United Statesian are the only ones who can actually do something, not those at head positions, they're way too swamped in internal politics/disputes/conflicts?
What are your thoughts about this?
cowtown_jay, there-was NO LIST of shareholders produced-in SpongeTech case using records, transaction journals, logs, ledgers from brokers and clearing agencies like PENSON, or Olde Monmouth, for example?
Judge relied on a list of shareholders built on a "subscription" basis, from "lucky few" shareholders who subscribed but never received any letter from their broker telling them there was a list to subscribe to? (hence they being the "lucky few"?)
So that means I'M NOT EVEN ON THAT RIDICULOUS LIST?
So how extensive is that "subscription" list? Approx. 1% of the actual REAL amount of shareholders? 2% max?
Wow?
United Statesian must be soooo proud of their 'Justice' system?
Jay CLAYTON will make United Statesian 'Justice' system and SEC and bankruptcy Judges better?
You're asking him a LOT?
United Statesian are the only ones who can actually do something, not those at head positions, they're way too swamped in internal politics/disputes/conflicts?
What are your thoughts about this?
This is in regards to SEC Chair Jay Clayton. By his own admission, before his appointment as Chair, he was unaware of the substantial problems affecting countless shareholders, such as the tens of thousands of SpongeTech shareholders, in OTC penny stock markets.
Now, he is being considered for appointment as the new US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That's assuming the current US Atty for the SDNY, Geoffrey Berman, will leave the position. He says he won't accept being terminated from his position, and will not leave. Of note is the fact the Berman was appointed to his position by judges in the SDNY.
It was a federal bankruptcy court judge in the SDNY who heard the SpongeTech case. I could not convince him that naked shorting adversely impacts the issuer. Nor could I convince him to order a list of shareholders, which is a required scheduled item in a corporate bankruptcy.
President Trump refused to nominate Berman to the position he currently holds as US Attorney for the SDNY.
I also think he should not nominate Clayton to that position.
I think there are issues in this case that should be investigated by the Federal Elections Commission. I hope that John Durham has, or will, look into this, also.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/justice-department-replaces-federal-prosecutor-berman-with-sec-clayton.html
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: |