fourkids, you can't wait to see what is revealed via full disclosure?

what is going to be revealed is that Metter and Moskowitz carried out one of the biggest frauds ever to have occurred in the microcap stock arena - into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

that is all

ncwally maybe you should review the actuall Wells Notice to SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz:


On December 24, 2009, the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) sent a written Wells notice, which was received on December 28, 2009, to each of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”), Michael L. Metter, SpongeTech’s Chief Executive Officer, and Steven Y. Moskowitz, SpongeTech’s Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer. The Wells notices advised that the Commission Staff intends to recommend that the Commission bring civil injunctive actions against them alleging violations of the federal securities laws contained in Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder; and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-14 thereunder. The recommended actions would seek, among other things, permanent injunctions and civil penalties.

loanranger, since Drakeford was allegedely working on the May 31, 2009 10K at the time it lost its registration, I would imagine that SPNG was informed of this immediately.

It then took SPNG anohter month to hire the new auditor.

Late & Required SEC Filings
- FY08 10K: LATE!
- FY09 10Q, Q1: LATE!
- FY09 10Q, Q2: LATE!
- FY09 10Q, Q3: LATE!
- FY09 10K: LATE!
- FY10 10Q, Q1: LATE!
- FY10 NT 10Q, Q1: NON-EXISTENT!
- FY10 10Q, Q2: LATE!
- FY10 NT 10Q, Q2: NON-EXISTENT!
- FY10 10Q, Q3: Due April 15, 2010

SPNG caught issuing more FALSE AND MISLEADING press releases


http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/newsStoryPopup.go?storyId=10115765&;topic=SPNG&symbology=null&cp=off&webmasterId=89753


May 8, 2008
"We do not expect to have any dilutive financing in the near future."



http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/newsStoryPopup.go?storyId=10823225&;topic=SPNG&symbology=null&cp=off&webmasterId=89753


June 5, 2008
"We do not expect to have any dilutive financing in the near future."



THEN THIS:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420408057701/v128905.htm

"In June 2008, we issued an aggregate of 25,482,659 shares of our common stock to RM Enterprises International, Inc., a related party, in consideration for an aggregate of $738,349.56 in debt, or $0.0290 per share. The control persons of RM Enterprises International are Michael Metter, Steven Moskowitz and Frank Lazauskas, all of whom are directors of RM Enterprises International.

In July 2008, we issued an aggregate of 61,230,000 shares of our common stock to RM Enterprises International, Inc. in consideration for advances of an aggregate of $1,490,322 in debt or $0.0243 per share.

In August 2008, we issued an aggregate of 74,900,000 shares of our common stock to RM Enterprises International, Inc., in consideration for an aggregate of $1,494,175 in debt or $0.0189 per share."

SPNG issues false and misleading press release on 3rd Q Net Income

from the April 15, 2009 SPNG Press release:

http://snipurl.com/kdtby

"Net income for the third quarter of 2009 was over $2,250,000"


yet only 5 days later:


from the SPNG 10Q filed with the SEC by SPNG on April 20, 2009:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409021409/v146656_10q.htm


Net Income for third Quarter of 2009 = $1,513,422

patch, it seems that you are finally "getting it" regarding the time that the SEC is taking to file the formal securities fraud charges. By letting this happen, the SEC can now trace to where the illegal gotten gains have been sent to.

karma, revocation has to do with the amount of time that SPNG has failed to file 10Q's and 10K's with the SEC...

then there is this statement by you:

Nadar, no, there is no liability to the SEC

the SEC has fully warned investors on the massive frauds at SPNG by suspending trading for ten days stating that SPNG's financials filed with the SEC and discussed in PR's were not reliable - and, after months of formal investigations into the SPNG frauds, by the issuance of the Wells Notice to SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz indicating that they intend to file securities fraud charges against SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz for violations of over a dozen SEC regulations.

A summary on SLJB

No revenues
no profits
no assets
no inventory
no headquarters
no employees
no accounts receivable
no cash
no business


just all a big scam

nothing more

nothing less

SteveF, the DOJ has "gotten" to SPNG, it is just not public yet.

name, two words for you:


"Wash Trading"

rjs, the SEC can take 2 months, 3 months, 6 months or even 9 months to file the fraud charges stated in the Wells Notice.

regarding the DOJ, just keep an eye on the Litigation Releases for the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York

or better yet

subscribe to the NY Post and read the headlines every morning as one day they will have pictures of when Moskowitz and Metter get arrested, handcuffed and carted off to Jail when served with the criminal indictment papers by the FBI.

rjs, sure, no problem

here you go:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47454061

recrem, actually I posted two links, one was the 10 day suspension of trading by the SEC and the wording that came along with it including the unreliability of financials filed with the SEC and stated in press releases - and the other was the Wells Notice that was issued to SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz regarding the intent by the SEC to file securities fraud charges against the same for far reaching violations of 16 SEC regulations, including the filing of fraudulent financials.


the following are the definitions of a scam company:


It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. ("SpongeTech”) because questions have arisen regarding the accuracy of assertions in press releases to investors and in periodic reports filed with the Commission concerning, among other things: (1) the amount of sales and customer orders received by the company; (2) the company’s investment agreements; and (3) the company’s revenues as reported in its financial statements.


and


On December 24, 2009, the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) sent a written Wells notice, which was received on December 28, 2009, to each of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”), Michael L. Metter, SpongeTech’s Chief Executive Officer, and Steven Y. Moskowitz, SpongeTech’s Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer. The Wells notices advised that the Commission Staff intends to recommend that the Commission bring civil injunctive actions against them alleging violations of the federal securities laws contained in Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder; and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-14 thereunder. The recommended actions would seek, among other things, permanent injunctions and civil penalties

recrem, sure no problem

here you go:




http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2009/34-60788-o.pdf


and


http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409067083/v170343_8k.htm

abru, can you please give us a hand and let us know where you obtained the financial statements that showed you this?

thanks

brain, you say that SPNG as a brand is recognized.

Yes, lets see how well SPNG is recognized:



IN THE MATTER OF SPONGETECH DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC.

October 5, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF SPONGETECH DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC.

ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF TRADING

File No. 500-1

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. ("SpongeTech”) because questions have arisen regarding the accuracy of assertions in press releases to investors and in periodic reports filed with the Commission concerning, among other things: (1) the amount of sales and customer orders received by the company; (2) the company’s investment agreements; and (3) the company’s revenues as reported in its financial statements. In addition, SpongeTech has not filed any periodic reports with the Commission since the period ended February 28, 2009.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on October 5, 2009 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on October 16, 2009.

By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy Secretary

drugm, it is the SEC that is calling SPNG a scam.

mingy, SPNG will eventually be known as one of the top 5 biggest frauds ever to occur in microcap stocks - EVER!

johnny, I am sorry but what does your post on evil naked shorters have to do with this?


On December 24, 2009, the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) sent a written Wells notice, which was received on December 28, 2009, to each of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”), Michael L. Metter, SpongeTech’s Chief Executive Officer, and Steven Y. Moskowitz, SpongeTech’s Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer. The Wells notices advised that the Commission Staff intends to recommend that the Commission bring civil injunctive actions against them alleging violations of the federal securities laws contained in Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder; and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-14 thereunder. The recommended actions would seek, among other things, permanent injunctions and civil penalties.

Cyr, can you please point us in the direction of where we can find the revenue figures to support the "facts" that you mention here?

thanks

Patchman, when did this happen?

this is new to me

from another board - in the event MSG wins the Summary Judgment against SPNG:

Re: anybody know when next step in MSG case??

ATTACK as you wish, but really, this is rather commin, and makes some common sense too:

Summary judgment granted to MSG.
MSG will ask the judgement gets recorded as a general lien on all assets. Not a big deal, as it seems SPNG has little desire to securitize anything it has anyway..or even attempt for credit anyplace.

MSG must go through some reasonable collection steps and efforts, which will include finding other possible assets. A primary one in something like this is finding outstanding accounts receivable to SPNG by more solvent parties - say CVS or WM, whoever they say owes them and causes the cash flow problem.

They can then go to the court and showing that the judgment was not satisified, and especially if they can indicate some intent to delay rather than co-operate in complying with the court order (so that they want to assure the money in the future from the good party is not diverted), specific attachments/liens, under court cover will be issued. So someone like WM will be instructed to pay any money it owes SPNG to the court directly. If it doesn't it is liable itself. Obviously, business partners do not like these letters and costly special handlings for many reasons!

One other twist, not unlikely - that as that progresses, SPNG will hire a lawyer and say it didn't understand and appeal. A new route.

How the other law suits will play out and intermix remains to be seen.
ANY costs of delay, collection fees, attorny fees, court costs and interest will absolutely be added to the judgement on either route.

wlk, so bouncing hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks to pay for advertising, then lying about the situation in a court affidavit is considered "some mistakes along the way"?

fourkids, so are you telling us that the exhibits that include the emails from Metter and Moskowitz are falsified?

Otherwise, the wording in the M&M emails is very strong evidence to support what MSG is claiming in the lawsuit, don't you think?

brainstorming, speaking of reading exhibits, here is an "exhibit" for you that you might want to read:


On December 24, 2009, the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) sent a written Wells notice, which was received on December 28, 2009, to each of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”), Michael L. Metter, SpongeTech’s Chief Executive Officer, and Steven Y. Moskowitz, SpongeTech’s Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer. The Wells notices advised that the Commission Staff intends to recommend that the Commission bring civil injunctive actions against them alleging violations of the federal securities laws contained in Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder; and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-14 thereunder. The recommended actions would seek, among other things, permanent injunctions and civil penalties.

dp, speaking of damaging for SPNG, how is this?



On December 24, 2009, the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) sent a written Wells notice, which was received on December 28, 2009, to each of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”), Michael L. Metter, SpongeTech’s Chief Executive Officer, and Steven Y. Moskowitz, SpongeTech’s Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer. The Wells notices advised that the Commission Staff intends to recommend that the Commission bring civil injunctive actions against them alleging violations of the federal securities laws contained in Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder; and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-14 thereunder. The recommended actions would seek, among other things, permanent injunctions and civil penalties.

A good question from another board just posted:



Why did scam company SPNG fail to include the 415 million SPNG shares that it issued to RME during the 3 months ending feb. 2009 at $0.001/share in the April 16, 2009 O/S figure of 722 million?

weeb, yes you will see this particular stock manipulation discussed in the indictments of Metter and Moskowitz by the DOJ

dale, what part of the SPNG story would this be?



SPNG issues over 1.7 billion SPNG shares to RME,which manages to sell all except 66 million as per the SEC filings.

SPNG is caught issuing false and misleading press releases

SPNG management is caught forging attorneys names on hundreds of legal opinion letters in order to remove restrictions on hundres of milions of SPNG shares

SPNG refuses to let its stockholders know the current O/S for about a year now as the A/S has been increased by more than one billion shares.

SPNG refuses to file the 10k that was due August 31, 2009

SPNG issues billions upon billions of shares, with many going to an entity controlled by SPNG management and during this time fraudulently states publicly that it is in a share buyback mode.

NO one can seem to find several of the SPNG customers that were reponsible for the majority of the sales for SPNG during the period ending Feb. 28, 2009, as per SPNG SEC filings.

3 website all of a sudden appear on the Internet this past fall for 3 of these so-called customers, all at the same time and developed by the same people that happen to be stock promoters..

the 3 websites all of a sudden stop functioning at the same time for these 3 completely differnt companies

"momostocks" and several other promoters such as "basherbuster2" have now been caught by the SEC and U.S. Attorneys Office for promoting SPNG on message boards without the disclaimer that they have been paid handsomely, into the hundreds of thousands of dollars by SPNG and related entities.

Norman Feinberg, a former consultant to SPNG is caught receiving funds by SPNG and related entities in order to buys SPNG products from stores during test market periods in order to make it seem as though sales are much higher, in order to get the large retailer to order for all its stores.

The SEC suspends trading in SPNG for ten days and states that the sales and order figures in the press releases should not be relied upon.

The SEC issues a Wells Letter to SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz telling them that, after months of formal investigations, it has enough evidence that it will be filing formal securities fraud charges against them for, among other things, filing fraudulent financials with the SEC and issuing PR's that included fraudulent order and sales figures.

dlewis, the 415 million SPNG shares issued to RME by SPNG during the 3 months ending Feb. 28, 2009 were issued at $0.001/share, which is much lower than 40% discount from market price at the time.

puppy, look up what the details of the SEC fraud charges against PLNI

you will see a scary parallel to SPNG about making public statements about a share buyback program yet issuing billions of shares to themselves instead...

bigbad, what are you talking about?

all you need is a simple agreement between the parties:

SPNG (Moskowitz)
RME (Moskowitz)
Pike (PIke)

WHY TODAY'S 8-K ON THE SPNG/RME SHARE BUYBACK WAS FILED

Two months from now when the SEC and DOJ file the fraud charges on SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz and release the current O/S of 3.0 billion, stockholders will be complaining to Moskowitz and Metter that they lied about the O/S. The stockholders will insist that the O/S of 3.0 billion should be a lot less because of the announced SPNG/RME buy backs.

The response by Moskowits and Metter?

here it is:

"What is it about the March 3, 2010 8-K that we filed with the SEC extending the SPNG/RME buyback that you did not understand?. We told you that the buyback was not complete in that 8-K and here it is:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420410011132/v176145_8k.htm

turner, no one forgot anything..

let me remind you of the title of my post:


SPNG issues 1.611 billion shares to RME as of April 16, 2009


it is simply an attempt to show the number of shares issued by SPNG to RME as of the last date that SPNG filed financials with the SEC

no more

no less

and the reason that SPNG filed an 8-K today showing the extension of the buyback agreement, but failed to state how many shares have been bought back by SPNG as of today is WHY?


http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420410011132/v176145_8k.htm


very simple

the reason is:

This is what scam companies do

This is the way that scam companies behave

very simple indeed!

LV2, try forced bankruptcy for SPNG upon the granting of the Summary Judgment in favor of MSG...

jefftrade, nope...not if the cash from the sale of shares was kept by the people behind RME and other related parties and consultants, which is how scam companies are operated.

badshah, there is nothing that is available that shows that SPNG is a successful company.

having a product sold by Walmart does not make you a successful company.

advertising on a Bengals pro football shirt does not make you a successful company

and

since the SEC thas stated that the books are cooked, there are no official financials available to determine whether this company is successful or not.

In fact, the bouncing of significant checks and failure to pay creditors, and the refusal to let its stockholders know the current O/S as well as refusal to file the financials with the SEC for almost a year now are examples of a company that is not successful..