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.
You're very welcome.
And Happy Trails to you.
jay
Yes, it's a loaded question.
If you google Spongetech AND Milberg Weiss, you get hits on the dealings I mentioned with Dicon, HH Brown, RSI, Nexgen, RME, etc.
But nothing I read on those links specifically mentioned Milberg in the commentary that was freely provided. There were links relating to share settlements, puts, mfg reps, etc.
If a firm like Milberg has crossed our path, with the indictment history they now have, it lends credibility to the potential of there being an interest in our company from firms who have engaged in illegal activity.
However, the links I've come across have been inconclusive. So even though the question is loaded, it is legitimate. I asked because I've found enough to THINK there may be a link, but I can't prove it.
Very astute observation on you part.
Yes, disbanded. With one partner, David Bershad, having cooperated with investigators.
But, the firm itself still seems to be functioning.
http://www.milberg.com/firm/firm.aspx
But I was asking if the firm had any dealings with SpongeTech? Any conflict of interest that might preclude them from filing a class action law suit? Anything to do with Dicon, etc.?
"Expect that the homes and cars of a lot of forensic accountants, tax lawyers, securities lawyers, and white-collar criminal defense lawyers (and prolly eventually personal bankruptcy attorneys as well) are going to get paid for on this one."
You could be right.
But, when people decide to illegally short stock they have no intention of ever buying, they have to suffer the consequences when and if they are caught.
The only expectation I have is that MY OWN house will be paid for once I sell my stock.
Hello, Stox
Good to hear from you, as always. And congratulations on being able to add to your position!
NEWS (!!??) of the forthcoming GFGU dividend, well, just smiling here. Awhile ago, it appeared to be a gift in the 8% range, or so. At face value, of course. The REAL value inclusive of the forced accounting of SPNG shares. And the real value of THAT may be in the activity of the DTCC. Should all be interesting.
I can already hear the allegations of priming the next P&D. As far as I'm concerned, Doctor Speak is being quiet for a reason. Time will tell on that, but I will be happy to discuss that with you. In any event, this action far from a P&D.
Time to find out who's naughty or nice.
jay
They're Not Interested in Crushing Us.
Check out the fact that SpongeTech is the consignee of this Dicon Technologies/Taikone shipment.
http://www.importgenius.com/shipments/dicon-technologies-pacific-corp.html
The Dicon Tech/Taikone link, also.
http://ar.tradekey.com/profile_view/uid/3317454.htm
"Taikone Technologies Pacific ***** in Sep. 27th 2004. Located at Suifengnian Industrial Park, Shatian Town, Dongguan City, near by Humen.
Taikone is a wholly owned foreign enterprise with stream-line business model that combines research, product development, and manufacturing in one location. Our company objective is to develop innovative products for both better living and improve environmental friendly. For the beginning of this venture, we have devoted major investments in imported equipments and technologies from the United States to enable us to produce highest quality products with highest efficiencyâ?¦ this is Taikone culture. Utilizing our patented processes, Taikone manufacturers products derived from â??Hydrophilic Urethane Chemistryâ??. Which can be used in a wide variety area, such as medical products, sports product, cosmetic products, family products and cleansing products ect."
I wonder if they can help the worry-warts to locate our "phantom customers." And maybe shed some light on the company's use of the wording relative to affiliate sales, or affiliate stock transfers.
jay
sorry, TEX
i haven't been following the board enough to know that someone else had previously speculated on the question.
you don't know how WHAT rumor got started?
the counterfeit shares, i guess?
surely, having seen daily trading volume hit as high as 400m, you would agree that the float is higher than the 500m - 723m O/S number to which most longs subscribe. so the question becomes was it "us," illegally selling 144 restricted shares, was it "us," selling shares after an unannounced increase in the O/S, was it NSS selling air shares, or was it a combination?
we know that selling 144 shares of any kind after aug 31st is a problem, since they are not allowed to be sold once filings are late.
we know that selling more than 723m shares prior to sept 21st is also a problem, assuming that the O/S was increased on that date, along with the A/S.
there might be some hints in comparing daily trading volume pre- and post-sept 21st; there may be some hints in FTD's increasing as the shares are re-sold by those who purchased the shares, if the shares came from sells by the company. but really, nothing definitive can be reduced.
all we can reasonably be assured of, following the latest SEC news, is that any illegal activity being discovered is now resulting in disgorgement, as well as fines, disbarments, etc. and it is my opinion that the amount of disgorgement is easily in the tens of millions of dollars. and if that's true, that, in itself, could be a reason to hold shares until the SEC concludes the investigation.
what does being a 33 Act company mean, to anybody? that our securities are registered and there is a prospectus and that material information about the company and management has been filed with the SEC. the point i was trying to make with mingy was in regards to mingy's question, "are we really even shareholders"? i thought it would be an interesting legal issue to discover that we crossed the 34 Act threshhold of 500 shareholders simply from the purchases of counterfeit shares.
basically, could the company, or any company, be held to 34 Act standards by actions other than their own?
Are there less than 500 legitimate shareholders?
That's similar to your question of, "...are we really shareholders?" But my question is more interesting because it brings up the question of "are we really even a 33 Act company?"
What if we crossed the "number of shareholders" threshhold because of Naked Shorts selling counterfeit shares? It's an interesting legal question, don't you think?
As for me, if we see a forced accounting of shares, shorts can buy mine back. They are sitting there waiting for them.
so it took less than a millisecond for Viacom to grant SPNG a license?
but i'm sure you're right and i'm wrong. what was i thinking? did SPNG forge the license, do you think?
should i ask what kind of companies Sears, KMart, Walgreens, CVS, ... well, never mind. i think i'd have trouble making sense of any answer you might provide.
But to develop the product, secure the licensing rights, and then fail to produce sufficient product for the holiday season would be a blunder of monumental proportion.
The thought came to me that Viacom and Walmart do not want to wait any longer to see a PR from SPNG.
I think this will be a major impetus to help "pull the trigger" and execute "the plan."
Regardless, our market maker, FINRA, and the SEC may not have the same imperatives, and we can't squander our best chance.
I've taken the liberty of sharing your message with another board, and thank you for the post.
jay
I totally agree, sir, that it would be GREAT to hear something. I think Pike would like to hear something, also. I even believe that SPNG, Viacom, and Walmart would like to SAY something.
But perhaps our Market Maker, FINRA, and the SEC don't quite have all their "ducks in a row" just yet.
Or maybe they do, and like Dark Lady says, our time is at hand.
Good luck to all Longs. Hold Strong!
jay
My initial buy was at .0212.
We bought air shares, we sold air shares, we made real money.
Patch, I gotta say, I'm surprised you asked
the questions you did of No_BS.
Many of us have, indeed, booked profits already on previously executed trades. And many have earned enough profit to have paid for all the shares they still own.
Why would that FACT THAT MANY OF US CAN ATTEST TO negate the presence, or absence, of NSS?
And no, we did not have to sell at the top to have booked profit.
Great post!
And I agree with you.
BTW, I used to be in a group that sang a lot of songs that Maranatha wrote and recorded.
And in answer to your PM, YOU are.
Hi, stox
I'd like to talk a little bit about the GFGU deal.
One thing I'd like to point out is that the company's investment agreements were one of the issues the SEC cited in their suspension order. Reaching an amicable accord with GFGU will, I assume, extend to resolving the issue with Cresta, also. Eliminating problems with both GFGU and Cresta seems to me to address the issue the SEC had with the company's investment agreements. At the very least, it demonstrates a good faith effort, and hopefully, others, and the SEC, will concur.
And RME as a related party? Managements' dime, as you say. We well know that, having a history of share issuances and repurchases to look upon. A de facto relationship, at the least.
Yet we have detractors unwilling to concede even this much, busily ascribing criminal motives and intentions on managements' part.
Are these detractors able to see things most of us cannot? Are they to be commended for shining a spotlight and policing managements' activity?
It's an issue of credibilty and objectivity.
Where were the detractors when GFGU decided to rescind the agreement, and to keep the money received as their "fiduciary duty?" What was their input about Derek Norton and the Water Tower Group? Do these crusaders of justice ally themselves with those they see as potential victims, as would be expected? Or do they align with those whose interest is to destroy the company? Have any of the detractors looked at the company's performance for the last two quarters, and recognized the tremendous strides being made? Have they tried to acquire any understanding of why institutional investments have been made both pre- and post-suspension? Have they raised their voice against the blatant infringement of Spongeables? Any questions raised by them due to the SEC's race from reaudit requirement, to investigation, to suspension, to, inescapably, and as predetermined, the grey market?
Should we laud their performance, bestow laurels of gratitude? I think not.
BAD DOGGIE !!
No Kibbles and Bits for you today.
Howdy, TEX
I was actually responding to a PM that SJ had sent to me.
Nevertheless, I do consider the Pike buy-in a compelling reason for optimism.
Would you agree, if we were to see a RM3, a 10K, and a 10Q, with share structure, revenue, and earnings all in-line with expectations, that there would then be reason for optimism?
Or, would we need to throw a Walmart contract into the deal, too, just to catch the holiday sales? Maybe a tender offer as well? Dividend?
Just kind of curious what it will take to get this stock price to the level where it should be trading.
SJ, the psychological momentum has shifted to positive.
With Pike's filings, the GFGU settlement, and the grapevine chatter, things are beginning to look a lot better.
However, I'm just worried to death that we will soon see "proof"
of nefarious activity by our esteemed leaders, i.e., photographs of Moskowitz jaywalking, perhaps even Metter littering. The one I'm most worried about is the unreported income of the three pies, which would also implicate Lazauskas.
jay
we will soon know the buyback details
but the company never said they were going to buyback ALL of RME's shares. and FWIW, i think we will see that SPNG surpassed the 150 million share buyback number.
did the law require a certain number of restricted shares be designated? or did management choose to establish them? and as i asked patch, do we know that any restricted shares sold were held less than 6 months?
but, do we know that the shares were held for less than 6 months?
do we also know that Pensley's signature was forged? there was some talk about Xeroxed copies being used.
if the answer to both questions is affirmative, then stupid decisions were made, and there are consequences.
you mentioned both "financing deals" and "spurious insider dumping." the use of funds obtained though the sell of resticted shares is a factor to consider, as it relates to intent.
much ado about ... much less to me, than to you.
hi, badshah. regarding the Pensley letter
like you, i don't fully understand what all the fuss is about. who placed the restrictions on the shares in the first place, if not M&M? they have majority voting rights, they placed the restrictions on the shares, so why can they not decide to have the restrictions removed?
and the purpose of the opinion letter, in part, is to indicate that lifting the restrictions has the consent of the issuer.
and, since i'm posting, i might as well say that in a similar fashion, i don't understand the chatter regarding the GFGU settlement.
much ado about nothing, in my opinion.
it could be that there is much of consequence in both these matters. but i doubt it.
Hi, stox
I appreciate the way you marshalled your thoughts, and made your presentation in such a clear and concise manner. It had to have taken considerable time and effort, and it is duly recognized for its exceptional quality.
You touched upon the issue of legally owned shares, and that is a concern I've noticed from some investors. Longs, of course, not guilty of any wrong-doing, legally own whatever shares we have.
The company, on the other hand, not expected to provide dividend shares beyond the level of what they have legally issued at this time.
The difference between the legally issued outstanding shares, and the total actual outstanding shares, being comprised of the phantom float. Not the company's responsibilty to provide dividend shares for such. At the same time, every shareholder entitled to the dividend.
And the gap to be bridged solely at the expense of the perpetrators of the crime. A MOASS, as you said. And I, for one, standing ready to sell back a portion of my air shares, with offers starting at $4.00. The low price for the shares at that level considered by myself as a civic duty :)
jay
Yes, shorts must pay dividends, if any declared.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_(finance)
"Other costs of shorting may include a fee for borrowing the assets and payment of any dividends paid on the borrowed assets."
http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/taxes/2002/12/06/dividends-paid-on-short-sales.aspx
"It's quite possible that one of the companies that you shorted was one that pays a cash dividend. Since you are likely borrowing the shares that you initially sold to create your short position, you are required to reimburse the lender of the stock for the dividends that he missed. Your broker probably notified you of that fact, and reduced your cash position in your account by the amount of the dividend."
O/S > 660m is NOT a fact.
RME has not filed a Form 3 for their 5m Class B shares yet, either, which will be required.
this may have already been addressed, but RME holds 5 of the 28 million Class B shares, which would require a Form 3, correct?
have you determined that the customers DON'T exist, and that the sales were not made?
do YOU know what the O/S is?
K's and Q's would be nice. but they weren't necessary for pike. as long as this company's share price gets to the level expected, based on PR's, what does it matter?
it's easy to get a 10 fold return on our share price, being priced as low as they are. just as it's easy to get a 10 fold growth in sales, coming off such a low base.
and what about the SEC investigation? you know something we don't know?
awesome post, FFB! with the form 3 that metter just filed, i wouldn't be surprised if RME is probably still holding about 165m shares. but that would mean spng concluded the buyback, at least.
I, too, am long, and find it incredulous that protocol would be breached as flagrantly as this.
However, that would become a whole different problem, and one that wouldn't anger and upset anywhere near the level I am currently.
All that I am asking for is a fair, impartial, and complete analysis of ALL the issues regarding SPNG, and not a narrowly-focused, expedient, and possibly biased finding.
refer to david's postings just prior to the sept 18th announcement of the investigation.
just because there is a communication protocol, it is evident from david's postings that the protocol was most likely breached. i believe that david accurately portrayed the conversation between himself and mr. cain. and did i forget to mention? i copied mr. cain on the letter i wrote to ms. shapiro.
now, david is talking about how mr. cain is a pink-slip waiting to happen. i think it's nothing more than a futile attempt at spin control.
so, whether david is going around mr. cain, or with mr. cain, or through mr. cain is the issue to be addressed, imo. but regardless, if we don't hold the SEC accountable in this instance, it may not bode well for spng.
I will post any reply from the SEC.
And if you agree with me, that Mr. Cain's comments to Mr. Patch, were entirely out of line, please write your own letters to Ms. Shapiro, and tell her how you feel about it.
If there is no more separation than it appears between Patch and certain officials of the SEC, I think SpongeTech will have a very difficult time of receiving a fair adjudication from the SEC.
That's why I also urge you to contact both of your senators, and have them vote in favor of SB605 (Naked Short Selling). At this point, based upon the comments of Mr. Cain, I don't think we can rely upon the SEC to adequately and successfully take on the issue of NSS abuse. Let's give that charter to the Congress.
Patch, the spin control isn't working
An earlier post from me regarding you and Cain:
"The SEC is relying on the daily abuse we can see on the grey market to mete out punishment until they are ready to take a case to court.
They are also allowing their non-disclosure of findings to PROMOTE MORE AND FUTURE FRAUD.
Says who? Mr. Charles E. Cain, Assistant Director of Enforcement of the SEC.
This according to SEC watchdog David Patch.
I have written to Mary Shapiro and Charles Cain, asking them to verify what Mr. Patch has stated.
Is it just me, or does that make your blood boil?
Following is my letter, which includes exactly what Patch said on Ihub.
******************************************
Dear Ms. Shapiro;
I am forwarding to you a posting from Investors’ Hub (Ihub), made by David Patch.
I cannot believe that what Mr. Patch is saying about the SEC could possibly be true. Please advise as to the accuracy of his comments. Also, if you confirm that the SEC is, in fact, acting in the manner Mr. Patch says you are, I am sure that not only myself, but the investment community at large, will take appropriate legislative and judicial action to rectify this situation immediately.
Sincerely:
Jay Booth
Mr. Patch’s comments:
“The system sucks so badly because investors act like fools.
Basically what Cain* told me is that they have a case against SPNG, they have not filed an administrative order to take it to court because they are not prepared to do so, and as such they rely on the demotion to the Grey markets as the public notice. it can trade there until they are ready and if that means $6 Million in trade volume and abuses daily so be it.
Now on the flip side there are these loons who look at this as further opportunity to spin NSS scandals and such when the SEC knows full what what the con really is. The SEC allows the non-disclosure of findings to promote more and future fraud.”
*Charles E. Cain, Ass’t Director, Div of Enforcement, SEC
**********************************************************
So, was your plan to work AROUND Cain, at the time you posted the above? And foolish? Incredibly idiotic for him to say it to you, and for you to convey it to us, IMO. All I can hope is that Ms. Shapiro read my letter to her, and concurs.
if they waited, anticipating a quick buy-in, then they would know how much disgorgement to order.
no worries in that regard. i have 11 sell orders in place. but, they start at a low of $4.00.
speaking for myself, i used a stock screening program, and did a search by volume, debt, growth, etc. from the list the computer program found, i went on to look at pps, projections, new products, etc. from that standpoint, i felt good about getting into the stock, as long as momentum could be continued in cash flow. so for me, anyway, bottom-fishing was the furthest thing from my mind.
it's amazing to have 226m shares traded if, in fact, our O/S is now around 500m. i guess we are just in the half that held our shares, or so they want us to think. blatant criminality, IMO.