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.

]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

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.

as Counsel for the Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession

"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.

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.

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?

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?

>>> 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

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 ..

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).

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.