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.
all of those can be arranged via Working Capital....from Inventory >>>> WIP Inventory >>>>> FG >>>>>>> Retail and of course not forgetting labor & overhead!!!!
patchman, that's a fallacy...the machines are already in the plant and no additional capital is required other than WC which I believe they, SPNG, were able to get.
Patchman, really you are just repeating what you have been saying and not doing proper, critical analysis of the business situation. From the numbers published (so far), yes the advertising did not appear to have much impact but then SPNG began going down after the SEC trading suspension...however, business has been operating......not at full clip but pulling along. In addition the advertising really is not a critical variable here i.e it is not a show stopper as they have plenty of Private Label products for which SPNG does have to spend advt dollars.
It will now take serious capital to get Dicon even back up and running and nobody will be taking that risk at these uncertain times.
pleading out does not imply they are guilty. And I never implied that either. It is you who is claiming that they are guilty. SEC will loose badly if they go Jury Trial!
Obviously you have not read the filings!!!!1 Tell me how do the SEC/DOJ work.......like kids playing marbles????
hahahahaha!!!! The SEC is getting sued for 2.3 trillion $ and a settlement to be announced soon!! And you call it a scam, lies, etc!!!
we'll find out soon. keep your eyes peeled and ears open!!
patchman, that's what perplexes me....you are mixing up individuals & technology/products/business/socio-economic benefits, WHY?? The 2 are mutually exclusive. You can throw all the dirt on them but the fact remains...if the company is cleansed out of the prior folks, then the business can continue as there is market acceptance of the products.
don't know, could be wrong!
patchman, there were 2 documents on your website, one signed off by the TA & the other signed off by Mosko...I don't see them any more!! Is that correct??
they are not conclusive in any aspect regarding the allegations!!
]how many good reasons do you need?
scam
insiders arrested
DTC halt
SEC civil suit
Bankruptcy
phony opinion letters
3 billion shares out standing
massive debt
only asset in separate BK
past due in all sec filings = revoking
that's not a good reason and it is only your opinion. Nothing has been proven yet....still all allegations!! Risi, do you have securities industry background??
puppy you are quite aggressive in expecting that all shareholders will be wiped out incessantly for the last 2yrs...why is that????
I agree, round them all up, including all the market financial crooks like MMs, Hedge Funds, etc and put them in the same cell!!!
big lug, they could be having such an arrangement for new technology/products.
That would put pink sheets & grey sheets out of business as well as all the scam breakers. Unfortunately there are no unemployment benefits for the latter!!
They struck out the Retainer clause! Still moving forward!
So where are the 285,000,000 Class B shares. The AS for Class B is only 28,000,000 and 28,000,000 have been issued and Outstanding. Provide a link for your numbers!!!
Yup, not anymore with the PPS at $0.003 and dropping like a set of car keys. You can have a few hundred million shares of Class A common and still not have a large interest. Not anymore.
AT LEAST 3 billion common shares ~outt and at least 285,000,000 Class B supervoting shares with 100 votes per share.
You could hold 2.5 billion shares and be a minority shareholder in terms of votes.
All the common will be zeroed ~outt in the BK anyway, so no position in common is really any larger or smaller than any other at this point - they are all equally worthless.
I got it!!
what is this in reference to .....SPNG - Dicon, Dicon being a debtor to SPNG??
as Counsel for the Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession
WOW!! Read again SEC!!! Must read...at least people are beginning to realize that SPNG can flourish without M & M.
To be frank, those are not my words but I supported the content at that time and I did it with a purpose!! I bet you knew that!! 80% of the posts indulge in character assassination of the company management while ignoring the NSS criminal enterprise activities!! I have a post coming up on that subject.
OT, thanks for the clarification. In your interaction with Mosko, did Mosko tell you that Neiger was with him when he submitted the petition?
I take issue with opinions and that's precisely the problem here. It gives a misleading impression of the events taking place. I will not state my opinion on matters having legal implications. The legal definition will be the definition.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you have an incomplete picture of the event and your opinion is bound to be inaccurate.
"Also, do you know for sure Neiger was not aware of this."
I assume by "this" you mean the appearance of his name, address, phone number and a big old mark smack dab in the middle of the line that called for his signature on the petition.
No, I don't.
Obviously, you are not pulling out this definition from thin air but can you tell me if your opinion is equivalent to the legal definition of forgery. Also, do you know for sure Neiger was not aware of this. His letter just states that he did not sign nor is he their attorney but says he advising them on restructuring and does not say anything else.
The question that I am happy to answer (with my opinion, of course) is this one:
Are you saying that a person by placing an X or a Mark on a signature field that calls for the signature of another person, without that other person's knowledge or authorization, constitutes forgery??
Yes.
That was not a swipe against you.
I can't tell if that was a swipe at me or others that might be suffering the same delusions that I am. Maybe there was a clearer way to say it, but I had hoped that you would understand "can't help but opine, again sans education". It means that I am not an expert and that I am not passing judgment but merely expressing my opinion.
That said, SOMEBODY put a big old mark on that line and it isn't Neiger's signature. Is there a term other than "forgery" that you're more comfortable with? A slip of the pen, perhaps, or a random doodle? I'm not seeking "to debate the legal definition of forgery". I'm just wondering, if you disagree with my conclusion, in what specific respect?
Does "I'll take that on face value" serve as a waiver of further discussion on this issue also?
you may call it loosy goosy and I may call it 'flexible' but the fact remains if you can bend it like Beckham you are bound to score a goal!! The BK court is there to help distressed companies and that is the driving factor.
And that would suggest that the court has adopted the loosygoosy approach to the process that you suggested might prevail. I still believe that the issues presented should have had more of an impact, but so far it appears that I'm just picky picky picky.
As others have noted, the Pro Se issue MUST be resolved (according to that pesky law crap). I don't know if that must be done prior to any court appearances, the first of which is scheduled for 8/9, or prior to the submission of schedules on 7/23. Or if the court will let that slide along with the rest of it and allow SM to appear on behalf of the petitioner to strut his legal expertise. Alternatively, I hear things are a little slow at Bomart, Cone & Rolland and that they take monopoly money for payment.
I see where you've commented that "a check mark is not a forged signature!!" and can't help but opine, again sans education, that the placement of any mark by any party in the position reserved for the signature of another party would logically be considered a forgery. The QUALITY of the mark, in terms of its similarity to the intended parties signature, can't be the determinative factor as to whether it qualifies as a forgery or not........an "X" on a signature line is regularly understood to suffice as a signature as long as that X is inscribed, or authorized by, the party identified below the line.
In this case, the person for whom the signature position is intended has denied signing the form and the mark is large enough and centered on the line in such a position so as to not allow the entry of an actual signature. No clerk would place a check mark in that position to indicate that a signature is required on that line. What conclusion would you draw other than that the person who made that mark did so in an attempt to represent that the requirement for a signature had been somehow otherwise satisfied and indicated same with a check mark or that the mark itself was a proper signature with the intent of furthering the petition? If Mr. Neiger himself did not make, or at least authorize, the making of that mark it seems to me that it qualifies as a forgery. The only real question left for me is, who made the mark?
I read it puppy...why don't u wait till 23 July instead of passing pre-judgments!!
a check mark is not a forged signature!! In fact most of you were loud about it being a forged signature until it was mentioned on Yahoo MB that it was a Check mark! Also OT came back yelling that he confirmed that it was Mosko who forged the signature!!
>>> forged signature...when in fact there was no signature!!
no .. there was a check mark .. in sig area, the attorneys box .. mosky knew the attorney was not going to rep him - tried to fake it
As far as I can see, it is moving forward, unless the Judge calls it otherwise!! Or are you saying the Judge has indeed thrown the petition out???
I know what Pro Se means....but he still has time till 23 July!! That's the Q I have...can he change his mind?? I guess ur answer is NO! We'll find out soon....Whether he can do Pro Se or he'll be able to hire an attorney!!
I am learning a lot about the legal process!! And U.......let me see.........
>>> forged signature...when in fact there was no signature!!
>>>> cannot file chap 11, SEC will not allow it!!!
>>>> BK petition will not fly...judge will throw it out
I guess those were facts from ur side???
U think changes can happen..anytime..an attorney identified???
I can't see that happening .. if spng .. requires Pro Se .. means it does not have any funds or assets - just debt
sounds like it should advance to chapter 7 ..
That should put everyone to sleep!! The BK petition has come thus far and still moving forward....... Pro Se!!
loanranger, not trying to put u on the spot!! Scion answered all of my questions.
Thanks Scion, I got it!
O.K loanranger, I'll take that on face value. Any idea about the 'pending deadlines terminated'??
Full docket text:
Pending Deadlines Terminated. (Porter, Minnie).
Full docket text:
Deficiencies Set: Schedule A due 7/23/2010. Schedule B due 7/23/2010. Schedule D due 7/23/2010. Schedule E due 7/23/2010. Schedule F due 7/23/2010. Schedule G due 7/23/2010. Schedule H due 7/23/2010. Summary of schedules - Page 1 due 7/23/2010. Statement of Financial Affairs due 7/23/2010. Atty Disclosure State. due 7/23/2010. 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors due 7/23/2010. List of all creditors due 7/23/2010. List of All Creditors Required on Case Docket in PDF Format due 7/23/2010. List of Equity Security Holders due 7/23/2010. Corporate Resolution due 7/23/2010. Local Rule 1007-2 Affidavit due by: 7/23/2010. Corporate Ownership Statement due by: 7/23/2010. Incomplete Filings due by 7/23/2010, (Porter, Minnie).
deficiencies have been set for items to be submitted by the deadline, 23 July 2010 which essentially means the deadline is not valid any longer...also as evidenced in 'pending deadlines terminated'
If I may take an educated guess..."pending deadlines terminated"...should mean 23 July 2010 deadline no longer valid. Judge should make a determination regarding the BK petition.
patchman, I was not looking for answers!! Facts can be gotten only after rigorous due diligence which may/can happen under chap 11. Until then all of the responses are just assumptions inclusive of the OS as there are glaring blunders made by the TAs.
Quote:1. what is the intrinsic value of SPNG
--------- Dicon, Licensing Agreement with HHBrown That agreement is null in the bankruptcy and a new agreement would be required of new operators. No guarantee that will ever happen.
--------- Licensing Agreements with Viacom, Marvel, Disney, etc They are only as good as the product you can sell. To date, those sales, with all that advertising, is nominal at best. Not enough to turn a profit at the Spongetech level.
--------- Retail Outlets & Sales How has that worked out will all that free advertising? Take away Spongetech longs and Spongetech buying out their own products, what really do you have?
--------- Plant, facilities & equipment. Bankrupt. Don't think they walk away with a fully clean slate and workers wanting to come back without a cost associated with it. Can't stiff them on past paychecks and then think they will come back running. That Plant was operating at a loss.
--------- Warehouse, facilities & equipment Really. where and at what value?
--------- add anything that I may have left out
--------- Liabilities .. business --- Huge
--------- Liabilities ... Legal --- Even bigger.
2. what is the OS ..after a forensic audit. 3 Billion. Spongetech and Transfer Agent have both said the same.
3. Write up a business plan. Find an investor first. business plan for Dicon has never been profitable. Berkshire cut their ties based on failing business plan. Spongetech sponges were high priced novelties with limited interest.
Not all!!!