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.
fourkids, I suggest you call the firm and do your own due Diligence as history has proven that you do not believe the words of others?
when you complete this diligence, and obtain the data you think valuable to the company, please present it here as you feel it is pertinent to SPNG.
Judd says Hi.
If you would like to call the IR firm I suggest you do so. You are good at doing background checks and background research. It helps though when the data you seek you report.
Judd says Hi. LMAO
Actually they did
On Wednesday, at The Post's request, SpongeTech provided addresses, phone numbers and contacts for its largest customers through its outside investor relations firm, Lippert Heilshorn & Associates.
But research .......
truly excellent. if only it were true.
So how is that 10K, where is the updated filing showing Furths further investment? Maybe he is not filing because he knew with the real O/S he was below required limits.
Securities laws require full disclosure. If you are to publish stock purchases you are equally obligated to publish stock sales so that there is full transparency. M&M and RME Have done no such thing.
Likewise, If you pimp new IR firms or contracts as a material event, you are likewise obligated to disclose terminated contracts for full disclosure.
Markets are manipulated when only partial disclosures are made. SpongeTech set precedent of what they defined as a material event and then they must maintain consistency of change thereafter. This full transparency issue is why many don't pimp as much as SPNG did.
Figure it out Four, I was done with you a long time ago. SPNG has a history of firms. See who is not there.
You got it. And each with a common story.
you are assuming you have his real name.
The interesting thing about these guys, they only pump positives.
Did you notice that they have yet another PR firm working for them? Did they put out a release on the lost account or do they leave those negatives hanging and only post the positives.
you know like:
1. Management is buying but they do not disclose sales.
2. A/S is changing but never a PR on O/S
3. New PR on board but never last one quit.
4. etc...
5. etc...
6. etc...
So who really knows what the present status is of D&T as it is not a pump event but a dump event.
FWIW. The last PR Firm quit after Moscowitz provided them with the contact information that went to the Post. They knew it to be false and quit immediately thereafter.
Great the best way to do that is start at the bottom. Any private pumps you may have received relative to SPNG?
If you look at the responses, many are still in denial. that is great but such denial may hinder their right to proper restitution if this is in fact a fraud.
if it were me and I got stuck huge, I would not be trying to defend and justify, i would be contacting a lawyer. assets move quickly.
So what we learned last night was that Soapy Bubbles was lying to people here on purpose. But what we also learned is that he was actually providing non-public information to people about upcoming events. soapy claims he had no affiliation with the company and yet he had this information and what he did with it we do not know.
What about Furth? How many here had similar communications with Furth and received similar insight on upcoming press releases and Eurpoean Hedge Fund buyouts?
How far did the network extend?
There are serious civil and criminal securities issues identified here. If either of these people were setting out a pump campaign and selling into it it is criminal. Just curious as to who else had similar communications with Furth as I just received one contact who admits that what Soapy gave some Furth did as well.
Enron sponsored a ball park
Boiler plate PR.
How can there be any confusion about customers and O/S? Ahe only confusion stems from the companies unwillingness to disclose something that is the right of every shareholder.
Dicon was a distressed company based on the sale price and the sale price proves that there was little SPNG manufacturing taking place in that business. Think of it this way, if SPNG were to go from $50 Million to $70 Million plus, that would theoretically give Dicon a near 50% boost in revenues stemming from SPNG business alone.
I don't disagree. Not going forward this week with teh planned PR will be proof of that IMO.
I could be wrong but the interest in the deal can still be announced and it would also put shareholders at ease that there is something going on that is positive and that they do not think the SEC will have issues.
Remember, it was a PR stating that a TO was being made, it takes awhile to actually sign the dotted line.
The SEC has authority over publicly traded companies; not private. Any private buyout during this investigation would be liable for any fines imposed against the company and company officers while acting as a public company. I would hope that any company looking to offer a private buyout had done enough of their own due diligence that they would not fear what is happening here today and would be willing to proceed. I think not proceeding with the buyout is additional signs that not all is kosher. IMO
They can go private today.
The buyout was a buyout to take the company private (European Hedge Fund). You don't need to trade if you are taking it private. The money would be distributed to shareholders of record.
If the buyout was that imminent, you would think that the data used to sign off on a buyout would certainly be data that could satisfy the SEC. Wasn't that request made by the SEC on the 18th?
badshaw, I believe you are confused. This is a SPNG board. If you would like to talk about SPNG and how that company parallels the story of USXP we can discuss teh similarities in stock dilution and manipulative press releases. The other company you speak (JAG) was not a highly dilutive company and actually was annoyingly quiet relative to press releases.
Maybe you can share with this board your experiences with a company whose stalk was halted after buying shares after excessive hype by a CEO selling stock without notice into the market. I think people could learn from your experience and your post experienmce state of mind.
You will now by Friday.
The PR Monday was locked and loaded last week. That was what got Soapy Sponges in trouble is he discussed it in PM's. I believe the SEC took his e-mails they received seriously and halted the stock before another P&D was executed. Those same conversations talked of a seconfd PR to address the TO.
You will know by the end of the week.
Soapy Sponge claimed last week that a PR would come out this week announcing a Second Lawsuit and that PR would be followed up with the announcement of a take out offer. Since you do not need to trade to have a takeover into a private company, this trading halt should be of little significance.
But if the announcement fails to materialize it again raises questions about wheher the intended PR was about the company or about pumping the market.
It is most likely because the information involving himself and SPNG management was undeniable. understand, he was still not honest with you as he claims these were trial balloons of mis-information but they were in fact informative and accurate.
I think that a denial could have been tried but when so many received the same information the denials would have been questioned.
So the big question is, if the plan was for a take out offer to be PR's this week, will it still happen with the stock halted?
Back for my third and final bullet of the day.
SpongeTech is halted for no other reason than because the management of SpongeTech thought they had responsibility to nobody.
If you read the SEC ruling, the halt was put in place because there were concerns about the accuracy of data in many different areas and these concerns were being raised by many people. M&M knew about these concerns but never trusted that anybody really cared.
Outstanding Shares. The company routinely filed 8-K’s talking about shares Authorized changing but never addressed O/S. The only time that SpongeTech did discuss the O/S they did so by referring back to what was reported months prior. Their lack of reporting this number was exacerbated when the forged documents issue surfaced, the change in TA surfaced, and the Gag order surfaced. Had these guys not publicly tried to purposely withhold information it would not have been a red flag.
Business Customers. Again, this issue was gaining huge traction. Business leaders on the up and up can’t afford such negativity. Metter and Moscowitz didn’t care about what the outside worlds was saying or doing, they just went about their business playing with stock shares. When Metter provided the NY Post with contact information that could not be verified it became yet another red flag the SEC could no longer ignore. It was now in public print that their customers were bogus and when a company does not respond it is considered a sign of guilt. All they had to do was come clean with contacts and the trading halt never would have occurred. They didn’t.
You people, long investors complained to the SEC. It was not just those from the outside or from short sellers. People who were underwater in the stock wanted answers and when they didn’t come they complained first to the company and then to the authorities.
As for Soapy, he was not alone here. There are snakes amongst you and they may be sitting there posting as your best friend. This is your investment with money you earned through hard work. SpongeTech was sold to you by people that befriended you while having the scoop on when a press release was about to come and what its intent was. People make money on such news and innocent people lose it. Having inside information on a pump and dump is having access to print money because you know the reality of the situation. Soapy admitted he had this kind of information in this forum and distributed it selectively while lying about negative news to all of you. He was your moderator and he restricted you from access to valuable and pertinent information by restricting the speech of those that had a differing opinion; he even admitted to that in a subtle way.
I can’t tell you whether SPNG will ever trade again as it does have a product, just not one with the sales you all thinks exist. And without knowing the true sales and without knowing the true O/S, you really don’t know what the value of this business really is. What I can tell you is that based on the price they paid for Dicon, Dicon was a distressed company with limited revenues. I hear it had outdated technology as well. If you are a manufacturing plant that manufactures product that yields $50 Million in revenues, your business revenues had to be well over $10 Million since the cost of manufacture is always a large percentage of manufactured goods. So why then does the company get sold for a mere $4.5 Million which includes a brand new $3.5 Million facility? Dicon acquisition enforces the lack or real sales taking place.
Sorry for being long winded but it is my third bullet.
Best to all for the day and for those who were innocent in all this you have my deepest sympathies. For the others, may you rot in #$%%.
soapy, since you got me to 3 posts I will shoot my second bullet now.
The company is not fine and you have no credibility to say such. SpongeTech is halted and under an SEC investigation. SpongeTech has failed to provide evidence of their major customers and have allowed the public to linger on the lack of details associated with those customers.
The Dicon Investment. Numbers don't add up. If a company is a retail manufacturing based company it is well recognized that the manufacturing costs represent 30, 40, 50% of costs. For the $50 Million in Revenues from SpongeTech that is $15, $20, $25 Million in manufacturing costs. How then does Dicon make less than $1 Million in manufacturing costs producing product that creates $50 Million in revenues? I say less than $1 Million because the new plant they purchased was over $3 Million and the company was purchased for $4.5 Million so clearly there is no revenue factored into the sale price. Clearly nobody is foolish to sell a business with $20 Million in revenues annually for $4 Million including buildings.
as for your other misleading information, how did you know about the lawsuit to be filed on Monday? How many other PR's did you know about before they happen and did you happen to trade on that information? If you are not part of the company and just an investor and a moderator here, tell us how you have information that would only be privy to people within the company circles? You do realize that when your trade records are compared to Press Releases that insider trading is illegal.
Now you have lied about your job, you have lied to people here to keep them upbeat when they are losing to a scam, and you have possible committed civil and criminal activities. I for one vote for your immediate dismissal. You have proven to be unqualified to moderate a board that is supposed to be a free flow of information regardless of the popularity of that information. You are why penny stock scams exist.
That is a great story Soapy but this is not a chit chat session but a place where people discuss spongeTech and make personal investment decisions based on the information they hear.
It is not your right as moderator to lie and deceive people to see if they will support your personal desires. As a Moderator you can not mange free speech. The fact that you lied to them as the moderator, and admit to it proves you are not qualified for the post.
many people have contacted me about the inside information/mis-information you have given them. Talking about filings being ready to re-assure them that they should stay in the market or upcoming events to convince them to buy. that is what a stock promoter does. They create personal alliances and convince people on a personal level that you are working with them.
Problem is, these people put THEIR Money into a market YOU convinced them to and now you admit you have lied to them all as a test. There is nothing worse that a friend you believe in that lies to you. More so when you told many people about upcoming events that happened. those people can use past history as evidence that what you say today is again - a lie.
I do not expect this post to last as it is clear only you can pontificate off toipic as you are the moderator.
Just for fun, can we have a show of hands from all those that bought stock last week on back channel news of take over offers from a European Hedge Fund and on back channel news on a reported second lawsuit to be filed?
How many here were convinced that this was about to rocket this week on these events?
If SpongeTech has a tender offer from a European hedge fund, shouldn’t that news still be released regardless of the trading halt? I mean, if SpongeTech is a real business with real revenues, and a real tender offer is available there should be no reason to stop the PR that was touted right?
As I see it, the news would be in line with the Managements position that this is not a fraud. It would imply that the hedge fund making the offer did their due diligence and that due diligence would easily get into the hands of the SEC to lift the trading halt. No PR is really a signal that the back channel chatter was a false as this business.
Seek out the individuals that provided you with that back channel info and ask what’s up. The fund should be willing to buy your position off you without the stock trading in the open markets. It is called a private sale.
Just received notice - SEC has issued an order of trading suspension in SPNG.
Copy of the order here:
http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/files/12k--091005--SpongeTech%20Delivery%20Systems%
what was Dicon's revenues in manufacturing the product that created $50 million in revenues for SPNG?
let me ask you, If Dicon was this HUGE business, why was it sold for $4.5 Million?
Does an affiliation with Dicon's past products (which can't be much based on sale price) automatically mean that the spongeTech product will suddenly fill these stores? if these stores wanted the product, why wasn't Spongetech getting their business before?
Seriously, What is the value of Dicon's building alone? Clearly this was a distressed buy as $4.5 Million is peanuts when you are buying a business and all it's assets. Remember part of that business was YOUR OWN PRODUCT.
It is funny. It is easy to verify what is happening, all that has to be done is call the names identified. instead of doing so, people go on the attack, shoot the messenger and believe messages and statements that can not be verified over ones that offer a path to verify.
Go figure.
That is your opinion and you have a right to it. I disagree but you have that right.
If I may offer, I contacted Kaja because I found her professional. Until I did she knew nothing of SPNG. What I offered her piqued her interests but was not really a story. eventually it evolved as the information and oddities came in. you claim it was orchestrated by short sellers, I claim otherwise because I know. As for me, I have never shorted a stock and do not intend to. I have offered the SEC access to my accounts to verify my lack of financial interest in this market.
I investigated SPNG because it was being touted as a NSS story - plain and simple. The fact that I do not agree is based on my studies in this area.
I agree - that was an excellent post. I now understand how SPNG handles their accounting and I now know how to verify who is doing what with regards to SEC Investigations and oversight. I took down names and numbers.
I missed a few when it came to customer contacts for SPNG, do you think you could get those for me?
actually I am providing you a contact source so you can do your own diligence. The NY post offered one and quoted a person who you can verify works for DT. I would say with 100% assurance that this information is 1000 times more valuable and credible that a comment that simply says "I spoke to the Big-4".
If you don't like what the Post stated, they are giving you the opportunity to challenge it. Tell me, how do you challenge the flip side comments or is this a matter of believing only what you want to hear?
I am questioning their filings. The reports in the last PR by the company are supported by an independent third party - the NY Post and...that story supplied a name that you can call to verify.
based on two very parallel stories, why believe a story that has no basis of foundation and no way to audit it?
have I told you to do otherwise. I have said many times here - to deaf ears - that you must trade this going in with eyes wide open. If my assertions are right, and this is a P&D, you can play the pump but be aware, there are federal eyes on this and they may shut it down mid stream. If it is a P&d there will also be a crash at the end and you don't want to be holding the bag.
I suggest that those who are interested in understanding DT real role in SPNG. go ahead and follow up on this - from the NY post.
Deloitte's work with SpongeTech "cannot commence" until the company files its 2009 annual report with the SEC, Deloitte spokesman Keith Lindenburg told The Post, contradicting previous statements by SpongeTech CEO Michael Metter that Deloitte will oversee Robison's work on the 2009 audit.
so go call Kieth and ask him what he meant. I am sure there was a communication problem in which he did not in the conference call with the "big 4" LMAO
in case you missed it, this was a name being posted that you can call and verify. I haven't seen any name provided from others where verification of comments can be made.
yea, yea, yea, and what percentage of revenues, or what revenues have they derived?
they had some of these same customers last year and they accounted for a pittance of the sales. In case you missed it - AGAIN - that is according to Spongetech's own filings.