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.
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.
Yes, really. What is your point with my previous post. Just a possible suggestion. You are not making sense.
Doug doesn't own the Company, so don't worry about him. What he may or may not do, is miniscule in the scope of what the Company accomplishes.
SpongeBob, if I didn't know better, I'd say you are a little upset. Do one thing for me, go back where we were 6 months ago, and now look at what the Company has accomplished since then. It was never on our time, and we never really understoood a lot of things on a daily basis, but overall the Company has made some very impressive accomplishments, including the fact that it was at .02 then and now at .14. Think about it before you get so upset.
Tell me if this would be a good plan. Assuming that there is 2 billion air shares and assuming that the shorts know they are eventually going to have to pay up.
A/S = 2.75 billion
O/S = 722 million
Difference = 2.028 billion
Company issues 2 billion of the A/S and sells to shorts for them to cover at $30 per share, for a total of $60 billion dollars
Shorts are off the hook and all our air shares become legit shares.
Company does Tender Offer for all but 100 million shares at $20 per share.
We sell for $20 per share, we're happy, Company pockets $10 per share profit.
Company goes to nasdaq with tons of cash and O/S of 100 million shares.
Since they own preffered shares with voting rights of 100 votes per share, they can force the Tender and we have to sell.
Works out great for everyone except shorts of course. Keeps SEC out of it and everything is done in an orderly fashion.
Is it workable?
Thanks, I thought I had seen them on one of the lists.
What happened to Signature Fund?
Sorry, that's not the way I interpret that. Go to the following site and read very carefully EX-10 License Agreement. The owner of Dicon and a collegue from RSI invented the process. They agreed that both would assign and transfer their rights to that process to Dicon. Dicon therefore owned the process and SPNG bought and now owns the process. Dicon had signed a Licensing Agreement to license the process back to H.H. Brown, which they still have, and in the sales contract between SPNG and Dicon, H.H. Brown signed an acknowledgement that the agreement was still in force and that Dicon had not breached any of its obligations. This was done to protect SPNG against H.H. Brown coming back and claiming a default under the agreement. That's the way I see it.
http://www.secinfo.com/d14W3c.28.4.htm#1stPage
Very possible and a good point Happy.
Dicon had an agreement to license the technology to H.H. Brown, and H.H. Brown acknowledged that fact in the contract for sale and by doing so both parties agreed that the licensing deal would still be in force. This is not hard to figure out and understand.
OT, go to this site and I think you will see what I mean. It is EX-10 License Agreement.
http://www.secinfo.com/d14W3c.28.4.htm#1stPage
I read that as H.H.Brown has an agreement to use the patent for their shoes, but the patent is owned by Dicon. H.H. Brown is merely acknowledging that the sale is taking place and that they are OK with it.
OT, I don't think that is right. If I remember, the inventor and the guy from H.H. Brown turned over the patent to Dicon. Therefore, when SPNG bought Dicon, they bought the patent.
Powerbar, all that sound good to me, and I agree that the medical applications are astounding.
I'm not sure they even have annual shareholder meetings do they? Since they own the preferred shares that have voting privileges equivalent to 100 votes per share, there wouldn't be anything to vote on at a meeting that they couldn't override. But I'm not sure, anyone else know the answer to that?
You would certainly think that intelligence would dictate not adding to their position, but I think they are still adding some, very little though. You're right, they are not amateurs and you would think they would be covering right now, but they seem to be thinking "we're already screwed unless a miracle for us happens, so let's wait til the very end and see". It blows my mind to see our stock price level or go down when we get all these great PR's. It shows how good they are at holding the price down. They will not just lay down and give up billions of dollars, they will pull every trick they know, but in the end they will lose. Yea baby.
It could be any company.
Exactilioso. An accounting of the shares is the most important thing we need to get rid of the crooks. There are other ways too of course.
I can't disagree with you there. The right people may not be the brightest, but they can get things done. Good luck to you as well.
San Diego would include Carpe, yeah we need him for sure. He has been a bedrock and has kept all the newbies informed of what the Company has been doing all this time to build a $500 Million Company on NASDAQ.
In our case, merging with a company that is already on nasdaq, but whose business is basically non-existent, would enable us to move to nasdaq and then, because we would already have a nasdaq position, the requirements to keep that position is to maintain a $1 per share value. If you are a new company applying to nasdaq, it takes a $4 per share value and a lot of paperwork and a huge cost to get on nasdaq. Merging is the fastest and cheapest way to get there.
Lexion, you are exactly right, but also they have the right business model,the determination, and the momentum that will put them in the position of getting on nasdaq without having to use their connections.
Nope, but then I haven't researched it either. NASDAQ has a lot of stocks that have not performed well and are below $1, they are looking for companies like SPNG that are making profits, building revenues, growing new business, introducing new products, etc. They will make exceptions to the rule for these kinds of companies. Besides, when all is said and done, they will qualify share price wise, so no exceptions will need to be made.
Absolutely, positively, without a doubt. You got it.
I guess I need to get a car wash sponge and wash my car to try it out.
Absolutely Drew, I agree 100%. Go SPNG.
I say more like 750 mm, and I believe it.
I really do think the medical thing is going to be HUGE. I was reading up on it today and the market for that would be phenomenal, plus it is throw away so re-orders would be big numbers. It's amazing what starts out as a sponge company will probably end up being a major player in several different fields. And making enormous amounts of money.
Ordered two of them, but haven't received them yet. I'm looking forward to trying them out. Funny, I was just sitting here thinking about the SPNG party and how much fun it will be. Not sure any of us old guys can keep up with you though. Sounds like you are out and about pretty much all the time. Keep plugging the sponge.
Just saw this DG, did you just happen to have a sponge with you or do you carry one around all the time, lol. That is hilarious, love your top.
Bob
If you go to this sight:
http://www.andover-healthcare.com/healthcare/wound_care_dressings.html?id=29#top
Then on the right side click on Technical Info
Then on the right side of the first page you will see that it Shows the Dicon Patent
Pretty cool.
If I'm not mistaken, they have already PR'd that they were self funding now and no longer needed RME financing. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
If you think Women aren't part of the NFL target audience, Read This"
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/women-increasingly-super-super-bowl-fans/
Who would be selling, must be stop losses kicking in.
I don't know what the status is of the Company they shorted. If it went out of business, then they wouldn't have to cover. With SPNG, they surely would have to cover and then might also have to pay fines. Will have to look a little deeper into it.
This may have already been posted, if so, sorry.
SEC collects first fines in 'naked shorts' case
4:33p ET August 5, 2009 (MarketWatch)
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In a first, the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday collected fines in connection with alleged violations of new rules that seek to prevent a controversial form of short selling known as naked shorting.
The agency charged two options traders, Hazen Capital Management LLC and TJM Proprietary Trading LLC, and their broker-dealers in the case.
"These traders and their firms engaged in short-selling tactics that circumvented regulatory requirements through complex options transactions," said Scott Friestad, associate director of enforcement.
Naked short selling differs from standard shorting because the trader doesn't actually borrow the security underlying the trade. According to Andrew Calamari, an SEC associate director, Hazen Capital Management lent large amounts of hard-to-borrow stock to broker-dealers, who then "located" those shares for their institutional investor clients, "which they otherwise might not have been able to do."
The firms and individuals agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the findings.
The SEC claimed that Hazen Capital Management's misconduct took place between 2005 and 2007 and that the firm received "ill-gotten" gains of at least $3 million.
Hazen agreed to pay a fine totaling $1 million as part of related actions taken by NYSE Amex LLC and NYSE Arca Inc. The SEC said it had ordered Hazen to pay $3 million, but agreed that the payment was satisfied by the NYSE Amex and NYSE Arca action.
Not enough
However, a number of key lawmakers argue that even with the enforcement action, the agency isn't doing enough to eliminate naked short selling. Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., and other lawmakers want the SEC to study whether a pre-borrow requirement would end the problem of naked short selling. Kaufman blames naked short sellers for speeding the downfall of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.
With a pre-borrow requirement, an institution would be required to arrange formally to borrow shares, or "pre-borrow" before engaging in a short sale. In an emergency action last year, the SEC temporarily required hedge funds and other short-selling institutions to pre-borrow shares.
Pleas tell me what WORD means.
Then 100 million would be illegal air shares and when the shorts cover they would also have to buy up the companys 100 million at whatever price they wanted. Certificates don't play into this. The T/A has a record of how many shares have been legitimately issued by the company, and that number rules.
Nadar, let's assume that there are 500 million shares legally issued by the Company that are the only legit shares Outstanding. Let's also assume that the Company owns or controls all these shares. Then every other share held by any shareholder is an illegal air share issued by shorts. In order to cover, they do not have to buy a legit share to cover an illegal air share. They only have to buy up all the air shares from shareholders like you and me and have their brokerage firm mark them off the IOU they gave that brokerage firm when they sold the shares short. So, if there are 1 billion shares that are naked short, they have to buy 1 billion shares on the open market at whatever price we want for the shares. Once they have bought up the entire 1 billion shares, they are in the clear.
z4 could it be large trades that we will see later as z or t trades.