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.
While I am waiting to see Sasser's motion,
I thought I would check to see what you have been up to, Dave. And I was surprised to see that you apparently have not posted since the day you sent this. Not on SpongeTech. Not on any board. I haven't posted here in awhile, so maybe I'm missing something. Do you have a new ID? I'd like to keep up with what you're working on.
I also still hold out the hope that you will look more critically at the Commission's administration of this case. It appears that Bernstein is doing that. When you wrote to Bernstein in April, you advised him that shareholders have a right to sue "...the market participants, market makers, and any short sellers they can prove acted illegally." And you went on to say, "It is not within the legal rights of these shareholders to impose the cost of any investigative effort on the bankruptcy courts and the public..." But evidence has now come to light that shareholders needed Silverman to release the data, which he refused to do. And there is further evidence that shareholders offered to pay the associated costs. But, Silverman evidently denied the offer, and subsequently just ignored the request.
I see that Sykes is still around. Ironic that you and Heller both agree about how Sykes ran, to avoid being served. And speaking of Sykes, what is your view, Tim, on the BTR claim? Back in April, we asked for a stay of the liquidation, until Silverman concluded an investigation into the company's assets.
Interesting goings-on.
Dave, please don't waste my time.
"you lost me, what does PIKE Form 4 have to do with share structure? PIKE was a fool who thought he was buying into good inside information and his greed came back to haunt him. As for those acquisitions, they would be electronic trades and thus would not show up at the TA cert reports (unless PIKE pulled his certs). But I am sure you know that right?"
I am more than happy to discuss share structure with you. In fact, I WANT you to evaluate the evidence from an objective perspective.
But it is clear from your referenced response that you are not making ANY effort to give the issue of share structure any critical review. Asking what Pike's Form 4 has to do with share structure even suggests that the topic may be too "overwhelming" for you.
Sorry to express that sentiment, but, "As for those (Pike)acquisitions, they would be electronic trades and thus would not show up at the TA cert reports," clearly proves the reason as to why you cannot see the issue as others, like Faulk, have been able to do.
The fact is that Pike actually has 10 certs, representing a holding of 75 million shares.
Another cert, in the amount of 16.5 million shares (#4159) also appeared to be enroute to Pike Capital, from the data I've examined as of Dec 09. A conclusion that was presented to the court, and obviously ignored by you, and suggestive as to the reason why I "lost" you, in this discussion.
And to that speculative statement about cert 4159, I will add one more. I believe we will see that Pike's holdings, along with other segregated holdings which will be proven to be beneficially owned by the company, will reflect a total of 699 million shares, of what will be proven to be an effective (true) Outstanding Share total, of only 723 million shares.
Of course I am suggesting that things changed.
Here's an example.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000101359410000282/xslF345X03/spongetechfm4-022610_ex.xml
And I'm surprised the SEC still lets Tao anywhere NEAR a computer, without adult supervision. You did read his Reply to Pensley's Objection, didn't you? Where Tao accused his own witness of not being able to keep his story straight?
You want me to give up my analysis and evidence of share flow? I already did that, Dave. Exhibits A and B of the Hubbard Motion, but I'm sure you already know that.
Uh, overachiever. It's 2011.
We have a snapshot of the share data as it existed in December 2009. There was a March 2010 TA record provided by the SEC, as well. But they deemed it only necessary to request TA information for the last billion shares ISSUED, without bothering to request or report the CANCELLATIONS as of that date.
Excellent, Dave ! Thank you very much.
Expecting a punch line? Not this time. I endorse some of the points you made. Always have.
I wish you would have gone further, especially given your SEC-watchdog role, and given the Commission's "Keystone Cop" administration of this case. Is there any other way to describe the reasons for Tao's reply to Pensley's Objection, regarding the Prelimary Injunction against him?
I wish, further, that you would have recognized how easily Silverman could provide improved transparency, at little or no taxpayer cost, simply by providing share structure information from the TA and the DTC. To deride management for keeping the TA gagged is fair. Shareholders are entitled to that transparency. For that same reason, Silverman's refusal to provide share structure information is equally unfair, if not more so.
Nonetheless, I am truly glad to see your input to the Judge in this bankruptcy proceeding. In fact, I had asked for it previously.
Very well done, Dave, and sincerely appreciated.
The issue is, was, will be share structure.
As Mark indicated, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant the remedies he suggested. I also believe there is some not-so-circumstantial evidence in support of pursuing the issue.
Anytime that you want to take a serious, objective look at the evidence, maybe you could prevail upon Mark to explain the reasons he has reached his conclusion. Mark is free to contact me, if he thinks I can be of any assistance. He knows how to do that.
I have always wanted you to see this issue, in and of itself, for what it is. I would welcome the opportunity for you, Mark, and I to discuss this. However, Mark may not be so welcoming, despite your friendship. I don't think he needs help from either one of us.
One of you will be right, and one of you will be wrong. I like the shareholders' odds.
So we have some support of our position from the community of creditors.
We have an expert opinion also expressed, in support of our position.
Who will we hear from next?
Will anyone address the plenary powers of a bankruptcy judge, other than Patch? Someone who disagrees with the value expressed by Patch in this regard? From Wikipedia: "The assignment of a plenary power to one body divests all other bodies from the right to exercise that power, and where not otherwise entitled; also, the right to substantively review the exercise of that power in a particular instance or in general."
Are any lawyers going to weigh in on that? Any legislators?
And the paper that hit the market? Where did those shares go? When did those shares go there? Are they certed, in Cede's name? Yes.
"4. To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Securities deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are registered in the name of DTC’s partnership nominee, Cede & Co., or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of Securities with DTC and their registration in the name of Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Securities; DTC’s records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Securities are credited, which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers."
So the FTD's are with the DTC Nominee, Cede? So the DTC knows that?
Why were they asked to provide an accounting?
h) that Defendants Spongetech, RM Enterprises, Metter, Moskowitz,
Speranza, Pensley, and Halperin disgorge, with prejudgment interest, any ill-gotten gains and provide an accounting of monies and shares of Spongetech stock that they received and the disposition of such monies and stock;
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21515.pdf
Not quite the same as what we see now.
That SpongeTech
(3) must file with the court and serve upon the SEC, within ten (10) business days from the date of this Order, a verified written accounting, signed under penalty of perjury, of:
(d). all assets, funds, securities, and real or personal property received by Spongetech, or any other person controlled by Spongetech, from persons who provided money to Spongetech in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of Spongetech securities, from January 1, 2007, to the date of the accounting, and the disposition of such assets, funds, securities, real or personal property.
Of course we did not hear of Silverman initially. Nor did we see a request for a trustee. Instead, we saw a "Memorandum in Support of Motion for Receiver."
"The recent development is a ruling by the judge, not a new request by the SEC..." Okay, good to know. But the written accounting of the disposition of shares is to be served upon the SEC, and that task has fallen to Silverman. So the question originally asked was, "why would the SEC make (or allow to stand) that request of Judge Dora, knowing that shareholders have already requested that information in the bankruptcy court?"
Should the ruling have come sooner? Moot. It did not. Maybe nobody asked for it sooner. However, especially given the pending hearing on the shareholders' motion, the deadline for the company's response is questionable. Why not set the same deadline as the DOJ has to provide discovery? The day after the bankruptcy hearing.
The Source. I read the book years ago, but I don't remember any of this discussion being in it.
No problem!!
I can research the message board to confirm the time frame.
Thanks,
Jay
Hello, nilremerlin
I'm looking for s series of Form T trades that were all in the 177 million share range. I think there were about 10 such transactions, possibly made in Feb 2009. Do you have anything on that?
Thanks,
Jay
Hello, sponge infomaster
There are certainly opportunities for qualified investors to profit nicely by providing DIP financing to distressed companies, especially when those investors are also shareholders. And it's understandable, also, that the reasons for such an investment should only be provided to the lenders. The rest of us shareholders wish you Good Luck and Happy Returns!
You're right, Tavy.
But SPNG, or SPN ...
It should be noted that the $125 was the projected PPS after the then expected 100:1 reverse split. So $1.25 based on a conservative PE, using the share structure and earnings projection per company guidance at that time.
That's More Like it, Steve!
Whatever his reason for the Stipulation of Discontinuance of his participation in the lawsuit vs. the NY Post, et al, email correspondence from Steve today made it clear that as far as he is concerned, he "Will never resign" from SpongeTech. So we can remove that consideration as a reason for the Stipulation.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&bn=100008&tid=258142&mid=258142&tof=2&frt=2
This is a departure (or a clarification) from what we read in the Opposition filed by Greenberg Traurig. "SpongeTech understands that defendant Steven Moskowitz intends to resign as soon as an interim CEO is on board."
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/pmhcL footnote 3
The Weiss Opposition never did say that Moskowitz's resignation would be submitted in an effort to address the SEC's concern over management's continued participation in the company. The referenced footnote clouded the issue. And the clarification is, to me as a shareholder, welcomed news.
Finally, a good question on this topic.
The Stipulation made no distinction based on HOW the bankruptcy case was resolved.
So maybe Steve decided to discontinue it, as it relates to him, because he ultimately plans to resign, despite how the bankruptcy is resolved. Who can say?
Metter? Who knows?
Silverman for SpongeTech? Again...?
Hello, Dave
What I saw in terms of Moskowitz walking away from the lawsuit was a Stipulation of Discontinuance upon resolution of the bankruptcy. There was nothing in that which disclaimed his allegations. Was there a seperate letter in which he did that? If so, I haven't seen it. If not, then I don't share your opinion that the Stipulation contained some sort of disclaimer.
Any idea of where Silverman stands on this issue? I guess that since Heller has it, whether he likes it or not, this may not be a very high priority for Silverman to resolve.
Good Morning, Dave
"So beyond overlooking the word MAY in my claims..."
No, Dave. I recognized your conjecture. "You are the person who suggested that the SEC may have looked at the NSS issue already..."
1."You claim they have not looked into this but have yet to prove otherwise."
Don't think so, Dave. I have asked for an audit of the ACTUAL number of shares that are, and have been, in circulation. Unlike you, I have no reason to think that this MAY have been done already.
2. "You make these wild claims of the existence of NSS but fail to come up with any logical evidence to support it. Please don't use that idiot from Buyins.net as evidence unless you can show me where he has ever VALIDATED his numbers. And please don't use short sale volume (as Buyins.net does) since that argument has already been disproven by market trade reporting rules."
Again, you're suggesting that I may be a proponent of the data from Buyins.net, or that I subscribe to the short sale volume as representing more than it actually does. I have a two-fold objective, Dave. I want to see an audited version of the OS from Silverman/SpongeTech. And I want to see a count of the ACTUAL number of shares in circulation, especially if the OS is proven to be 720m shares.
"So jay, you dodge the claims by Silverman and yet it is you and the SPNG Long board that have inundated him with this garbage and...while you now distance yourself from the claims on the SPNG Long board, I find it amusing that you NEVER correct them when they go astray on that board."
I don't recall ever having written to Silverman, and deny inundating him with any type of information. It's possible that I have written to him, but I just don't remember having done so. And who am I say say that the SPNG Long Board is wrong about anything? In fact, I will tell you now that in one instance, THEY were right, and I was wrong. This was in regards to Hays, with my opinion being that it didn't matter who the trustee was. The issue would boil down to the question of whether assets were greater than liabilities, or not. Silverman, by doing things such as retaining Janover (when Hays said there was no money to do so), has given SpongeTech a fighting chance that would otherwise have been denied under the trusteeship of Hays.
"Hoping is not a reason, hoping is petitioning a court and getting the response you got."
In signing the petition, I had asked Judge Davis to deny the sale for the reasons set forth by Trustee Silverman. My opinion being that the objections voiced by Silverman should have been sufficient to at least have Judge Davis delay his decision. Judge Davis signed the sale order anyway, but, as we talked about yesterday, he wanted to avoid any doubt about what his approval meant in terms of SpongeTech's rights going forward.
TEX, it would be different if the private company was actually acting as part of an SRO.
OH! Wait a minute...
You are the person who suggested that the SEC may have looked at the NSS issue already, and found no merit to the possibility. Now you are asking me if I can prove otherwise? You also have a tendency to take claims, voiced by my fellow Longs, and ascribe those claims to me. I routinely do not answer when you ask me to defend claims I never made because I will not disparage other shareholders, or speak for them. And that applies to your question about "50 billion shares trading if they never appeared anywhere."
Also stated very clearly in Judge Davis' Order approving the sale, was the following, "For the avoidance of doubt, such release agreements do not, and shall not be deemed, (i) to include a release of, or a release by, SpongeTech Delivery Systems...or (ii) to affect, terminate, or release any cause of action, claim or right of Kenneth P. Silverman...or his successor...against any party, including, without limitation, the Purchaser, Wayne Celia or any of their affiliates." Nor does the agreement restrict a defense by the purchasers against SpongeTech.
from paragraphs 36, 37 of the Order.
Diversified maintains similar rights against SpongeTech, as outlined in Exhibit 4.
Thank you for answering the question that I asked about the SEC looking into the NSS issue already. It seemed to me that you had baited the question several times already, and I was only trying to oblige you. That you suggest that it may have been done, and admit that you have no factual evidence, is perfectly fine. Sharing opinions being what these Message Boards were intended to do (at the cost of credibility, if that's anyone's objective).
Hello, Dave
You keep alluding to the possibility that the SEC has already looked into the issue of a NSS in SPNG, and that they have determined it does not exist. Okay. Is that all that you are communicating to us?
Or, is there an additional point you are trying to make? Are you really telling us that the SEC has, IN FACT, already made this determination?
Or are you trying to discourage us from our efforts (such as they are), to pursue this subject?
Psst, Kaja. Another Sponge-related fraud story.
SpongeTech Trustee Silverman objects to Dicon Trustee's motion to sale Dicon.
"Kenneth P. Silverman, the chapter 11 Trustee (the “SpongeTech Trustee”) of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”), by his attorneys, SilvermanAcampora LLP, respectfully submits these objections to the Amended Motion dated August 31, 2010 (the
“Motion”) of Lloyd T. Whitaker, the chapter 11 Trustee (the “Dicon Trustee”) of Dicon Technologies, LLC (“Dicon”), and represents as follows:
1. Underlying the seemingly garden-variety Motion, which seeks authority to sell substantially all of the assets used in Dicon’s business, is
(i) a massive fraud perpetrated on public holders of SpongeTech stock,
(ii) the highly suspicious sale of Dicon’s membership
interests to SpongeTech by Wayne Celia (“Celia”), a principal of Diversified Technologies, Inc. and JKA, Inc., the current, putative purchaser of Dicon’s assets (collectively, the
“Bidder”)," etc.
Hello, zomniac
Mr. Whitaker cannot express the opinion that Dicon has substantial claims against Mr. Celia and the proposed purchasers, while subsequently working with them to complete the sell. If that's an accurate assessment of the situation, shareholders should let Judge Davis and the US Trustee's office know that this represents a conflict of interest, and does not appear to be an acceptable demonstration of fiduciary duty on Mr. Whitaker's part.
You got us there, zomniac.
There were only 15,000+ shares available, which was not sufficient for the Cresta warrant.
And that was according to....
The TA ledger from WorldWide.
If you want us to consider the accuracy of the TA ledger to support the shortage of shares available for Cresta, then perhaps you shouldn't refer to it as a "leaked scrap of paper." And if you think it does not have to be an accurate reflection of shares issued, then neither would it have to reflect an accurate number of shares available for Cresta. You can't have it both ways.
The issue is whether or not the TA list is right.
What are your thoughts on that, David?
Hello, underdog150
The TA list in question is from Dec 2009. An excellent summary of the issues involved was presented to Judge Bernstein.
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/vcqwv
Particularly interesting to me was the discussion presented regarding transaction block # 3969, which created an imbalance of 1 billion shares on June 11th, 2009. The following day, June 12th, is when we hit our all-time high of $0.2851, on record volume of almost 550 million shares.
Remember, though, that Steve sent the first four opinion letters back to Pensley. I find that the allegation of forgery cannot logically be substantiated when the "forged" documents were sent from the forger to the person whose identity is effectively being stolen. So I believe that Pensley's "misstatements" only make M&M's road easier, not tougher.
And if, on the other hand, Pensley never did issue any opinion letters; and never said a word about receiving those copies from Steve; and despite what he told the TA and the broker, as well as what he told the SEC on multiple occasions; then the question becomes "How does that explain a broker noticing a discrepancy in the opinion letters" if M&M forged every single one?
Further, shareholders have apparently identified inaccuracies in the TA list, which were not detected by the SEC. How much validity is there to the issue of an inaccurate TA list? If true, why did the SEC, after months of investigating, fail to ensure that the TA list was in balance with DTC records, etc.? Why would the TA have failed to maintain an accurate list? And why would the SEC have proceeded with the Complaint without verifying the accuracy of the evidence?
In addition, since it was from Pensley and the TA that we are told of a discrepancy in the opinion letters noticed by a broker, how reliable can we consider that testimony? And how was it verified that this broker met twice with the SEC, unless those meetings were verified from someone within the SEC? And why was this verification provided, if it was?
Then we can take note of the fact that Pensley is defended by Roger Fidler, general counsel of Proteonomix (as Pensley was formerly). And we see now that Fidler is also defending John Della Donna, the auditor from Drakeford. And is this an issue in regards to Proteoderm? If not, then, at least, what are the issues in regards to Schenzia (sp), alluded to by Fidler?
A criminal conviction, at least on the charges of forged opinion letters, and as to the number of shares issued, is not a slam dunk in light of the testimony as provided.
Pensley's testimony
Hello, panther
The criminal case is far from being that cut and dried.
But this brings up an interesting question. What evidence was presented to the grand jury to issue the indictments?
We already know that the testimony used to issue the Complaint and the arrest warrants has been challenged and, in part, recanted.
Hello, Shaggybob
Patch isn't going to like this, but the truth is, I actually wished he would have endorsed my letter to Judge Bernstein.
And some time ago, I had written a letter to the SEC and OIG, in which I likewise hoped that Patch would have evaluated differently than he did.
But Patch is under no obligation other than to react in whatever way he chooses, as he has every right to do.
But to the point. The issue of a share reconciliation may be one Judge Bernstein doesn't recognize prior to granting a conversion to Chapter 7. Creditors and shareholders get wiped out, and the company is effectively killed.
What, then, if the issue is brought up again in the criminal case? And a share reconciliation is ordered at that time, revealing a huge phantom float? And further, if it is subsequently discovered that certain of the offenses charged to M&M were, in fact, perpetrated by others? What then?
In asking questions for which objectivity is sought, I will be jumped on for defending M&M, etc., which is not my intent. Just as it is not my intent to hold them guilty.
I just don't see how a favorable decision in the criminal case can be reconciled to an unfavorable action in the bankruptcy case.
Hello, scion
I sincerely believe in the issues I expressed in the letter to Judge Bernstein.
I would have regretted not sending it.
Hello, David
Why should there be anything less than an audit of the number of shares in circulation? That should be SOP in cases where there are allegations of illegal selling. I actually don't understand why you, above all people, could find that objectionable. And I think it is a reasonable and simple request in light of how that leaked share issuance log was linked directly to the certs cited in the SEC Complaint.
And with their nearly year-long investigation, didn't the SEC ultimately rely, significantly, on Pensley's testimony? It would appear that I was more accurate than the SEC was in evaluating that strategy (since you asked). Look at my Yahoo postings, May 9th for one of several examples.
Who did leak the share issuance log, David? And just because it was an insider, would not mean that there was a lack of adverse interest against the company. In fact, an insider, working against the company, could perhaps explain certain other issues, as well.
Always a pleasure to hear from you, starfire!
This whole issue regarding share issuance logs finding their way to the web, from a gagged TA...
cancellation failures...
missing cert transactions...
shares not being certed...
I have yet to see anyone speak definitively on the issue of what is really going on. And that includes the SEC.
On June 26, 2009, SpongeTech's share issuance log was inappropriately made public. Detailing EXACTLY and in virtually REAL TIME the transactions subsequently specified in the SEC Complaint. Highly suggestive of an orchestrated attack against the company, with the SEC obligingly dancing to the tune being played. Regardless of the reality, the perception is valid.
And from the SEC Complaint, we are asked to believe that M&M forged opinion letters to the TA, and then sold billions of shares of unregistered stock, AFTER...
1. The lawyer and Transfer Agent find out in the previous month what the executives were doing.
2. And the shares are sold into the market and not repurchased, even though the share distribution log is posted on the website almost simultaneously as the the dump gets implemented.
Disregard, for the moment, the issue of culpability.
For the reasons as set forth, the SEC has an obligation to address the issue of exactly how many shares of SpongeTech are in the market, physically in the accounts of shareholders. There is no excuse for anything less than that.
I understand that Pike now has most of his certs. And apparently, so does the company. Hundreds of millions of shares, and no resultant reappearance on the RegSho threshhold list.
My concern with the share issuance log appearing on the web is that
1. it was leaked...
2. WHEN it was leaked.
You have confirmed that the broker who discovered the discrepant opinion letters met twice with the SEC? Who was it at the SEC who confirmed that for you? A few of us might want to relay your source's name to the OIG.
And wasn't Pensley putting HIS career at risk by going to the SEC, as the broker did? Did that preclude Pensley from making "misstatements?"
So if Pensley lied, and the TA inappropriately released the share issuance list immediately after the certs were issued, which were pin-pointed by the SEC Complaint, you don't think that that type of collusion could have any bearing on the bottom line?
Bedtime for me, David. Have a good day.
David, is the testimony provided "true and complete?"
You told me to lay out my issue, and there it is (for now).
A broker, who evidently received one of the four Pensley opinion letters written between March - June, 2007, noticed a difference in the typeface when receiving another Pensley opinion letter two years later.
"84; Although the forged letters contain the same substantive text and false representations as the four previous Pensley letters, they also contain dates and names of the beneficiaries in a different font type and size than Pensley used in the prior letters."
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21515.pdf
And from that, we have the TA and Pensley writing to the SEC, and the subsequent discovery that SpongeTech illegally dumped 2.5 billion shares, largely by forging Pensley opinion letters to the Transfer Agent.
Does that testimony meet the standard of being "true and complete?"
Pensley's own lawyer has since told the SEC that Pensley mis-spoke. And we now know how the SEC feels about that, especially since Pensley repeated his testimony on more than once occasion. So allow me to believe that it is prudent to examine alternative explanations for what transpired.
Let us first consider the time this came about. May/June 2009. SpongeTech reaching their all-time high of $0.2851 on June 12th, when an astounding 550 million shares trade in that single day.
Two weeks later, we have SpongeTech's share issuance log leaked, somehow, from the TA. On June 26th, the share issuance log is posted on the angelfire website, complete with transactions made that very same day. I will refrain from providing a link in order to comply with Ihub's TOU, but google search "spongetech share issuance" and the link can be found in the search results.
And almost exactly at the point where that leaked share issuance log is posted on the web, we have the SEC zeroing in on those very same certs to identify specific instances where SpongeTech allegedly executed the dump.
"95. For example, on or about June 24, 2009, Moskowitz instructed
Worldwide Stock to issue 34,000,000 restricted Spongetech shares to RM Enterprises in Share Certificate No. 3864. On that same day, Moskowitz used Halperin's letter and instructed Worldwide Stock to remove restrictive legends from the shares and transfer
them to Diomede Corp. and Maremmano Corp."
(same link as above)
It just doesn't make sense, David, that as soon as Pensley and Olde Monmouth are out of harm's way, the TA list gets leaked at the very same time as SpongeTech allegedly begins to illegally dump shares.
Were we on the RegSho threshhold list then?
Well, he didn't say anything I didn't already know. And for once, I think you will agree with me.
Hello, David
I can't blame you for not wanting to provide information to a group of individuals that engage in harassing behavior. I can empathize with that.
The court proceedings are, indeed, a concern. However, any conclusions drawn from the basis of the company's sales are far from being easily derived.
The battle being always about improving the odds. Recent discussion on this board having been centered on Pensley's credibility. His testimony to the SEC in terms of having authored opinion letters; recanted in the Opposition he filed. And followed with the latest from Mr. Tao, where he now reflects the sentiment first expressed here regarding Mr. Pensley's veracity. Now to await Mr. Tao's realization that as his case against Pensley is strengthened, it also diminishes his charges of the company using forged opinion letters. An improvement of the odds, for the shareholders.
That leaves Olde Monmouth and the evidence they provided. With some shareholders pointing to missing certs, and cancellation failures. Demands for a share count reconciliation gaining support. And therein lies the reason many of us remain hopeful. That such a reconciliation may indicate significantly more shares in the market, than can be attributed to the Company.
Not all of us having "private information" that you, once again, have at your disposal.
In the meanwhile, we will continue to watch what becomes of the allegation that the company used forged opinion letters to sell unregistered shares into the market. We see reason to believe that the opinion letters may not have been forged. And we await a share reconciliation to determine just how many shares are in existence.
Patchman,
It appears that your last post to me, and my reply to that post, are no longer available. However, you had said that you had contacted the broker who reported the discrepant opinion letters to Olde Monmouth.
Who was he/she?
How did you find out the broker's identity?
Do you still have contact info for the broker?
Thanks,
jay
Hello, scion
This is exactly the subject I have been discussing for the past several days, starting with this thread.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52666206
The bottom line is that Pensley's testimony to the SEC, during their investigation, is, in part, what lead the Commission to ultimately issue the Wells Notices, and then to issue the Complaint.
Now, the credibility of that testimony is refuted. As I believed, and so stated, that it would be almost a year ago.
I also expect evidence as to the number of Outstanding Shares is likewise flawed. Upon being advised by counsel that the reported number was 2.99 billion+ OS, the statement Steve made in his February affidavit indicated that he was "inexplicably advised" of this OS total.
http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/files/Spongetech.JPG
A company that is as much a sham as SpongeTech is alleged to be, should have enabled the SEC and FBI to obtain much more solid evidence. And the fact that the evidence is as tainted as it is, only supports the contention of many shareholders that there are external forces at work against the success of this company.
Hello, loanranger
The letter from Steve was the only reason I could think of for panther saying that Steve admitted we were topped out at 3b.
"Inexplicably," but hopefully, not for much longer.