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?

If the SEC had treated this case, which also involved several of the 1998 Cavanagh defendants, the same way they did in 1998, there would have been an additional $34 million sought in disgorgement. That would have been enough to pay all unpaid creditors, and leave a balance of $17 million (excluding the class action). My filing re: "SEC Litigation Releases relevant to SpongeTech" contains more information, and has been public record for quite some time now.

And the money in the 98 Cavanagh case was disgorged, by the SEC, to repay injured investors.

Have you ever read the 1998 Cavanagh case?

I expressed my opinion in regards to a 50b naked short quite some time ago. It's a matter of public record. You already know that though, don't you?

You ask, "what is the EVIDENCE of NSS?" I think the answer is that there is more evidence now than there was before, but less evidence now than there will be.

You also asked why there has been no private/shareholder class lawsuit. That's a possibility. But, why should there be a private/shareholder lawsuit? Protecting the investing public is the SEC's mission.

No, I said it was a $125 stock. In fact, in one of the five submissions I made to the court last month, I talked about the company's stock value. I said that it was, then, worth $1.25. It would have been bumped up to $125 per share if the 1:100 reverse split had been initiated.

Actually, I've only had the data for about two months now, and a preliminary summation of the information has already been provided to the court.

So does this mean there was nothing illegal about his SPNG transactions? Or is this another example of the SEC's application of their discretionary authority? It also raises questions about his research into these equities.

Maybe with the submission of the trustee's Final Report, we'll begin seeing more of these types of charges.

REAC has a new Auditor.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1520528/000117337513000220/reac8k091813.htm

a.
On July 12, 2013, the Company was informed by our registered independent public accountant, Ronald R. Chadwick, P.C. (“RC”) that he would no longer be providing audit services after November 30, 2013. On September 18, 2013, the Company informed RC that in light of RC’s departure, the Company has retained new independent accountants for its audit and review requirements.

b.
RC's report on the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012 contained no adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion and was not qualified or modified as to audit scope or accounting, except that the report contained an explanatory paragraph stating that there was substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

c.
Our Board of Directors participated in and approved the decision to change independent accountants. Through the periods covered by the financial audit for the year ended December 31, 2012 and the reviews of financial statements of the quarterly periods through June 30, 2013, there have been no disagreements with RC on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements if not resolved to the satisfaction of RC would have caused them to make reference thereto in their report on the financial statements. Through the interim period ending September 18, 2013 (the date of retaining new independent accounts), there have been no disagreements with RC on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which disagreements if not resolved to the satisfaction of RC would have caused them to make reference thereto in their report on the financial statements.

d.
We have authorized RC to respond fully to the inquiries of the successor accountant

e.
During the year ended December 31, 2012 and the interim period through September 18, 2013, there have been no reportable events with us as set forth in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K.

f.
The Company provided a copy of the foregoing disclosures to RC prior to the date of the filing of this Report and requested that RC furnish it with a letter addressed to the Securities & Exchange Commission stating whether or not it agrees with the statements in this Report. A copy of such letter is filed as Exhibit 16.1 to this Form 8-K.

(2) New Independent Accountants:

a.
On September 18, 2013, the Company engaged DKM Certified Public Accountants, Inc. (“DKM”) of Clearwater, Florida, as its new registered independent public accountant. From the year ended December 31, 2012 through September 18, 2013 (the date of the new engagement), we did not consult with DKM regarding (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, (ii) the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company’s financial statements by DKM, in either case where written or oral advice provided by DKM would be an important factor considered by us in reaching a decision as to any accounting, auditing or financial reporting issues or (iii) any other matter that was the subject of a disagreement between us and our former auditor or was a reportable event (as described in Items 304(a)(1)(iv) or Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K, respectively).

At these levels, I find that it is really exciting. You can't buy a Blue Chip, and be up 60% in a matter of days (generally).

As Janette mentioned yesterday, it could depend on how FINRA and the SEC respond. With so many shares closely held, I don't know who could be loaning the shares being sold short. And where is the short interest level?

Congratulations, sticks. You've done better than I have with this stock. I haven't been up more than 50% on this. You, though, are up 60% on your last purchase.

That's a lot of cheeseburgers.

But, neither of us appears to be selling at this level, so I hope you make bank.

And I hope that none of us foregoes profit, for a loss.

It is prohibitively expensive for US retail investors to short stocks.

But, not everyone plays by the same rules.

Shorting OTC penny stocks is not a Big Deal, as you say. It is a HUGE DEAL, in my opinion.

Excellent find, Jerry. Thank you for sharing this.

"Little flippers" are not the people hurting "everyone" in this stock. We are here to make money, and that is only done when a sale has been made at a profit.

The real question is "who is loaning the shares that are being shorted, if, in fact, any such shares are even located?"

There are no "Big Players" who can successfully support the price per share against an unlimited number of shares being shorted.

The float is too low to serve as the source of shares being loaned to short sellers. Given that, my opinion is that people should gladly take profit when it is there, and should not be made to feel that they are hurting everyone in the process.

Short sells accounted for 47% of the volume today. I doubt that a single share of that short total was sold by a retail investor. If any retail investor executed a long sale, I hope they did so at a profit, and I don't fault anyone for taking some money off the table, when it is there, especially in these OTC penny stocks. And no, I didn't sell any shares today. Like all of the retail investors here, I want to see this thing run to my profit targets.

On the face of things, a 13G filing just prior to the release of a 10Q would suggest serious investment interest ahead of impending news, and possibly reflect the purchaser's belief that the news will be positive. I hope that proves to be the case. My one and only sale of this stock, to date, was made because I thought I could take a very small profit on the number of shares I sold, and then buy even more shares for the same amount of money. That proved to be true, and I bought twice as many shares as I sold with the money that I made. If my profit targets are now hit, I will continue to follow the stock, and look for a chance to use my initial investment to buy again on a dip.

Now that Fife has filed a 13G, I think that any changes to his holdings will be reflected on a Form 4 (instead of another 13G). If Fife does have an interest in accumulating this stock, as you think, I hope the demand for shares will cause our price to go up.

The question is "Did Fife time his purchase at the perfect point, a 52 week low?"

As long as we can maintain a Pulse, we shouldn't hear taps being played on a Clarion trumpet.

But, as previously discussed, convertible promissory notes can be a problem.

The short-term is all that matters to me, and a 13G filing could be reason for a quick pop (which I would take to cash out).

It's not uncommon for REAC. They were late on their previous three filings, also (a 10k, and then two 10Q's).

My main interest will be in seeing how many of the newly-authorized shares were issued, and if there is an exemption from registration requirements claimed. If so, then it will be a question of whether or not those shares are still held by the beneficiary.

An NT 10Q has just been filed. No surprise.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1520528/000117337513000173/nt10q063013.htm

FORM 12b-25
SEC FILE NUMBER
000-54845



NOTIFICATION OF LATE FILING
CUSIP NUMBER
75585A102

(Check One):o Form 10-K
o Form 20-F
o Form 11-K
x Form 10-Q
o Form 10-D
o Form N-SAR o Form N-CSR

For Period Ended: June 30, 2013

o Transition Report on Form 10-K
o Transition Report on Form 20-F
o Transition Report on Form 11-K
o Transition Report on Form 10-Q
o Transition Report on Form N-SAR
For the Transition Period Ended:

Read Instruction (on back page) Before Preparing Form. Please Print or Type.
Nothing in this form shall be construed to imply that the Commission has verified any information contained herein.

If the notification relates to a portion of the filing checked above, identify the Item(s) to which the notification relates:

PART I -- REGISTRANT INFORMATION

Real Estate Contacts, Inc.
Full Name of Registrant

Former Name if Applicable
240 Windsor Ridge #36
Address of Principal Executive Office (Street and Number)
New Castle, PA 16105
City, State and Zip Code


PART II -- RULES 12b-25(b) AND (c)

If the subject report could not be filed without unreasonable effort or expense and the registrant seeks relief pursuant to Rule 12b-25(b), the following should be completed. (Check box if appropriate)


(a)
The reason described in reasonable detail in Part III of this form could not be eliminated without unreasonable effort or expense;

x
(b)
The subject annual report, semi-annual report, transition report on Form 10-K, Form 20-F, 11-K, Form N-SAR or Form N-CSR, or portion thereof, will be filed on or before the fifteenth calendar day following the prescribed due date; or the subject quarterly report or transition report on Form 10-Q, or subject distribution report on Form 10-D, or portion thereof, will be filed on or before the fifth calendar day following the prescribed due date; and

(c)
The accountant’s statement or other exhibit required by Rule 12b-25(c) has been attached if applicable.



PART III -- NARRATIVE

State below in reasonable detail the reasons why Forms 10-K, 20-F, 11-K, 10-Q, 10-D, N-SAR, N-CSR, or the transition report or portion thereof, could not be filed within the prescribed time period.

The Registrant is unable to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2013 because of unanticipated delays in the completion of its financial statements and related portions of the Form 10-Q, which delays could not be eliminated by the Registrant without unreasonable effort and expense. In accordance with Rule 12b-25 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company anticipates filing its Form 10-Q no later than five calendar days following the prescribed due date.


PART IV -- OTHER INFORMATION

(1)
Name and telephone number of person to contact in regard to this notification

Harrison Law, P.A.

941

723-7564
(Name)

(Area Code)

(Telephone Number)

(2)
Have all other periodic reports required under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 during the preceding 12 months or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such report(s) been filed? If answer is no, identify report(s).


x Yes
o No

(3)
Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the earnings statements to be included in the subject report or portion thereof?


o Yes
x No

If so, attach an explanation of the anticipated change, both narratively and quantitatively, and, if appropriate, state the reasons why a reasonable estimate of the results cannot be made.



Real Estate Contacts, Inc.
(Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

has caused this notification to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

If it was a Form T trade, I wonder if Robert has changed TA's again.