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.
I don't understand why you say it's utter nonsense, shajandr. You do realize that the Settlement Agreement between the Trustee and Frank Lazauskas is a docketed public record in the bankruptcy court, don't you?
There are some pretty sharp people here KLee. I learn from them. And you are right. There is a LOT more to this story.
Well, the trustee picked up a $490,000 Settlement from the D&O insurance provider because of the millions Lazauskas allowed to be spent repurchasing shares. Again, that is information already provided to the court.
It's fully explained in my letter to the court regarding SpongeTech's Share Reupuchase: Motive, Method, and Opportunity.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I studied the stock issuance directions Steven sent to Olde Monmouth, along with the opinion letters and resolutions that went with them. Those documents actually served as the basis for a significant amount of work I provided to the bankruptcy court.
I agree he raised the AS. He HAD to, to reduce the OS.
I think he also authored and submitted the Bomart opinion letters. He couldn't, at that point, get a lawyer to render an opinion on the shares. There was no need for attorney opinions.
The OS could not have been reduced, if the AS hadn't been increased. There's no law against raising the AS.
Of course the DOJ would have wanted to know, although I was too rushed to clarify myself any better than I did. Withholding information about third parties from the public is what I was alluding to.
If you save the docs, dalessan, feel free to drop me a line.
I don't think the Bomart opinion letters were even necessary. So a fictitious lawyer may have been exactly what was needed to fulfill a fictitious need for legal opinions.
Well, what guilty pleas were entered that would have third party influence? Not Metter, for the stock issuances to his wife's company. Not Cavanagh and Nicolois, whose guilty pleas were for structuring. Eisenberg, perhaps, as well as Tepfer. But I think these violations may have been post-Olde Monmouth (or post the SEC's initial Complaint).
Moskowitz, however, is a different story. In his case, though, I actually think his plea deal may have hinged on his NOT revealing third party involvement.
As far as Pensley and Halperin, what's taking so long in prosecuting their cases? Personally, I don't think those cases can be made.
All of this is just my opinion, and shooting from the cuff. I have some time constraints right now that prevent a more thorough response.
Actually, it can be VERY GOOD for shareholders.
You'll see soon enough.
dalessan,
Have you read any of my letters to the bankruptcy judge? There are several of them in the "intro" section of our message board.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Jay
All in due time.
No, it's not the SEC's turn yet, although they probably wish it was.
"Proper discovery" is the term that was specified. Why is that? Why now?
I'm very interested in events going forward.
The bankruptcy case can be re-opened if, for example, "proper discovery" would uncover significant claims for the estate. That is but one of the options left open for us.
I've figured out what you were saying, poster, and I have reciprocated.
I'm only speaking for myself, David, and it only pertains to some of the submissions I've sent to the bankruptcy court.
However, scion's sharing of legal documents has been a tremendous resource for all of us. They have been invaluable learning tools, just as the postings from some of the members here have been highly informative and instructive, even if they represent a view with which I disagree.
I don't think that I can have any part in making those submissions available on a public message board.
In answer to a PM, I do not have PM capability myself. However, I appreciate your best wishes for SpongeTech shareholders. Also, if I don't need PM capability to do as you asked, please advise.
My filings present a different perspective, puppy. And they will continue to do so.
I'm not sure what kind of limitations I may have in sharing my filings on a public message board.
You can read my filings by opening a Pacer account. I'm sure there are some members here who can advise you on how to do that.
You're missing the discovery that has already been obtained and provided by shareholders, for shareholders.
I'm looking for proper discovery to be conducted.
You're welcome, Jerry. I'm looking forward to this next chapter.
Thank you, Brother. But there is still a lot of light to shine.
I guess you haven't been reading any of my filings.
It depends on just how many shares will be forfeited. From what I have seen, it is entirely feasible that the company repurchased all the shares they claimed on the last 10Q. This was the subject of one of my submissions to the Court, where I discussed SpongeTech's Share Repurchase, and outlined how the data supported the claim. Yet, those shares still have not been returned to the Transfer Agent. As you may recall, the announced repurchase was for over 500 million shares.
I take issue, though, with Steven being named as the defendant who would have benefited by the sell of these shares. Since August 2008, shares that were accumulated in this method were retired by the company. Therefore, the intended beneficiaries would have been the company and its shareholders.
I will be notifying the courts of my opinion as to the status of shareholders' claims to these shares early next week.
David,
Silverman has filed a request to be Discharged. This comes at the same time that we see notification of a forfeiture of shares by Steven, including those "...held in trust for the benefit of the defendant..."
We're not talking about 66m shares here. We're talking about shares held in nominee accounts, in my opinion, and as I have been saying for several years now. We're talking about the shares that were repurchased, as disclosed in the company's last 10Q, filed in April 2009.
Who said this only concerned 66 million shares?
The real magic number, in terms of Cede shares at the time the 723m OS was reported, is one billion.
One billion is the number of Cede shares that were DWAC'd.
One billion is the number of Cede shares reported by the transfer agent, in excess of the reported OS.
And one billion is the number of shares issued by the new transfer agent.
So the question in my mind is, were the one billion shares, issued by the new transfer agent, brought to market in order to cover a shortage of one billion shares, discovered in June 2009?
There's a problem with your question, 236.
At the time the 723m or so OS was claimed, the Authorized Shares were only 1.25 billion. So of course, 3 billion would mean nothing to starfire, or to me, as it relates to the claimed OS total in the last quarterly filing.
And other threads...
the conversion of Ridge Clearing's accounts to Penson...
the emergence of Apex Clearing, owned by Penson, Ridge Clearing, and Broadridge...(as I recall)
the CBOE's submission of the Emergency Rule Change for Apex, and their subsequent charges for failing to enforce (or even to understand) naked shorting.
Regulators, SRO's, and market participants circling the wagons.
The Proposed Rule Change, itself, can be found here.
http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rule-filings/2013/nscc/SR-NSCC-2013-13.ashx
Any filing from the DTCC, such as in regards to the Stock Borrow Program, could prove significant to SPNGQ investors, as well as to the market in general.
Remember the temporary lift of the global trading lock for the week that we were seeking the NOBO data?
The corporation was a public company, owned by shareholders.
The SEC discussed, in numerous modifications to Reg SHO, especially during the 2008 Financial Crisis, the harm posed to public companies by the naked shorting of shares in the targeted companies.
Hi, Renee.
The NOBO list failed to account for the minimum number of Cede shares reported by the Transfer Agent. I balanced with the numbers reported by the TA, so I know the Broadridge reported total was artificially low. I communicated that finding to the judge, perhaps as early as Dec 2011 (I'd have to review my submissions to verify the date that finding was disclosed).
I haven't accepted that we must use the past tense at this point. So I feel it more accurate to say that it "will" be great to see efforts made to obtain recovery from the manipulation and naked shorting of SPNG shares.
SPNGQ's trustee may not make the effort, since he Stipulated to the Company's guilt. It's rather problematic to say that the Company was guilty, on one hand, but that it was victimized, on the other hand. And, of course, since he abandoned the NSS claim after being left no alternative by the judge.
The SEC may also continue to close their eyes to the victimization of the SPNGQ shareholders they are chartered to protect. Effort will continue to hold the Commission fully accountable for their failure.
shajandr,
Good post!
However, in this case, some of what you say is predicated upon an assumption with which I do not agree. For instance, you pointed out that, "Disgorgement does not go to the company, as the company was not the injured party - SOME of the investors were." You assume that the company, and the investors, are mutually exclusive entities. That's easy to understand, in most cases, but it's not true in this case, due to the manner in which the SEC chose to administer this case.
Specifically, I'm referring to the company's announced share buy-back of over 500 million shares, which would have left the OS in the 700 million range. The TA data supports the company's claim, based upon my review of the Transfer Journal.
Consider that there were 28 numbered certs in Cede's name at the time of the switch from Olde Monmouth to WorldWide. Half of those certificates, representing most of the Cede shares, came from certs issued to hired stock promoters and entities related to the company.
Consider, for example, that two of those 28 certs were issued to Mark Overy and Target IR. Earlier issuances to them found their way into stock retirements reflected on the Transfer Journal, often by Flo Weinberg, Inc. Others of those 28 certs were from issuances to Romero Consulting (hired by the company), or from other related companies, such as A&N Enterprises.
I think most of those shares were part of the share repurchase. They were not accepted for cancellation, so they are beneficially owned by the company.
Then, there is the whole other aspect of damage caused to the company by the illegal decimation of its share price, which also affected its ability to pay creditors.
The clock is ticking, which I discussed in one of my filings last month, and which you pointed out a couple of days ago. Yet, the subject of share ownership remains unresolved, and not even the required listing of shareholders has been provided to the bankruptcy court. Why not?