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.
Who are they? VTEX has the leases now , lol.eom
Blue Chip alleges that Furth has or intends to violate applicable security laws by artificially manipulating the volume and price for EGLY shares
Here is another lawsuit against Furth alledging securities law violations. If you go to IBOX you can get some info on Mr Furth and his connection to SpongeTech, AGAIN > Extremely Interesting information for Spongetech shareholders.
The Plaintiff, Blue Chip IR Group, LTD (“Blue Chip”) is a Nevada limited liabilitycompany doing business in Utah. Blue Chip is a shareholder in Ever-Glory International Group,Inc. (“EGLY”), a publicly traded company with securities registered with the SEC. DefendantFurth, a “financial public relations specialist,” entered into an agreement with Blue Chip inwhich Furth was to purchase EGLY shares as well as use his expertise to open new markets forEGLY shares, increasing share value. Blue Chip would compensate Furth by transferring175,000 EGLY shares to Furth in an account at Wilson-Davis & Co., located in Salt Lake City,Utah. Blue Chip alleges that Furth has or intends to violate applicable security laws byartificially manipulating the volume and price for EGLY shares.
Case 2:06-cv-00185-DS Document 27 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 8
----------------------------------------------------- ----------------
Page 2
2Upon learning of Furth’s alleged illegal activities, Blue Chip demanded that heimmediately cease any activities regarding Blue Chip and return all EGLY shares. Wilson-Davisfroze Furth’s account, which resulted in Furth filing suit in the Northern District of Ohio onFebruary 22, 2006. On February 23, 2006, Blue Chip filed suit in the Utah State District Court,alleging common law fraud, breach of contract, securities fraud, and requesting declaratory reliefand injunctive relief. On March 1, 2006 Furth amended his complaint in Ohio and included BlueChip as a defendant. On March 1, 2006 Furth removed the plaintiff’s claims to this court. InApril 2006 Furth filed this Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue to theNorthern District of Ohio. Blue Chip has moved to strike the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, onthe grounds that these pleadings were drafted and filed with the Court not by Mr. Furth appearingpro se as represented thereon, but rather by the firm of Levin & Associates, Co., L.P.A
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:V24VScjiEWMJ:www.websupp.org/data/DUT/2:06-cv-00185-27-DUT.pdf+Blue+Chip+Group+UTAH+Furth&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Blue Chip Group v. Furth
Case Number: 2:2006cv00185
Filed: March 2, 2006
Court: Utah District Court
Office: Central Office [ Court Info ]
Presiding Judge: Judge David Sam
Nature of Suit: Torts - Property - Other Fraud
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-utdce/case_no-2:2006cv00185/case_id-56237/
Blue Chip IR Group, Ltd. v. Furth et al
Keyword tags: None
Case Number: 1:2006cv01939
Filed: August 14, 2006
Court: Ohio Northern District Court
Office: Cleveland Office [ Court Info ]
Presiding Judge: Hon. Patricia A. Gaughan
Nature of Suit: Torts - Property - Other Fraud
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ohndce/case_no-1:2006cv01939/case_id-137445/
First Responder Products Inc v. Douglas G Furth et al
This should be EXTREMELY INTERESTING news for SpongeTech shareholders - Filed May 27, 2008. See the Investors Hub IBOX above RE: Douglas Furth. This is one of 2 lawsuits I found related to securities law violations with Douglas Furth, again see the investorshub IBOX for his connection and relations to Spongetech.
Plaintiff: First Responder Products Inc
Defendant: Douglas G Furth, Mark Fixler, Jag Enterprises LLC, Michel Attias, Brendon Attias, Timothy Garlin and Does
Case Number: 8:2008cv00586
Filed: May 27, 2008
Court: California Central District Court
Office: Southern Division - Santa Ana Office [ Court Info ]
County: Orange
Presiding Judge: Carney
Referring Judge: Abrams
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Securities/Commodities/Exchanges
Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-cacdce/case_no-8:2008cv00586/case_id-416779/
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On May 27, 2008, as previously reported, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV08-00586 CJC (PLAx) alleging securities law violations and fraud against Douglas G. Furth individually and allegedly dba Millennium Consulting Group, Inc., a defunct Ohio corporation; Mark Fixler; JAG Enterprises, LLC; Michel Attias; Brendon Attias; Timothy Garlin; and various DOE defendants for disgorgement of short-swing profits in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 16(b) and for recovery of damages for fraud and deceit. These defendants, collectively, refer to themselves as “the Group”. The amount of defendants’ short-swing profit liability is unknown at this time but the Company intends to engage in expedited discovery to determine defendants’ trading profits which, by statute, must be returned to the Company. The lawsuit also sought the return of one million shares of stock given to the Group Defendants as consideration for alleged consulting services which were never performed, and which allowed the Group Defendants to engage in, as the Company alleges, illegal manipulation of the Company's stock
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=6166680-71351-76415&type=sect&dcn=0001116502-08-001559
$5.5million Judgment against Lazauskas, Metter, Moscati, Pisani
HERE IS a lawsSuit filed July9, 2008 against the CEO and some top guys at SpongeTech. Funny , I do NOT Re-call seeing this in the SPNG filings? I am working on getting copy of the full complaint , will be interesting to see what products , promotions these loans were for and about. It sure does sound like SpongeTech related promotions, but cant tell until I get the case files in hand, HOWEVER > It appears SPNG CEO, and some top dogs are personally liable for $5.5 million in this case , thus far.... Very Interesting for SPNG investors.....
U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Contracts
Court Grants Summary Judgment Enforcing Personal Guarantees for $5.5 Million Loan
BC Media Funding Company II v. Lazauskas
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/PLL/2008_11_3
BC Media Funding Company II et al v. Lazauskas et al
Plaintiffs: BC Media Funding Company II and Media Funding Company
Defendants: Frank Lazauskas, Michael L. Metter, Leonard Moscati and E. Michael Pisani
Case Number: 1:2008cv06228
Filed: July 9, 2008
Court: New York Southern District Court
Office: Contract: Other Office [ Court Info ]
County: NewYork
Presiding Judge: Judge Robert P. Patterson
Nature of Suit: Contract - Other Contract
Cause: Diversity
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1441 Notice of Removal
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2008cv06228/case_id-329108/
WHO IS BC Media Funding Company II:
Investment Management and Merchant Banking Services
The Investment Management and Merchant Banking Services business was launched in 2003 as an outgrowth of the firm's advisory activities and initially oriented toward acquiring seller notes. Barker Capital began its lending activities after identifying the underserved niche of lower middle market media companies and media entrepreneurs. In Barker Capital’s experience, such companies and individuals often are overlooked by money center banks, which are focused primarily on larger media transactions, and other banks, which often do not have the necessary media expertise.
In 2004, Barker Capital closed BC Media Fund I to make senior secured loans to lower-middle market media companies and media entrepreneurs. Due to the success of Fund I and increasing deal flow, BC Media Fund II was launched in 2008.
Barker Capital does not have preset minimum or maximum loan sizes or terms, but most funded loans have been in amounts between $5.0 and $15.0 million for between one and three years. Most of the loans have been derived from proprietary deal flow that is reflective of Barker Capital’s extensive relationships in the media business.
http://www.barkercap.com/about.htm
WHO IS > Media Funding Company
MEDIA FUNDING CORPORATION is a funding source for successfully tested direct response campaigns in TV, radio, print, voice broadcast, mail and email.
Media Funding DOES NOT require clients to give up equity in their shows or pay up-front fees or deposits. In addition, because of its experience and position in the industry, it can assist its clients in attaining the best in support services such as fulfillment and merchant banking services at excellent rates.
The principal of MFC has over thirteen years of DRTV experience, which include some of the industry's most stunning success stories. So along with the crucial capital you need, MFC also provides a wealth of experience to assist you in achieving the most cost effective and reliable combination of vendors and procedures to establish your foundation for ongoing profitability.
MFC works with most media agencies buying direct response media, so your choice of media agency can be one of the industry leaders, or a smaller boutique. The choice is yours.
MFC's Preferred Vendor list also includes the three leading credit card processors in DRTV, many fulfillment houses across the country, and the industry's leading telemarketers.
http://www.mediafunding.com/aboutus/thecompany.htm
hmmm... the PR is strangely worded.... Then of course it is also covered under foward looking statements.. IMPO PR from an OTC is almost worthless.....
My point is If you look into revenue recognition, lots of small companies get in to trouble by booking purchase orders that might be a full years worth of sales as one large order and hold it in A/R and book it as revenues upfront. SPNG recent filing had some confusing verbiage under revenue recognition and then under revenues they listed 2 large purchase orders, have they in fact produced, shipped abd been paid for all of the sales listed in the filing , or , do they book a initial order as sales upfront?
If you do some simple google searches you will find hundreds of cases. Like this:
Specifically, the complaint and/or cease-and-desist orders allege the following. Candie's senior management, including O'Shaughnessy, Klein and Golden primarily employed two fraudulent accounting practices. First, O'Shaughnessy directed employees to engage in a practice known as "bill and hold" that allowed Candie's to prematurely record revenue from various purchase orders calling for future delivery of shoes, by recording these orders as final sales prior to shipping the shoes to customers. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) do not permit revenue recognition for sales unless risk and title has passed to the customer, which typically occurred only when Candie's shipped shoes to customers. In fact, Candie's own revenue recognition policy called for recognition of revenue upon shipment of goods with risk and title passing. Despite the prohibitions of GAAP and its own policy, Candie's prematurely recognized over $4.4 million in revenue in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 through the improper use of bill and hold and other irregular shipping practices. Brown, who was in charge of customer service, played a crucial role in carrying out the bill and hold practice. Golden and Klein were aware that Candie's was engaged in the bill and hold practice and permitted Candie's to report the resulting revenue and income in its Forms 10-K and 10-Q. Cole ignored red flags that Candie's was engaged in this practice and failed to prevent the company from recognizing revenue from this improper practice.
Second, Candie's improperly recognized over $3.1 million in revenue from two illusory sales transactions with a barter company that Levi controlled. In these transactions, which were purportedly entered into in August 1997 and October 1998, Candie's claimed to sell shoes to the barter company in exchange for a combination of cash and advertising credits. The revenue and income that Candie's recorded in connection with these transactions was improper because Candie's either never shipped the shoes described by the contracts underlying these transactions, or Candie's shipped the shoes many months after recording the revenue. O'Shaughnessy and Klein negotiated and/or signed the barter agreements with Levi. Golden was aware of at least one of these agreements. After Candie's auditors raised questions about these transactions, O'Shaughnessy, Golden and Levi provided the auditors with false information about Candie's purported sales of shoes to the barter company.
http://www.404.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr18120.htm
Interesting how the PR states "3.2 million in new revenues" "The Company has received the initial orders...."
Is SPNG declaring these revenues on the books and holding it as A/R in the current period? Does not sound like This product is completely produced and ALL shipped and paid for? It is very tricky line to walk , claiming Purchase Orders as revenues.... I would like to see SPNG clarify when they in fact book revenues , is it when the product is shipped and paid for , or is it when an initial order is placed, an order that might be a years worth of product and then produced on a month my month basis and drop shipped as the distributor recceives orders... ? SPNG needs to clarify and disclose how much of the booked revenues are shipped and paid for vs how much is initial orders that can last for long periods but are booked as a complete sale upfront....?
Interesting article on Revenue Recognitions:
Improper revenue recognition: to help clients avoid SEC violations, internal auditors need to...
http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting-reporting/reports-statements/168833-1.html
Below are the five NYSE stocks that experienced the largest increases and
decreases in short positions from late-December to mid-January. The five
companies with the largest overall short positions are also listed.
Company Jan 15, 2009 Dec 31, 2008 Net Change Pct Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five Biggest Increases:
Nokia Corp (NOK1V.HE) 38,313,687 21,963,730 16,349,957 74.44%
Citigroup Inc (C.N) 162,793,089 149,115,900 13,677,189 9.17%
Cemex (CMXCPO.MX) 43,058,161 30,006,954 13,051,207 43.49%
Coeur d'Alene Mines (CDE.N) 66,549,817 57,689,634 8,860,183 15.36%
Morgan Stanley (MS.N) 60,648,740 52,226,236 8,422,504 16.13%
Five Biggest Decreases:
Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) 125,872,995 144,378,136 -18,505,141 -12.82%
Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) 96,131,781 114,333,185 -18,201,404 -15.92%
General Electric Co (GE.N) 142,508,373 154,959,753 -12,451,380 -8.04%
Micron Technology Inc (MU.N) 71,249,058 82,637,962 -11,388,904 -13.78%
General Motors Corp (GM.N) 97,309,626 108,208,115 -10,898,489 -10.07%
Five Biggest Positions:
Ford Motor Co (F.N) 270,453,510 269,492,967 960,543 0.36%
Citigroup 162,793,089 149,115,900 13,677,189 9.17%
General Electric 142,508,373 154,959,753 -12,451,380 -8.04%
AIG (AIG.N) 131,310,541 136,611,069 -5,300,528 -3.88%
Wells Fargo & Co 125,872,995 144,378,136 -18,505,141 -12.82%
Source: NYSE data as of Jan. 15, 2009, Reuters Estimates
(Reporting by Phil Wahba; Editing by Ted Kerr)
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idAFN2752767220090127?rpc=44
ERHE: Volume Spike; 51% > 20-adsv, Stock +17.65%
TUESDAY , JANUARY 27, 2009 11:55 AM
This is the 1st VOLUME alert for ERHE in the past 7 calendar days.
Trading for ERHC Energy Inc (OTCBB: ERHE) has been heavier than usual in today's session. By 11:55 ET, the stock had already traded 835,510 shares via 61 trades. The cumulative volume is 50.83% above its 20-day average of 553,955. Normally the stock experiences around 40 individual trades per session.
So far, today's volume surge has caused a net rise in ERHE's stock price. At the time of this alert, the stock was trading at $0.200, up $0.030 (+17.65%).
One year ago, the Company's shares closed at $0.175. The price has gained more than 14 percent since then.
Over the last 10 trading session ERHE has traded in a range between $0.110 and $0.179 and is currently trading 67.21% below its 52-week high of $0.610 set on May 20,2008 and 100.00% above its 52-week low of $0.100 from December 30,2008.
In the previous 3 sessions, ERHE trading has displayed a positive trend. Closing results have been as follows:
January 26, 2009 --- closed at $0.170 up $0.025 (+17.24%) on 597,900 shares
January 23, 2009 --- closed at $0.145 up $0.010 (+7.41%) on 389,000 shares
January 22, 2009 --- closed at $0.135 up $0.015 (+12.50%) on 317,400 shares
The Company last released news on December 18, 2008:
"ERHC Announces Changes in Technical Personnel"
ERHC ENERGY INC
A development stage enterprise, which is engaged in the exploration of oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Guinea offshore of central West Africa.
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/headlines.asp?sSymbol=erhe
IHUB boards are good place to ask these questions, post opinions, get answers, hear other opinions, find more questions, , that is what these boards are for , IHUB is a great source of information for SPNG, great place to post SPNG opinions and get good debate and good answers to those questions that bring up more questions, like your question , is it legal to gag the tranfer agent, is it legal? I dont know... I see it a lot on these OTC stocks for sure.... but if you truly want action you need to contact the SEC directly. IHUB cant investigate SPNG..... We can just debate the questions and offer opinions , SEC is only source for true action , if you feel you are not getting the answers from the company and or the answers and links from the boards dont seem right.. Contact the SEC....
Here is good place to start:
http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml
Happy Posting.
Here are the FACTS:
SEC was asking for a LOT of additional disclosures, The last date from SEC letter is April 4, 2006, see below, and on August 25, 2006, SPNG withdrew the registration. They did not "address" anything, they WITHDREW the offering....
Read all of the filings named:
UPLOAD and CORRESP and the SB-2/A
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001201251&owner=include&count=40
The SEC would ask for missing disclosures (Uploads), SPNG would respond(CORRESP) , SPNG would re-submit amended SB-2 (SB-2/A), they tried for months to register these shares and finally withdrew the offering, these issues will need to be addressed should SPNG try to do an offering Of registered shares, this makes me wonder why RME is so willing to give back the unregistered shares they hold, they must KNOW they will never be able to register them and they are dangerous to have all those unregistered shares hanging around, shorts , love those unregistered shares ballooning the share count.....
Here are the FACTS:
SPNG still needs to address these SEC requested discloures.
April 4, 2006
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000000000006017306/filename1.txt
March 27 2006
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000000000006015573/filename1.txt
March 1, 2006
File No. 333-123015
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000000000006010427/filename1.txt
January 23, 2006
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000000000006025971/filename1.txt
December 12, 2005
File No. 333-123015
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000000000005061826/filename1.txt
August 25,2006 Registration No. 333-123015
DEREGISTRATION OF SECURITIES
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420406035831/v051378_sb2a.txt
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420406035824/v051501_aw.txt
They have NOT addressed these issues from August 2006....
CDE Jan 2010 2.5000 call(OPR: LGZAZ.X)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LGZAZ.X
NICE action on the CDE call options today.
Volume and open interest is really heavy for a small stock like this and an expiration of JAN2010 - Very Interesting.
ALL of the CDE CALL Options 2010 are fairly priced for quick profits IMO.
I hold CDE common and Call options , lets HOPE CDE can STOP THE MADNESS and stop all this hedging, dillution, and lets get these mines making money , not draining it hand over fist....
IMO exposing who is behind Pine Mountain Ventures, AND or Connecting them to other stocks (pump/dumps) you will find some connecting answers to who is dumping SPNG into rallies and then shorting every rally at the top..... IMO Has to be someone with quick access to millions of nearly free and or unregistered SPNG shares.... Dump them on way up , short them on way down, make money hand over fist , that is the key to this stock, volume up , volume down , it is so perfect , millions of unregistered shares....
Message In Reply To:
1/20/08 Pine Mountain Ventures paid 200K shares to OTCPicks.com for a SPNG pump...
Is Pine Mountain Ventures an "affiliate" SPNG was referring to in the 10Q? How did Pine Mountain get those shares?
OTCPicks.com has been compensated two hundred thousand free trading shares by a third party (Pine Mountain Ventures) for this current SPNG IR program. OTCPicks.com has been compensated in the past for SPNG IR services, including seventeen thousand dollars by the company and four hundred thousand free trading shares by a non-controlling third party for multiple 30-day SPNG IR programs.
ALL Major Silver Miners were UP Friday > CDE GOES DOWN?
Couer d'Alene Mines fell $.01 or 1.3 percent, to $0.79.
Hecla Mining rose $.25 or 11.0 percent, to $2.53.
Pan American Silver rose $1.40 or 8.5 percent, to $17.89.
Silver Standard rose $1.19 or 6.2 percent, to $20.27.
Silver Wheaton rose $.56 or 8.9 percent, to $6.84.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Final-Glance-Silver-apf-14144414.html
I believe it will remain under pressure even as Silver/Gold prices increase , the street knows CDE is going to have to cut revenue forecasts in the coming weeks , they had previously projected and reported some MAJOR GOLD sales for the the new mine going forward, at prices of $850 ounce, this will need to be substantially trimmed to refeclt 50% sold at $400 ounce, the next filing or 2 will contain some verbiage like this , and the newsletter crowd will begin to bash , and when Gold does break to upside the street will pile on CDE for hedging that gold , again, right or wrong, the street will CRUSH a hedger in an up market , call it royalty , call it whatever , it is a forward sold contract , it is a hedge and the street, the market HATES Hedgers,,, watch when we see Gold Explode upwards and CDE should be able to issue a huge profit and revenue upside suprrise , we will get downgraded and sold off..... Also when they sold the 54 million offering few months ago they said they had more then enough cash to complete the mines? then they raised another 20 million hedging gold and again they said they had more then enough cash to complete the mines , now we see another 80 million... gold hedge , why? because we needed funds to complete the mines.... when will CDE management STOP THE MADNESS?
As well why does SPNG use confusing verbiage in the filing>? under revenue recognition > Are revenues booked when product ships or is it "In instances where products are configured to customer requirements, revenue is recorded upon the successful completion of the Company’s final test procedures." WHAT does this mean and why NOT disclose exactly how much revenue is booked using this method? And think are not all products configured to a customers requirement? Why is this in the filing and NOT fully disclosed, a few lines of simple disclosure and everyone knows exactly when revenues are booked and how much of each segment was booked...
Also Why do they disclose Purchase Orders under revenues in the same filing? is it True these "Purchase orders" are listed as sales, revenues and A/R? Why are these POs in the filing under revenues if not? Makes no sense.... Why not disclose if the Purchase orders are or are NOT included in sales revenues and A/R totals - I would say they are and they are why the sales and A/R grew, they are booking purchase orders not yet produced and not yet shipped as sales, these must be sponges "configured to customers requirements?" Why else are they in the filing under revenues?
Results of Operations
Three and Six months Ended November 30, 2008 and 2007
Revenues
During the three and six months ended November 30, 2008 we had sales of $12,341,737 and $17,886,356, respectively, as compared to sales of $278,976 and $343,052 during the three and six months ended November 30, 2007. Management attributes this change primarily to increased sales from international customers. In addition we began making shipments to retail outlets and distributors to domestic companies and anticipate increased sales domestically. Also, we anticipate sales in connection with our Puddle Pal’s Children Sponge which was launched on November 25, 2008 and also sales of our Uncle Norman’s Pet Sponge which we launched on July 11, 2008. To date we have received purchase orders of $4.7 million for Puddle Pal’s Children’s Sponge products and $6.4 million for Uncle Norman’s Pet Sponge products.
____
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
November 30, 2008
NOTE A – BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
7. Revenue Recognition
Sales and services are recorded when products are delivered to the customers. Provision for discounts, estimated returns and allowances, and other adjustments are provided for in the same period the related sales are recorded. In instances where products are configured to customer requirements, revenue is recorded upon the successful completion of the Company’s final test procedures. For the six months ended November 30, 2008, three customers, SA Trading Company, Dubai Export Import Company and New Century Media, accounted for 82.9 percent of sales.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409002030/v137081_10q.htm
Correct > IMO SPNG Books are cooked.
The Filing does NOT disclose the True cost of goods sold and the true SGAE costs. What are the TRUE ACTUAL costs , Why does'nt SPNG Disclose the amounts "NOT CHARGED BACK TO THE COMPANY"?
The FACTS are SPNGs' $2 mil profit is not truly a $2million profit
These non disclosures are one reason why SPNG cant file a registration with SEC and have it declared effective , (no wonder RME will give shares back they know they will never be registered?) these tpyes of games with the books are for pinksheet BS companies. IMO These issues are why SPNG is .02 per share, when you dig in the filing you see they are lacking extremely important disclosures , and no reason for it other then hiding something , if it is not big amount , no big deal, WHY NOT DISCLOSE IT?!
Cost of Goods Sold
Cost of goods sold was $6,547,563 or approximately 36 percent of sales, for the six months ended November 30, 2008 as compared to $48,676 or approximately 14 percent of sales, for the six months ended November 30, 2007. While the cost of goods sold increased significantly as a result of our increase in sales. In addition, during the six months ended November 30, 2008, a portion of our cost of goods sold, including costs related to warehousing, packaging, and shipping of products, were borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by our Chief Operating Officer.
THEN AGAIN UNDER SGAE>
Selling, general, and administrative expenses for the six months ended November 30, 2008 were $733,655, an increase from $95,108 for the six months ended November 30, 2007. During the 2007 fiscal year, a portion of our selling, general and administrative expenses, including costs related to product and package design as well as certain consultants, were borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by the family of our Chief Operating Officer. During the current fiscal year, some of these costs are still being borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by our Chief Operating Officer.
PAGE5
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409002030/v137081_10q.htm
Change In Cash and Cash Equivalents:
All numbers in thousands
PERIOD ENDING:
30-Nov-08 = ($149)
31-Aug-08 = ($43)
31-May-08 = $189
29-Feb-08 = ($2)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=SPNG.OB
CASH FLOW IS NEGATIVE AND GETTING WORSE?
Rigzone article:
Exploration in the area has so far proved disappointing. Chevron has said an early oil strike did not prove commercially viable, but it is continuing drilling.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=71740
Has this been posted yet(Homeport?):
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Nigeria, Sao Tome worry over oil exploration delay in JDZ
By Sulaimon Salau with agency report
PRESIDENT Umar Yar'Adua and his counterpart from Sao Tome and Principe, Fradique de Menezes have registered their displeasure about the delay in oil explorations from the Joint Development Zone (JDZ).
The duo said that they would put pressure on oil firms to forge ahead with exploration in the zone jointly operated by both countries.
They said that licensing agreements were in place for four of six blocks in the zone but that there were still some unresolved issues over rights to the two remaining blocks.
Yar'Adua said: "It is time for us now to make the oil companies work in that zone between our two countries. Nigeria is going to put pressure on them to start drilling activities on the oil blocks they won and for which agreements have been signed."
Exploration in the area has so far proved disappointing. Chevron has said that an early oil strike did not prove commercially viable, but it continued drilling.
Speaking in the same vein, de Menezes said: "We agreed that this is the time to make the oil companies in the zone work. The oil companies must now start work. The Nigerian president has assured me that Nigeria is now ready to mount some pressure on the oil companies in order to really start operating the oil blocks, because they must drill the blocks they won."
He, however, lamented that Chevron that won block one had stopped drilling from the zone since about two years ago.
"We, Sao Tome and Principe, have no means like Nigeria to make the big companies fulfill the obligations they signed ... but Nigeria has, because those companies also operate in Nigeria's economic zone," de Menezes said.
China's Sinopec and Switzerland's Addax Petroleum are also operators in the zone
According to the agreement, 60 per cent of any government revenues from the zone will go to the Nigerian government, while Sao Tome will receive the remainder.
Meanwhile, the World Bank and the Federal Government of Nigeria over the weekend granted the government of Sao Tome and Principe a donation of $110,000 to set up a consultation committee for management and transparency of oil activities.
According to de Menezes, the Nigerian quota of the approved loan was $30 million (N4 billion) targeted at covering up the state budget expenses.
President de Menezes said that Nigeria would hand over between 30,000 and 50,000 barrels of oil per day to the archipelago as of February, under the terms of an agreement reached with his Nigerian counterpart.
Negotiations between de Menezes and Umaru Musa Yar'Adua took place during a visit by the Sao Tome president to Abuja, accompanied by the ministers for Natural Resources and Energy, Cristina Dias and of Planning and Finance, �ngela Viegas.
Already, a mission from the bank is currently in Sao Tome to discuss strategies to discuss strategies for supporting the archipelago with the Sao Tome government.
Discussion of support for the 2009 General State Budget, funding of an Education programme and financial support from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the environment and airport facilities are on the agenda.
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/energy/article05//indexn3_html?pdate=210109&ptitle=Nigeria,%20Sao%20Tome%20worry%20over%20oil%20exploration%20delay%20in%20JDZ&cpdate=230109
I agree > From everything I read the only block drilled to date was Chevron block 1 and the result was "not economically viable for it to develop" , I am sure this is also dragging down any valuations being put on these blocks by the investing public.
And if you do even beginner research into the JDZ/JDA/Nigeria/SaoTome you see a lot of uncertainty in the governments of the region, , and of course the usual ongoing ERHC problems....
IMO ERHC energy is going to have to deal with the currently unrealized stock price until it can force drilling AND THEN Find a economically viable pay zone before they will get even close to the full value for the stock.
Recent Article outlines a lot of these issues:
São Tomé and Príncipe economy: Moves to revive activity in the JDZ
Last Updated: 03 Oct 08
COUNTRY BRIEFING
In early July, the Joint Ministerial Council (JMC) of the Nigeria-São Tomé Joint Development Zone (JDZ), met in the capital, São Tomé, to discuss how to revive the stalled development of the JDZ. Since the JDZ was created in 2001, a total of six exploration blocks have been awarded to a consortium of oil companies, but so far only one exploratory well has been drilled, on Block 1, which the operator, Chevron, judged as not economically viable for it to develop. The main reasons for the lack of other exploratory activity in the JDZ have been the political uncertainty in São Tomé and the rising costs and lack of available rigs in the global oil industry. Further discouraging activity is disquiet over the existing rights to several blocks held by a US-based oil company, the Environmental Remediation Holding Corporation (ERHC), which is under investigation by the US legislature for allegedly paying bribes to Sãotoméan officials to secure oil interests. During the meeting in July, the Nigerian foreign minister, Bagudu Hirse, also blamed excessive bureaucracy for blocking investment in the JDZ.
SOURCE: Country Report
https://zawya.com/printstory.cfm?storyid=EIU20081101212606375&l=134000081003
Regulatory Notice 09-05
FINRA Reminds Firms of Their Obligations to Determine Whether Securities are Eligible for Public Sale
Executive Summary
FINRA reminds firms1 of their responsibilities to ensure that they comply with the federal securities laws and FINRA rules when participating in unregistered resales of restricted securities. These responsibilities are particularly important in situations where the surrounding circumstances place the firm on notice that it may be participating in illegal, unregistered resales of restricted securities, such as when a customer physically deposits certificates or transfers in large blocks of securities and the firm does not know the source of the securities.
Recent FINRA investigations have revealed instances in which firms failed to recognize certain "red flags" that signaled the possibility of an illegal, unregistered distribution. This Notice identifies situations in which firms should conduct a searching inquiry to comply with their regulatory obligations under the federal securities laws and FINRA rules. FINRA also has reviewed procedures provided by a number of large, medium and small firms that are designed to address compliance. This Notice describes and discusses those procedures.
View Full Notice PDF 118 KB
http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p117716.pdf
U just wait , mark my words , when Gold explodes the word on the street will be CDE is a sell because they hedged all the gold, the market hates hedgers , see stillwater.... right or wrong , the street will CRUSH a hedger when price of the commodity explodes upside.... the GOLD in these new mines is substantial $80million dollars and that is just reserve reports , it is not just a by-product , these gold totals are included in the reserve reports , it is in the filings , just watch , mark my words , when GOLD explodes the knock on CDE will be sell , because they hedged GOLD.... I agree small hedges when you need cash can be good , but 80 million, when gold goes to 1600oz that is like giving away 80million in interest on an 80million loan , and you have to use some fancy mark to market on these hedges , will be drain on the profits , sounds sweet? lol...sweet for the guy that bought the hedge , BAD for CDE , look at market today , SILVER UP , CDE down... WHEN is CDE management going to think about shareholders? I hold CDE common and options long, I am silver investor, but I am not going to sit here and say thanks CDE for selling a major revenue and upside earnings surprise when GOLD explodes, and flip side not have to make mark to market against earnings later on when these hedges explode in our faces....
WHEN not IF but WHEN Gold hits $2000 ounce, that $80million will be worth $160million, but not for CDE investors, sure they are primary Silver producer , but these new mines have GOLD and CDE gave it away , you watch when GOLD Hits $2000 ounce CDE will tank when the street puts out all the reports outlining how CDE hedged away 80million++++ in profits... Mark my words , when GOLD blows up you will see it will become a HUGE negative for CDE.....
THEY SOLD All of the Future gold production today at todays rates , sure they get paid todays approx 850 ounce for gold they will mine over next few years , but when gold goes to say $1k or even $2k per ouence, too bad , CDE already SOLD that Gold for $850.... They have a few increases 1% per year after 4 years , it is lame deal....
Its funny you guys attack and brand anyone with a question YOU DONT LIKE a basher , you think there are all these paid bashers etc.. that is so untrue , it is funny when I read posters believe bashers show up here and get paid to post - totally makes me laugh - then when someone posts a question that does not show the stock in the best of lights or asks a question you dont like the answer to you all cry basher basher basher.... lol.....
I believe SPNG will trade higher , and lower , it will trade quickly from .011 thru .049. I bleieve SPNG has a real product and is selling , growing sales.
However the FACTS prove SPNG filings and PR are FULL of red flags you normally see in pink sheet scam type companies. Does that make SPNG a scam , no it does not , but you have to ask the question > Why? Why does SPNG do these things if they dont have to?
Why do they issue a PR on share buybacks and retiring shares and use the word "INTENDS" why not wait until it is DONE and put out PR that says "COMPLETED" or is it going to be a really long time from "intends" to "completed"? Plus per the PR "Intends" is a forward looking statement , one of the main things you see pinkie stinkie companies hiding behind , makes no sense, just wait until share buyback and or retire shares is completed and issue PR that says "WE COMPLETED" that would get the stock moving FAST!
Why do they list strange verbiage under revenue recognition? Are revenues booked when product ships or is it > "In instances where products are configured to customer requirements, revenue is recorded upon the successful completion of the Company’s final test procedures." WHAT does this mean and why NOT disclose exactly how much revenue is booked using this method? And think are not all products configured to a customers requirement? Why is this in the filing and NOT disclosed, a few lines of simple disclosure and everyone knows exactly when revenues are booked and how much of each segment was booked...
Also Why do they disclose Purchase Orders in the same filing? Are these Purchase orders listed as sales and A/R? Why are they in the filing if not? Makes no sense.... Why not disclose the Purchase orders are or are NOT included in sales and A/R - Why are they in the filing?
To date we have received purchase orders of $4.7 million for Puddle Pal’s Children’s Sponge products and $6.4 million for Uncle Norman’s Pet Sponge products.
Are these included in the A/R and revenues? Are they produced and shipped? Why are they listed under revenues?
Why not disclose the private entities controlled by the family of the COO that are paying SPNG bills and not charging back the amounts to the comopany - WHY not disclose these companies names and the totals Not charged back to SPNG?
"In addition, during the six months ended November 30, 2008, a portion of our cost of goods sold, including costs related to warehousing, packaging, and shipping of products, were borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by our Chief Operating Officer."
"During the 2007 fiscal year, a portion of our selling, general and administrative expenses, including costs related to product and package design as well as certain consultants, were borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by the family of our Chief Operating Officer. During the current fiscal year, some of these costs are still being borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by our Chief Operating Officer."
These are simple questions , why does SPNG fail to disclose all of the dealings of the company in a clear concise ,manner? They have a good little company working here , a chance to make a huge hit with this stock, but if they keep issuing these tyes if PR and filings you are going to have question askers all over place, and then the SEC is going to ask questions, these are so simple to avoid , it makes no sense why these issues are ongoing and NOT FULLY DISCLOSED?
wow... more HEDGES.... Sure everyone loves the cash now, but when Gold hits $2k per ounce CDE will tank , it works exact opposite for long term investors.... sure if Gold stays flat it will be fine , but watch Gold will EXPLODE and CDE will be penalized... hedging in this enviroment is LAME - CDE Management does not think about shareholders , they could care less if they harm us for years to come when Gold price explodes, as long as they have cash now to pay their monster salaries and bonuses.... lame...
Detailed Quote for Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc. (SPNG)
$ 0.0153 -0.0007 (-4.37%) Volume: 44.5 m 3:59 PM EST Jan 20, 2009
After Hours: $ 0.0147 -0.0006 (-3.92%) Volume: 12.84 m 4:11 PM EST Jan 20, 2009
Level II Quotebook
Time & Sales
Price Size Exch Time
t- 0.0147 -4704680 -OBB- 16:11:02
t- 0.0147 - 1376400 -OBB- 16:10:42
t- 0.0143 - 4704680 -OBB- 16:00:53
t- 0.0152 - 50000 -OBB- 16:00:21
t- 0.0182 - 2000000 -OBB- 16:00
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/quote_module.asp?qm_page=10243&symbol=SPNG
During the three months period ended November 30, 2008, the Company issued an aggregate of 409,953,442 shares of common stock to RM Enterprises International, Inc., a related party, in consideration for the conversion of an aggregate of $6,319,569 in debt or an average of $0.015per share.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409002030/v137081_10q.htm
If you review the filing , they are issuing shares for debts , lawyers, consultants, employee contracts, etc,etc,,etc,,, > Do you really think $17k cash will cover all of these needs in the upcoming qtr? PLUS cover the rest of the announced share buybacks , on $17k cash , AND they will have a lot of expense getting SpongeBob going for sure , pay for the tooling, advertising, COG to get new product up and running, they will need even MORE cash to get a product like that off the ground , you will need national advertising, not just in New York stadiums and localized commericals , they will need big bucks to make sponge bob work , and dont get me wrong , sponge bob could be MONSTER HUGE SUCCESS , could double the current sales with that one product alone , but it will have to be a low margin product sold in high volumes, moms are not going to pay $20 for sponges for the kids bathtub , and that brings me to why? why? play all these games with the filings and disclosures , and these PR with "intends to" garbage , if they are truly about to knock this out of the park why are they playing these games like some pinksheet that could implode at anytime , makes no sense to me , they fail to disclose true operating costs , fail to disclose the "private entities" that are carrying costs not being charged back to the company and exactly how much are those costs , why? they add confusing verbiage to the revenue recognition , is it when product ships or only standard sponges when product ships , what does "In instances where products are configured to customer requirements" mean? how much in revenues does this account for vs shipped products? then they list Purchase orders in the filing , then the whole confusing "intends to" PR , these are games pinksheets play , makes no sense..... If this company is as good as some say it is , then why play these games?
They need CASH , only $17k per filing , they have to SELL MORE shares , sell debt thru selling shares , use shares to pay consultants, insiders, employees, lawyers , bills , etc.etc..etc...they need cash and the small cash flow and unknown profits they have wont go far enough to cover operations, COG , SGAE etc... Expect MORE shares to be Sold monthly for various reasons.....
SPNG pay a dividend?! u jest? They had $17k CASH per most recent filing!
Cash and cash equivalents $ 17,016
Per the filing: RME buys debt for SHARES MONTHLY or SPNG runs out of CASH and FAST..... Now I hear they want to make a dividend as well? lol...
In September 2008, we issued an aggregate of 198,800,000 shares of our common stock to RM Enterprises International, Inc., a related party, in consideration for the conversion of an aggregate of $3,125,492.95 in debt or $0.01572 per share. The control persons of RM Enterprises International are Michael Metter, Steven Moskowitz and Frank Lazauskas, all of whom are directors of RM Enterprises International
In October 2008, w issued an aggregate of 157,003,436 shares of our common stock to RM Enterprises International, Inc. in consideration for an aggregate of $2,501,285.67 in debt or $0.01593 per share.
In November 2008, w issued an aggregate of 54,150,006 shares of our common stock to RM Enterprises International, Inc. in consideration for an aggregate of $692,789.96 in debt or $0.01279 per share.
AND REMEMBER > THE "PROFITS" IN THE SPNG FILING ARE NOT CORRECT - THEY ARE BOGUS - SPNG is using a form of off balance sheet tranaction to HIDE the TRUE Operating expenses and cost of goods sold. (IMPO=COOKTHEBOOKS?)
PER THE FILING:
During the last two fiscal years, we received some essential services at no charge due to certain business relationships established by our management. Had we been charged for all these services, these costs would be reflected as expenses in our financial statements. Some of the areas where these services were provided include, but are not limited to, art work, packaging, design and consulting. We anticipate that this arrangement will continue at least through the current fiscal year if and when this arrangement ceases, we expect that our costs of doing business will increase.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409002030/v137081_10q.htm
LONDON, Jan 16 (Reuters) - The world's largest silver-backed exchange-traded fund, the iShares Silver Trust, said its bullion holdings rose 1 percent to a record 7,143.27 tonnes on January 14. The New York-based trust, which issues securities backed by physical stocks of silver, has increased its silver holdings by 2,300 tonnes or 48 percent year-on-year, according to data published on its website. (http://us.ishares.com/product_info/fund/overview/SLV.htm).
Buying of silver bullion by ETFs has formed a major tranche of demand in recent years, helping to offset falling consumption in industry and from the photographic sector.
Investors have taken a greater interest in physical precious metals in recent months as volatility in other assets has led to increased risk aversion.
"We see this as driven by the safe haven story," said Standard Chartered analyst Daniel Smith. "We remain quite bullish on gold, and that is helping lift interest in silver. If you look at the gold-silver ratio, silver looks quite cheap."
Silver's appeal as a currency hedge and an alternative to gold is outweighing falling demand in other areas, he said.
"From an industrial perspective, demand is quite weak but I don't think people are focusing on that as much as where the dollar is likely to go, and where gold is likely to go," he said.
Spot silver was quoted at $10.75/10.83 an ounce at 1045 GMT. Standard Chartered sees silver prices averaging $12 an ounce in the fourth quarter.
(Reporting by Jan Harvey; Editing by Peter Blackburn) Keywords: SILVER ISHARES/RECORD
Nice spin crodad, but that is NOT what it says....
"In instances where" products are configured to customer requirements, revenue is recorded upon the successful completion of the Company’s final test procedures.
It CLEARLY says these custom sponge orders are booked as revenues even before the product is produced and fully shipped, the minute 1 test sponge is approved , they book the entire purchase order as sold and shipped, when in fact it could be a year or more until they produce and ship the entire ordrer, and most likely even longer unmtil they get paid in some cases.... .
Interactive Brokers currently has 3,700,000 shares of SPNG available to short. I just found this info , I thought you could not short pennies unless you are holding contract stock thru a financing, i.e. unregistered shares and work out a private deal with a broker directly. It appears IB will allow you to short these pennies and they have an inventory of SPNG stock available to shorting.
IB provides a stock inventory utility in Account Management, under the "Tools" icon. This utility provides indicative inventory information, estimates of the number of shares currently available for borrowing, estimated borrow rates, rate trends, and an indicator of how many different lenders are prepared to make their inventory available. By considering this pool of information, traders can manage their short selling strategies appropriately.
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/p.php?f=shortableStocks&p=s&ib_entity=llc
Symbol: SPNG
Availability: 3'700'000
Exchanges: ARCAEDGE, NITE, OTCBB, PINK, IBSX
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/ViewShortableStocks.php?key=spng&cntry=usa&tag=United+St&ib_entity=&ln=#
Per the filing it appears SPNG is listing $11 million of "purchase" orders as sales and Accounts receiveable.(?) It looks that way>? I have email into IR, will let you know what they say , IMO the A/R and sales in this filing are very deceptive > When the product SHIPS and or you collect the monies you list the sale. IMPO listing "purchase orders" as sales and accounts receiveable before you produce THE ENTIRE order and or ship ALL of the product is deceptive....
IMO it appears they completed the final test procedures and got final approval for the 2 new sponges and then listed a years worth of Purchase orders as a sale?
Per the filing:
To date we have received purchase orders of $4.7 million for Puddle Pal’s Children’s Sponge products and $6.4 million for Uncle Norman’s Pet Sponge products.
7. Revenue Recognition
Sales and services are recorded when products are delivered to the customers. Provision for discounts, estimated returns and allowances, and other adjustments are provided for in the same period the related sales are recorded. In instances where products are configured to customer requirements, revenue is recorded upon the successful completion of the Company’s final test procedures. For the six months ended November 30, 2008, three customers, SA Trading Company, Dubai Export Import Company and New Century Media, accounted for 82.9 percent of sales.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409002030/v137081_10q.htm
IMO SPNG Books are cooked. The Filing does NOT disclose the True cost of goods and the true SGAE costs. What are the TRUE ACTUAL costs , It is UNKNOWN!?, Why does'nt SPNG Disclose the amount "NOT CHARGED BACK TO THE COMPANY"?
IMPO the SPNG $2 mil profit would be cut to break even or a loss..... OR WORSE?! .... Who knows , it is unknown amount , WHY NOT DISCLOSE THIS AMOUNT... ! That really smells bad....
These non disclosures are one reason why SPNG cant file a registration with SEC and have it declared effective , (no wonder RME will give shares back they know they will never be registered?) these tpyes of games with the books are for pinksheet BS companies not a company on the up and up. IMO These issues are why SPNG is .02 per share , If the sales and profits were true , it should be way higher PPS , but when you dig in the filing you see they are lacking extremely important disclosures , and no reason for it other then hiding something , if it is not big amount , no big deal, WHY NOT DISCLOSE IT?!
Cost of Goods Sold
Cost of goods sold was $6,547,563 or approximately 36 percent of sales, for the six months ended November 30, 2008 as compared to $48,676 or approximately 14 percent of sales, for the six months ended November 30, 2007. While the cost of goods sold increased significantly as a result of our increase in sales. In addition, during the six months ended November 30, 2008, a portion of our cost of goods sold, including costs related to warehousing, packaging, and shipping of products, were borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by our Chief Operating Officer.
THEN AGAIN UNDER SGAE>
Selling, general, and administrative expenses for the six months ended November 30, 2008 were $733,655, an increase from $95,108 for the six months ended November 30, 2007. During the 2007 fiscal year, a portion of our selling, general and administrative expenses, including costs related to product and package design as well as certain consultants, were borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by the family of our Chief Operating Officer. During the current fiscal year, some of these costs are still being borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by our Chief Operating Officer.
PAGE5
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409002030/v137081_10q.htm
This is strange> So what are the TRUE ACTUAL cost of goods sold? It is UNKNOWN?, The CEO bears added cost , and does not disclose this cost?! , this is very much a HUGE RED FLAG IMO - This is how you create profits and cook the books..... This needs to be disclosed......
Cost of Goods Sold
Cost of goods sold was $6,547,563 or approximately 36 percent of sales, for the six months ended November 30, 2008 as compared to $48,676 or approximately 14 percent of sales, for the six months ended November 30, 2007. While the cost of goods sold increased significantly as a result of our increase in sales. In addition, during the six months ended November 30, 2008, a portion of our cost of goods sold, including costs related to warehousing, packaging, and shipping of products, were borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by our Chief Operating Officer.
THEN AGAIN UNDER SGAE>
Selling, general, and administrative expenses for the six months ended November 30, 2008 were $733,655, an increase from $95,108 for the six months ended November 30, 2007. During the 2007 fiscal year, a portion of our selling, general and administrative expenses, including costs related to product and package design as well as certain consultants, were borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by the family of our Chief Operating Officer. During the current fiscal year, some of these costs are still being borne by (and not charged back to the Company) a privately-held company controlled by our Chief Operating Officer.
PAGE5
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409002030/v137081_10q.htm
Interactive Brokers currently has 3,700,000 shares of SPNG available to short. I just found this info , I thought you could not short pennies unless you are holding contract stock thru a financing, i.e. unregistered shares and work out a private deal with a broker directly. It appears IB will allow you to short these pennies and they have an inventory of SPNG stock available to shorting. Interesting.....
IB provides a stock inventory utility in Account Management, under the "Tools" icon. This utility provides indicative inventory information, estimates of the number of shares currently available for borrowing, estimated borrow rates, rate trends, and an indicator of how many different lenders are prepared to make their inventory available. By considering this pool of information, traders can manage their short selling strategies appropriately.
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/p.php?f=shortableStocks&p=s&ib_entity=llc
Symbol: SPNG
Availability: 3'700'000
Exchanges: ARCAEDGE, NITE, OTCBB, PINK, IBSX
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/ViewShortableStocks.php?key=spng&cntry=usa&tag=United+St&ib_entity=&ln=#
It appears to me market is pricing in a total loss of the investment made in Alaska , plus of course the demand factor for industrial silver declining wordwide and the dollar swings ALL combine as a short term current negative....
Plus it really appears to me CDE management is allowing the warrant holders and financeers to short the stock and cover with the warrants, they actually changed the terms of the warrant agreement to allow these warrants shares to be used to more or less cover short postions made with "contract stock"..... BS IMO
CDE management really stinks IMO ..... They let the shorts off the hook.....
(c) Short Positions. Section 1(b)(ii) of the Warrants is hereby deleted in its entirety and shall be of no further force or effect. For the avoidance of doubt, each of JMB and Lonestar may exercise their respective Warrants regardless of any short position in the Common Stock held by either of them at any time.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/215466/000089706909000034/cmw3949a.htm
DLAV is a KNOWN Pump Dump SCAM penny stock , going to take a whole lot more then you and few millions shares at .0001 to get this POS moving.....
Obviously JMB Partners holds a HUGE short postion in CDE.... I would also think they are the ones with all the open interest in the options, using covered calls and puts.... They have CDE leveraged to death IMPO.....
From the 8K:
Pursuant to the Exercise Agreement, the Warrants will be exercisable beginning January 13, 2009 and the Holders agree to exercise the Warrants between such date and January 29, 2009. The Exercise Agreement also allows the Holders to exercise the Warrants regardless of whether they have held or currently hold an open short position in the Company's common stock.
These financeers SHORT stock they dont even really own , they can do this thru large brokers with unregistered securitties and warrants , I call it "shorting on the come" they know they will have the shares to cover sooner or later due the financing deal, so they short like mad with shares they dont even have,,... makes me ill....
Form 8-K for COEUR D ALENE MINES CORP
12-Jan-2009
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Financial Statements and Exh
Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
On January 12, 2009, Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation (the "Company") entered into an Agreement and Consent (the "Exercise Agreement") with JMB Capital Partners Master Fund, L.P. ("JMB") and Lonestar Partners LP ("Lonestar" and, with JMB, the "Holders"). As of the date of the Exercise Agreement, the Holders collectively held all of the Company's outstanding Senior Secured Floating Rate Convertible Notes due 2012 (the "Notes") and all of the Company's outstanding warrants (the "Warrants") for the purchase of up to $25,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Notes.
Pursuant to the Exercise Agreement, the Warrants will be exercisable beginning January 13, 2009 and the Holders agree to exercise the Warrants between such date and January 29, 2009. The Exercise Agreement also allows the Holders to exercise the Warrants regardless of whether they have held or currently hold an open short position in the Company's common stock.
The Company and the Holders also agreed to amend the Notes and execute an amendment (the "Amendment") to the First Supplemental Indenture and Security Agreement, dated October 20, 2008, among the Company, Coeur Rochester, Inc., as grantor, and The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee and collateral agent, pursuant to which the interest rate on the Notes will remain fixed at its current rate of 12.0% until July 15, 2009.
Copies of the Exercise Agreement and the Amendment are filed as Exhibits 4.1 and 4.2, respectively, to this Current Report on Form 8-K and are incorporated into this Item 1.01 by reference.
Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits
(d) Exhibits:
Exhibit Number Description of Exhibit
4.1 Agreement and Consent, dated as of January 12, 2009, by and among
the Company, JMB Capital Partners Master Fund, L.P. and Lonestar
Partners LP.
4.2 Amendment No. 2, dated as of January 12, 2009, between the Company
and The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee, to the First
Supplemental Indenture and Security Agreement, dated as of October
20, 2008, among the Company, Coeur Rochester, Inc., as grantor, and
The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee and collateral agent.