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.
"financial market crisis requires an aggressive, systemic response."
The above quote was made be the previous CEO of FINRA, the SRO which is currently being blamed for holding up (or somehow obstructing) the 211 approval.
This, despite FINRA operating under SEC governance.
And despite, also, what we're told about the assistance the SEC has been to SPNG. Subpoenas issued to various parties. The brokered buy-in, etc.
And mind you, the new head of the SEC, Mary Shapiro, is the former CEO of FINRA. The person who made the above quote in speaking to Obama and the country, upon her acceptance of the nomination to the SEC post.
http://www.finra.org/Newsroom/Speeches/Schapiro/P117568
So it will be interesting to see if Shapiro's "systemic response" will reach, not only to the lower, entrenched echelons of the SEC, but to the activities of her former subordinates at FINRA (and let's not forget the DTCC, either).
jay
Stox, thank you for the detailed explanation
regarding Pike's 13G and 13D filings. You have clearly demonstrated the requirement for a registered investment adviser to file 13D, even though the acquisition was made for investment purposes only, and not with the intent of, "...changing or influencing the control of the issuer, nor in connection with or as a participant in any transaction having such purpose or effect..."
I'm sorry to have put you through such a mundane and time-consuming exercise. However, with related business interests between Azurel and Parlux, coupled with the errant "Nasdaq Holdings" update, and with the common interpretation of a 13D submission, anything less than the detailed explanation you provided, or providing of such by anyone less respected than you, would have been far less effective. The question has been rightly asked, and definitively answered. And once again, we owe you a debt of gratitude. The question of an alliance, at least between SpongeTech and Parlux, can be put to rest.
So, as you say, it is a good time to watch and learn, as the big picture continues to emerge. The recent accumulation still representative of "glad tidings" for shareholders.
jay
Hello, stox
Your response appreciated, as always. And proving, as well.
I hope you have enjoyed the holiday with your family, and that your mother has especially enjoyed this time in her new home.
Turn about being fair play. Critics having been able to look at the whole, and extrapolate that which suits their agenda, to compile massive studies to be used in their attack on the company. The same approach, with equally valid extrapolations, yielding an entirely opposite view, when approached from a positive perspective.
The best of all possible news being that the ongoing investigation is nearing completion. Speculation having been that to file and initiate a 211 would be more effective upon completion of the investigation. It seems to me, also, that it would be difficult to gain a 211 approval with an open investigation in progress. Many others know better than I as to what's required.
There is one thing I don't understand, and find very curious, stox. Generally speaking, a passive investor would report beneficial ownership on Form 13G. The filing of a Form 13D, however, is often filed by an activist investor, and looked upon as a signal of change. It could mean anything from a takeover attempt, on one extreme, to something more benign, such as an investor's attempt to get management to increase shareholder value. However, technically, these forms are used to report beneficial ownership of 5 - 20%. And Pike's recent accumulation took him just barely above the 20% mark. I don't know what to make of Pike's 20.1% ownership, or the change from 13G to 13D, in the reporting of Pike's holdings. I know the SEC doesn't necessarily view the use of these forms with the distinction I've characterized, but it it a common characterization.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/13D.asp?partner=answers
jay
I believe the equal buys and sells for PARL and SPNG represented the movement of those securities from one Pike fund into another.
About $200k worth of Parlux, and $240k worth of SPNG.
Hello, Nilremerlin
First of all, let me thank you for sharing the time and sales data everyday. It makes things a lot easier for us when we don't all have to look up the same data.
I didn't look at the historical prices for Parlux. Good to know what you shared about their price drop into the delisting danger zone. And I agree that a merger/buyout arrangement would be mutually beneficial.
I think a BIG factor here is the stem-cell based (non-embryonic, btw), anti-aging facial cream Azurel and Proteonomix have developed, due to the regenerative nature of stem cell applications, I suppose. Probably a catalyst in the Azurel/Proteonomix merger agreement. And I believe the "Flo Weinberg" line of fragrances has also developed a new fragrance. (I don't have my notes on that matter with me. Flo's name could be for the loungewear products, not fragrances).
I had also speculated about future moves with GetFugu, Health Matrix, and Hipso. And if we really want to let our imaginations run, we could consider how Map VI and Vanity could capitalize on Hipso's ownership of ValTech (I think is the name). I'm sure Metter might like to expand his sports radio business into the television/cable arena, and this could be a venue to establish a sports (and adult entertainment?) cable network. It would also explain why SpongeTech has so heavily supported all the sports franchises.
In any event, exciting times appear to be on the horizon in SpongeLand.
Thank you for responding to my post.
jay
Dollar Value of Pike's 12-2 Transactions
Bought and Sold 94,000 Parlux at $2.10 = $197,400
Bought and Sold 6,035,000 SpongeTech at .04 = $241,000
the SEC link to PARL Form 4:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/802356/000101359409001680/xslF345X03/parluxfm4-122409_ex.xml
Link to Pike's Form 4, as Requested
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000101359409001678/xslF345X03/spongetechfm4-122409_ex.xml
and for Parlux
http://holdings.nasdaq.com/asp/Form4.asp?FormType=Form4&strFilter=T&issueid=908821&coname=Parlux+Fragrances%2C+Inc%2E&market=NASDAQ%2DGS&selected=PARL&symbol=PARL&ads=1
The Tip of the Iceberg
We're all entitled to opinions, and mine is that these recent transactions with Pike culminate efforts first begun by Steve in 1995, with the founding of Azurel. The company eventually had financial problems and was forced into bankruptcy, from which it emerged in Dec 05. It acquired National Stem Cell soon after. In July 08, a third subsidiary, Proteoderm, was acquired. The name was changed to Proteonomix in Aug 08. There's nothing disparate in this assemblage, despite what I've seen some here write. Proteonomix produces protein polypeptides that are secreted by stem cells. The products have therapeutic as well as cosmecutical applications. It is my belief that Azurel/Proteonomix, which has a line of loungewear as well as a line of fragrances, has developed an anti-aging face cream, which is another reason why Pike has become so interested. Notice that Pike bought and sold 6 million shares of Parlux Fragrances as well as SpongeTech on Dec 2nd. Some type of stock swap/merger deal seems likely.
Steve has been the driving force behind these endeavors, serving as CEO of Proteoderm, before moving Michael Cohen over from Vanity to assume that role currently for Proteonomix. There has been a complicated history of acquisitions, mergers, reverse mergers, wholly owned subsidiaries, etc., which I won't even try to unravel.
I believe there is more to come, also, as it relates to GetFugu and Health Matrix. I suspect that Hipso Multimedia, or at least, their dormant "Doctor Speak" technology, may eventually be of interest to MM&L. I have alluded to this possibility previously, and I think it is designed to capture the medical information technology requirements of the National Reinvestment and Recovery Act, especially now that the Senate has passed their version of Health Care Reform.
Stox has told us of the possibility of a buyout, or of the creation of wholly owned subsidiaries. Everything I've presented here is nothing more than my own DD, which may be right, or may be way off-base. But in doing the DD, and then reading what stox writes, it just seems to come together for me. That's why I've been so supportive and appreciative of stox's efforts.
Joel Pensley is an interesting footnote. He is Secretary and General Counsel for Hipso currently. This makes me inclined to think that I may be wrong about Hipso, and maybe GetFugu and Health Matrix is all we need. But I found it curious that Hipso would simply abandon "Doctor Speak" at this juncture.
Right or wrong, I've presented information I've uncovered, and with news from Pike today, I thought it might be a good time to share my thoughts.
jay
ps. Some of my notes at not with me, and I'm relying on my recollection of some facts in what I've stated.
Hi, stox
A reprieve!! Work-related phone calls just completed (on my evening off), and the wife too preoccupied to drag yours truly out for an evening of shopping. To smile about, as you might say.
My reply to you last evening residing in the same ether-world as your last post. Oh, well.
Of interest is your reference to, "A series of divisions in the form of wholly owned subsidiaries."
Unfounded speculation? The pump preceeding the dump, as we already know will be alleged?
Consider a prior reference to Doctor Speak, from my own digging about, and admittedly without anymore substance than that. But in addition...
From a Sept 22nd PR from GFGU:
"GetFugu, Inc. (OTCBB:GFGU - News) www.getfugu.com, the revolutionary new method of accessing the Internet through mobile phones, revealed today that Health Matrix's (HealthMatrix.com) first commercial application utilizing GetFugu's mobile phone technology is a pharmacy discount card offered free of charge to the consumer regardless of whether the consumer has prescription drug coverage. This discount prescription drug card provides up to 50% savings on all prescription drugs in over 50,000+ pharmacies across the United States ... This is the first of many endeavors where the principals of Health Matrix will use their extensive experience in the health care field coupled with GetFugu's technology on mobile devices to bring never before seen uses to the health care community and consumers."
The first of many endeavors? Never before seen? Might that have anything to do with the following?
Considering The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as regards Health Information Technology.
From the Act:
"The National Coordinator shall estimate and publish resources required annually to reach the goal of utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014..."
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/...
There is no proof that my thoughts on this matter will materialize as I'm suggesting (or intimating). I'm just a small shareholder, with big dreams, looking for reasons to remain steadfast in my commitment. Putting the pieces together as best I can. Sharing the meager contributions possible for other shareholders to evaluate for themselves. What else can we do?
And in complete agreement with you in that this is, "A matter, in the absolute, of our having collectively stepped in something good. Risk/reward as good as it ever does get."
Thank you, stox, as always.
jay
NOW you've got my interest, Patch.
I interpret your post to mean that you know "the real story."
I also gather from your post that you are chiding us for a lack of focus, and ineffective performance of due diligence. You're saying that with an improvement in our focus and DD, that we would discover, "there is more to this than meets the eye..."
Now, I barely know anybody on this board. However, in general terms, I think all but the most idiotic members of groups such as this would like to be as effective and as educated as possible, so that we could determine "the real story" before we invested our hard-earned money.
In all earnestness, could you provide us with some sources whereby we could improve our skills in this area?
Personally, I've been trying to learn as much as I can during this prolonged waiting period. The whole concept of scam companies and their modus operandi has been interesting to examine. But that's not what you're talking about, is it?
Aren't you saying that because of your superior due diligence, you have factual evidence as to the real O/S? And that you know what the status is of the SEC investigation (and that of other investigations, as well)? And that you know the real story as to when SPNG will come off the Grays? And that you also know why the company has failed to update us?
Because if that is NOT what you're saying, and that's NOT what you can prove, then your post is completely without merit.
So, how do we follow your suggestion to focus on the real significant events?
jay
Hello, Patch
Since you are restricted to 3 daily postings, it may be advantageous for you to reply to multiple parties in a single posting. I read all of your posts, and I will be sure to notice if you direct any comments to me in that way.
Yes, as you say, FINRA regulates OTCBB listing rights. The standard memo they sent to SPNG, serving as a notice of delisting, is why I initially said that FINRA was one of the organizations whose function played a role in SPNG being delisted. FINRA was simply discharging their duty. That's been clear to me from the beginning.
And true, also, that both Vanity and SPNG used Drakeford.
But, come on, Dave. Vanity's fiscal year ends Dec 31st. A 10K is not required until Mar 31st. Compare that to the Aug 31st deadline for SPNG's 10K. And consider Vanity's $4,000 quarterly revenue vs whatever revenue figure you want to pick for SPNG. And to top it off, Spng hired Robison BEFORE Vanity hired Morelli.
Don't you think those could be factors in the question you posed to me, as to why Vanity is up-to-date in filings, but SPNG isn't?
Neither of us knows why Moskowitz was willing to disclose the O/S in June, but not now. However, a marked increase in the number of illegal shares from June onward has to be considered as a possible explanation. You can state that Moskowitz was making a "baseless claim" in June, but there is no proof that it is one way, or the other.
All that management has offered since late September has been an update, and an attempt to "set the record straight." Beyond that, we have seen management successfully defend themselves in their business transactions with GFGU, as well as against the allegations Kaja and Popovsky made in the NY Post. In addition, they have carried on with business as usual, with notable success relative to Sears/KMart, as well as Marvel.
I have higher expectations of you, Dave, than what I have seen in this latest post. At the same time, I sincerely appreciate that you would take the time, and use the opportunity, to communicate with me.
jay
Hi, stox
Facts being as they are.
For the entirety of the past 6 weeks, the low has been maintained at .04, with the high being in the 5 cent range. Volume ranging from just under 3 million, up to 41.7 million.
Only one of, now, possibly three reasons for such. The market dynamics of supply and demand; the familiar MM manipulation; or the controlled buy-in.
Consider now the common ground. The phantom float, upon which you and Doug agree as to its existence.
If our one cent range has been maintained for the last 6 weeks merely by the effects of supply and demand; or, if it has been due to MM manipulation, it's quite possible that there has been no reduction in the the number of phantom shares. If the shareholders' interest is only furthered by the elimination of such shares, then a controlled buy-in should be the hoped-for explanation of this trading activity.
Might you be right about some of the things you've been saying? As we agree, a controlled buy-in fits with what we've been seeing. And we've talked about more than one reason for such. And how about what you've said in regards to management delaying PR's? We PR'd Phillips Feed Stores becoming a customer some months ago. No PR on Sears/KMart, though. And holding off on filings? Form 3's have been filed for MM&L, but not for RME.
And if the grapevine chatter is wrong about the controlled buy-in existing? My MOASS-anticipated sell orders were entered Oct 19th. I'm first, or very near it, in line for fills at the various price levels I've selected. I will gladly take the extra $450,000 I will earn if those orders are filled in a MOASS.
But whether recent trading activity aggressively attacked the phantom float, and generated tens of millions of dollars for the company's coffers; or, the MOASS is executed in full; I win either way.
thank you, stox
jay
You're very welcome.
You're also mistaken, but believe what you will.
So, puppy
In your world, there evidently exists a division of the SEC that reviews filings, and segragates those filings into "naughty or nice" folders?
They then launch investigations into all those filings they deem "naughty," or unbelievable?
I'm learning so much here. Thank you for educating me on that fact.
Hello, Patch
My reference to FINRA was based upon the following, relative to the delisting.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/091002/spnge.ob8-k.html
As far as a market maker's filing of a 15c-211 initiation, I'm in complete agreement with your comment that that process is between the MM and FINRA. I don't believe I said anything contrary to that.
Let me make myself clear on the issue of management. As it relates to the revocation, the reaudit requirement, the late filing, and the delisting, those issues do not reflect management impropriety.
Nor was management at fault in any way for the revocation or the reaudit requirement. Robison was hired about 4 weeks after Drakeford was revoked. Is that the "last possible minute," as you say, and should management be faulted for that? Would 3 weeks have been acceptable, or 2 weeks?
Well, I don't agree that management waited until "the last possible minute." They simply, and in hindsight, acted too late. The need to hire a new auditor was a CRITICAL issue, a potential show stopper. And from June 16th onward, NOTHING else should have mattered, nothing should have taken priority, over the objective of hiring a new auditor.
How much of management's attention was devoted to this task at that time, and how well did they do in hiring a new auditor in 4 weeks? I don't know. And it doesn't matter. They're the guys at the helm, and they have to accept full responsibility.
jay
My post was not about the suspension.
Management impropriety was not a factor in any of the events relative to the topics of my post.
However, now that you mention it, it is not justified to say that the suspension was, "...because the SEC did not believe..." management.
"Questions have arisen regarding..." is not the same as the SEC taking pre-emptive actions based upon an assumption of guilt.
That's the good stuff, buddy.
Enjoy every minute of it.
And I'm seeing a pronounced pause in our trading.
That representing yet another fascinating story.
For recreational purposes, something of the genre offered by Clancy, Ludlum, Patterson, et al.
And btw, nothing new on SEC website regarding SPNG. Just checked.
Fascinating to observe, to be sure.
I've forgotten how I filled my time before SPNG.
If we were to get bought out, I'd have to go back to reading those, what do you call them? They have hard covers in front and on back, and contain page after page of printed words.
Oh, well, it'll come back to me eventually.
Hi, stox
I don't know of any precedent for a controlled buy in.
There may be precedents, whether public knowledge or not. Or, this action could be precedent setting. But in looking at a one cent trading range, week after week, it is as you say. "It certainly fits."
Justice served, to the extent that those illegally short are forced to cover. No small accomplishment.
But more to the story seems likely. Avoidance of systemic risk. The national imperative necessarily being met. No more Lehman Brothers, or Bear Stearns, if it can be avoided.
Would it be fair? Far from it.
A forced covering on the open market representing the only fair solution for shareholders. But are there any among us who think that justice and fairness are always synonomous?
Regaining the OTCBB quotation, reducing the phantom float, implementing the business plan, all objectives moving forward as this issue is resolved. Those items representing the interests of the shareholders advancing, even if other interests are sacrificed.
I will hope that a MOASS is allowed. I still have all 11 offers in place in anticipation. However, I now have an additional offer at a price reflective of assumed fundamental valuation.
So good luck to us all.
And as always, stox, your efforts sincerely appreciated.
jay
I can accept that in "bad form" and irresponsible could characterize the discussions cited.
I was saying that if there had been no revocation, there would have been no need to reaudit.
And I guess I'd better carry out the rest of my statement.
If there had been no need to reaudit, there may have been no delay in completing the 10K.
And if our filings were thereby current, there would have been no delisting.
The revocation, the reaudit, the late filing, and the delisting are all interconnected to PCAOB and FINRA functions. Management is not at fault for any step along the way.
I do agree that there has now been time for Robison to complete the 10K. And the Q1 10Q. Are they completed? Neither you nor I know. We will monitor Edgar, and see if a 211 is initiated, which would only happen if the filings were completed.
Drakeford's revocation ultimately came from an inspection by the PCAOB of some of his work in 2004. The results of the inspection were non-public. His failure to adequately address his internal quality control procedures, and to properly document changes he made subsequently, led to the revocation. Not M&M's fault.
No revocation = no reaudit = no delay in 2009 10k = no delisting.
Maybe it didn't. Maybe it did.
I was going on information Dave Patch shared with us, such as the following. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what is being said.
(229581) I was told in early Sept not to be surprised if the stock was halted
(229565) Finally I got confirmation that my investigation was leading in the right direction from somebody I trust.
Even with all this it does not mean i am right.
My responsibility from here was to simply educate people and to let them know what MAY lie ahead which included a trading halt.
(223389) Lets just say that GetFugu is being looked at by regulators as closely as SpongeTech. It is just that SpongeTech is putting out bigger and more market explosive PR's which is that squeeky wheel syndrome.
However, loanranger, I would much prefer to think as you, in that there was no disclosure of non-public information.
Thank you for your response, spooky.
I'll take exception, though, to the idea of exclusive manufacturing/distribution rights as being "far-fetched." Granting territorial rights is a common practice. There will most likely be more discussion relative to this, and I myself recall reading something about exclusive rights, I just don't recall the details. I'll look into it.
Our fate was sealed on June 16th. That's when Drakeford's registration was revoked. And our new auditor, Robison, hired the following month, had six weeks to complete a 10k on a new client who had grown from $5m to $50m in revenue during the audit period. And an auditor who also had to reaudit the previous years 10k. And who was going to be thanked for their undertaking by being replaced by Deloitte. That scenario is responsible for SPNG being where they are. It is not because of management impropriety.
And yes, for the SEC to have disclosed non-public information about an upcoming investigation, and probable suspension as well, is more than a little unfair.
The only raw material supplier for which I've been able to track shipments has been from the Taikone/Dicon Pacific factory in Guangdong.
Taikone has stated that they are looking to expand their US sales with their American partners. Are they merely referring to Dicon Pacific? Or might we be getting hints of a SpongeTech alliance?
I don't know.
However, if anyone is familiar enough with the Nickleodeon and Viacom licensing agreements, I would like to know if SpongeTech has exclusive rights in the US to manufacture/distribute Spongebob, etc.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into Darklady's reference to being vertically integrated, from the raw material to the marketing level. And there are probably more raw material suppliers I'm not aware of, either. I just found her comment interesting.
Hi, stox
Thank you for responding to my questions.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/rea...
In truth, the regulatory response, inclusive of FINRA, the PCAOB, and the SEC, has seemed less than fair to SPNG and the shareholders. So I can't really agree that the weak-handed were caving in merely to message board lies and deceit/distortion, although was that hugely a factor. We were suspended and relegated to the grey market in this process. That's fact, not FUD, and contributed to the Long hands folding.
Yet, I recognize that under existing laws and regulations, the aforementioned agencies had less flexibility than "fairness" would allow. The problem commencing with DellaDonna's failure to pass PCAOB inspection, and furthered by the onslaught of complaints and allegations made to the SEC, most notably made by David Patch. So, even though, "(t)he matter at no point being the issuing company," here we are.
However, that is a micro level evaluation, relative to SPNG only. And reflective of the fact that life isn't always fair.
On the national stage, I agree with your assessment. "Just suffice it to say that we're talking about a major improvement. A far more level playing field. With the regulatory attention, in the overall, serving to provide pause for thought. The future wide open." I might add yet another legislative improvement in HR 4173, whereby the PCAOB will now be inspecting auditors of broker/dealers also, and not just the auditors of issuers, if this bill next passes the senate. The increased transparency of broker/dealer transactions will make it much more difficult to hold "...massive amounts of IOU's in private accounts."
As for disgorgement, with significant shares of the phantom float held from the .01 - .02 level, the amount of ill-gotten gain offset by those losses. A matter of cost/benefit analysis. With a simple matter of short covering yielding "tens of millions" of dollars, as long talked about. And all the more reason for management to accept the controlled buy-in.
Now, just a matter of green lights by all participants. Of getting "all those ducks in a row." At long last.
Your continued updates, stox, in light of no formal communication from the company, are all the more appreciated and anxiously awaited by the remaining Faithful Longs.
Thank you so much, as always.
jay
"...from raw materials..."
Thank you for your last post, Darklady. On my initial read, I assumed your reference to vertical integration to mean Dicon. But now, I don't think so.
Hopefully, just a little more time will give reality to the mystery.
jay
Patch, what's THAT hard to believe about $4.5m
to buy Dicon?
Didn't we just see Pike buy about 30% of a $300m company for
about $6.5m?
Actually, both deals are incredible. Well, given what we know, anyway.
jay
Howdy, stox
Thank you so much for your recent postings. It's always great to hear from you.
News of a controlled buy-in represents a fresh turn of events, and begs the question as to why management would agree to it. On the one hand, it suggests that the SEC may have found "off-setting fouls," and brokered this deal as the option which represented the least amount of damage. You've reiterated that the soon to be released financials will be in-line with expectations expressed in PR's and previous filings. However, with Sarbox, the SEC may have discovered accounting errors which they could have criminalized (a common complaint by CEO's of Sarbox, and one of the reasons there are appeals pending to the legislation).
On the other hand, and more likely, management had financial incentives for agreeing to the controlled buy-in. My concern, if the company had been using cash to support the .04 pps, was how long the company could continue to do so.
More importantly, though, you tell us that this controlled buy-in is largely complete. If that proves to be accurate (and your chart indicates a major improvement in money flow starting at the beginning of November), then there are several things that can be taken from that. It would explain the assumed increase in O/S that bashers keep talking about. It would also explain a source of cash that those same people tell us we don't have. And how might that affect this quarter's financials? We could easily be talking $20 million here.
While it is disappointing to hear that a short squeeze is less likely than we've been anticipating, a controlled buy-in is still more from the SEC than what I feared it may have been from them. Do you have any idea, though, about the issue of disgorgement?
Thanks again, stox. We appreciate your efforts.
jay
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.