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.
But it just doesn't make sense, if Steven "admitted to stealing" significantly more than $12.6m, that the judge should allow that "stolen" money to be kept by the defendant, or, if the money was spent, that he shouldn't have to return it, anyway.
And really, the amount "stolen" shouldn't even be based on what shareholders claim, or what the defendant claimed. What does the money trail indicate?
If I could make, say $10m in illegal stock sales, and know that, if caught, I would have to pay $5m, and serve probation...that's tempting. It would sure be a better risk/reward scenario than robbing a local 7-11 of $2,000, and spending years in jail, if caught.
If "...Mosky likely buried more in the names of his relatives during his trips to Israel...That money will never be found," then why expose the money trail by using that "stolen" money to fund legitimate business expenses?
The $12.6m is just the amount that shareholders claim Steven stole. That's not the amount Steven claims to have stolen. So who are you gonna believe?
The fact that no SPNG-related cases were brought, does not mean that no evidence was found.
Pensley claimed the opinion letters were forged, and the SEC bought off on that.
Initially.
But you know the SEC changed their assessment. So if the cases against Pensley and Halperin were resolved, I would still appreciate an SEC link to that announcement. By the way, I'm not sure that those cases, for those charges, should ever have been brought in the first place.
No reason to be hypothetical. The SEC charged that the shares were unregistered, and did not qualify for Rule 144 exemption.
There was NO difference in the methodology used to issue the Canaccord shares versus those cleared by firms such as Penson. The same attorney opinion letters...the shares sold before the ink was dry on the certificates.
From what I see, it's more common for FINRA to charge a market participant for allowing the shares to get into the market, with the SEC going after other players, usually the company executives, but sometimes the stock beneficiaries, as well.
I like IIROC's methodology better. Get everybody.
"Pensley and Halperin have settled/resolved their issues with the SEC."
A link would be helpful.
The nine Bomart opinion letters...I have no argument with you there...never did have.
Where are the charges against those who illegally profited from the sale of unregistered shares of SPNG (if the SEC was correct in making that charge)? And where are the charges against the market participants who allowed those transactions to take place? We are talking about multiple distributions to these same stock beneficiaries, who generally purchased their shares at a 40% discount to the market price. ONCE AGAIN, read the 1998 SEC vs Cavanagh case. You evidently need to re-read it, since you think those who profited can keep the money they made, if they didn't know the shares were unregistered.
The ONLY SPNG-related enforcement action taken against any of these stock beneficiaries was against the parties, such as I identified, who used Canaccord to effect their transactions. IIROC, the Canadian version of the SEC, obtained $15 million from the sell of 194 million SPNG shares. The SEC has not recovered one red cent.
Do the math. How much could the SEC have recovered from the sell of the remaining 3 billion shares...and what effect might that have had on the conversion of the bankruptcy case, from Ch 11 to Ch 7?
This is NOT over, dude (despite whoever the new Attorney General might be).
There isn't "that," really. However, at this point, I've done all that I need to do. Any further activity that may be required will NOT proceed down the path of a futile effort to conduct a criminal investigation, as you suggest is required.
"So far, zero traction moving forward in any direction."
That's not correct. The direction that the traction has taken has been AWAY FROM SpongeTech. Over the years, I've discussed a number of people and entities in my FILINGS (everything I've submitted has been docketed). You know this, since you say you've read what I provided. And if you've been paying attention, you also know that there have been a number of Litigation Releases against the people and entities I discussed. Although the charges filed against these defendants were for misconduct such as I discussed, none of that misconduct was for their participation in the SpongeTech market.
Oh, really? I find that hard to believe.
I also find it hard to believe that a man would steal millions of dollars, and then use a significant portion of that money to pay for such things as advertising.
Which of my docketed submissions have you read? SPECIFICALLY.
The SEC is the "Investors' Advocate," just ask them. They are chartered to protect the investing public. True, yes?
I already discussed this in my filings, almost 2 years before IIROC filed charges.
My question is, why is it only the Canadian regulator who filed charges? What about their American counterparts, the SEC?
FWIW, I actually DID submit a Complaint to the SEC over four years ago. I also followed that up with the submission of a Complaint to their OIG.
I do agree, however, that this case involves an avoidance of facts and realities, at least at this point. That will change, one way or the other, if need be.
It's the exact opposite of "transparency," which various governmental agencies claim that they are trying to improve.
I talked about this in a previous post, as well as in my shareholders' claim to the forfeited shares.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=105996613
We actually have several more related cases, not counting any of the four secret SEC Litigation Releases.
Securities fraud is a criminal offense, and shareholders are not law enforcement agents. These are the facts that we are dealing with and fortunately, we are living in a country where injustices do not have to be accepted.
The shares are still in our account.
Read the SEC's Litigation Release against Penson, if you want to know what they said.
No, previously you "heard it all." The word intentionally was according to the SEC's charges against Penson.
Renee,
I don't have time now for much comment. However, SPNG stock was on the Reg SHO Threshold Security List when it was suspended and demoted to the gray market by the SEC. The company's primary clearing firm was intentionally pumping counterfeit shares into the market, and certain brokerages continued to short the stock at this same time. All facts.
THESE are the types of issues that harmed SpongeTech investors. The regulators who permitted to this to continue, and the people who profited by that, are the focus, going forward.
Thank you for sharing that post, Renee.
However, I sense an element of "auld lang syne" in your comments. But for me, this is no where near the time to bid farewell to the quest for justice. The conduct of the SEC and the DOJ needs much further scrutiny, before it can be attributed to simple failure. In fact, I suspect their conduct has been quite deliberate.
It sounds like you are taking the position that there was nothing wrong with the distribution and sell of SpongeTech shares into the market.....Isn't that interesting?
It's the SEC who charged that the shares were unregistered. Anyone who profits from the sell of unregistered shares, regardless of scienter, is subject to disgorgement. The SEC can, and has, gone after such defendants, including several traders and relief defendants in the SPNG case.
What you say may be true, but Dynkowski's partner most definitely was a participant in SpongeTech's market. I provided his name, and the dates of each issuance made to him, in one of my filings. That individual's testimony led to the SEC's forcing one brokerage out of business, in my opinion. Can you tell me that the other members of this serial stock manipulation ring did not use the same HFT brokerage?
I listed who I believe the four Panamanian companies were in a Report I sent to the judge in December 2011. The Canaccord settlement agreement didn't take place until Oct 2013, as I recall.
I also said that there was a similar accumulation of shares into some European companies, which I did not identify. I still haven't seen any enforcement action against any of those entities.
I believe there were an additional 6 million shares, intended for the Panamanian entities, that were trapped in certificate form, and are still Outstanding.
This used to be Paul Kisslinger's case at the SEC. When one of the defendants in this case showed up in SpongeTech's market, Kisslinger became the new SPNG prosecutor. However, another Litigation Release was issued today, announcing settled charges against yet another participant in the stock manipulation ring, and Kisslinger isn't even mentioned. The earlier versions of this case were discussed in my court filings. The newest LR is linked below.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2014/lr23162.htm
You may recall that a brokerage discussed in this case abruptly closed their doors at the same time Wells Notices were issued to SPNG. Kind of the same thing we see about another financial firm in the following article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/business/hedge-fund-kept-us-inquiry-quiet.html?_r=2
Would you make those revelations on a public message board?
It is very possible, if not highly probable, that the governmental "cover" is still, even now, being provided. The clock is just getting re-started, in that regard, and may continue getting re-started.
Well, it produced evidence. Now we observe continuing related charges, and wait either for justice to be served to SpongeTech shareholders, or we wait for continued lack of enforcement, and subsequently address that negligence. We still have the option of submitting FOIA demands, if necessary, to reveal all the facts.
Exactly, starfire. The non-company market participants who defrauded us should be investigated by law enforcement, and prosecuted in a criminal court. Shareholders should not be left with the task of investigating, and then proceeding with litigation in the civil court. It only makes sense.
Thanks for the clarification, starfire. By the way, does it make any sense to you that the restitution Ordered from the defendants was issued by a Criminal Court judge? It does to me.
If only there was a way to use the list of shareholders' names and addresses to actually contact the shareholders.
But even assuming that the DOJ could tackle that seemingly insurmountable obstacle, then what? What if it proved that shareholders had collective losses of, say, $750 million? Would the defendants then be Ordered to pay $750 million?
What kind of sense does that make? But if shareholders' losses can't all be ascribed to the defendants' culpability, then who else is responsible? Shouldn't law enforcement be even more concerned about that?
I don't understand what you mean.
There aren't too many things about this case that are "clear," and this issue is no exception. The Receiver candidate/initial Trustee DID take possession of the last 10Q. HE chose not to make the filing to the SEC, according to what he wrote in his Initial Report to the bankruptcy judge. It appears that there was a NOBO/OBO list run in association with this filing. Management would have had no input into generating the shareholder list, and there was no reason why it couldn't have been filed.
You're welcome, Dan. However, of late, the DOJ has taken a progressively more detrimental approach, or so it seems. And on top of that, we see legislative action that only proves that all branches of government are captured by financial special interests. I'm specifically talking about including, in the budget,the resumption of derivative trading by the FDIC-insured major banks. We've learned nothing from the crash of 2008.
To date, though, we have seen no indication that the SEC is prepared to submit a revocation order of SPNG stock to their Administrative Judges. Maybe we will, if Loretta Lynch is confirmed as the new Attorney General. All warrants watching.
It's insane to think that Affidavits of Loss will ever reflect an accurate amount of restitution to be Ordered by any court, and judges should be ashamed to play the most critical role in this process. For instance, the DOJ is trying hard to make a show of bending over backwards to include ALL Affidavits filed, regardless of how precisely the filing guidelines were followed. But, if the DOJ wants to transmit proposed restitution orders that accurately reflect the amount that shareholders have been harmed, then why not submit the NOBO and OBO list of shareholders, reflecting the 33,000+ shareholders' names, addresses, and share holdings?
I refused to participate in this process, because I can't, in good conscience, do so, knowing that the system is in need of serious reform, and that this process does not mete out justice for any more than a tiny fraction of one percent of SpongeTech shareholders.
Accepting that the evidence was mishandled by the DOJ is one of the options that we have. But that would require acceptance that a third-party, paid consultant had also been given this critically- important incriminating evidence. Possible? Yes. But likely?
And if exposure is to be averted, how best to manage that?
Finally, I see common ground with some of what oilspec and 236T are saying. I, too, think there was a nexus of criminal elements involved..."the gangs all here" kind of thing.
And, a lack of prosecution of the various characters involved should definitely preclude the confirmation of Loretta Lynch. Of course, we have seen some related prosecutions, but none of which have benefited SpongeTech shareholders. Any prosecutions of that type, if commenced, are hidden in the secret Litigation Releases noted by the SEC.
Any move to de-register the stock will be based upon the company's failure to submit financial filings. However, it was the initial bankruptcy trustee who failed to submit the last filing. All I care about, in terms of that filing, are the number of shareholders then reported (which was one billion more than the company claimed).