Christy, if you believe that the Feb 2009 Balance Sheet is accurate, then by definition you also believe that the 9 month Net Income of $4.9 million shown in the SEC filings is accurate.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409021409/v146656_10q.htm

and if you believe the above to be accurate, then there is no reason to believe that SPNG's public statements on the $11 million net income for the year ending May 31, 2009 are false.

You also state below that the Feb. 2010 Retained Earnings will be about the same as Feb. 2009, which was $2.5 million as per the 10Q filed with the SEC shown above.

In order for the above to all be true then the 9 month Net Income for the period ending Feb. 2010 has to be a significant loss.

and here is why:

Feb. 2009 Retained Earnings = $2.5 million
2009 4th Quarter Net Income = $6.1 million ($11.0 - $4.9 million)

therefore May 31, 2009 R/E = $8.6 million

therefore

in order for Feb. 2010 R/E to equal $2.5 million as you claim, the 9 month Net Income for the period ending Feb. 2010 has to be a

NET LOSS of $6.1 million


a figure that is completely counter to what the company and its supporters have been saying about the current profitability of SPNG


thanks for playing

Christy do you understand how silly this sounds?

You are saying that any auditing firm that uncovers financials filed with the SEC by another firm that are false and misleading has to resign from the assignment.

This is not what happens.

Should the new auditing firm find irregularities in the financials then it would be their duty to restate and refile these financials - not to resign from the assignment.

Christy, are you saying that SPNG has had substantial losses in the last 9 months?

If not, as a CPA that you claim to be, you should know better than to make the two statements below about the SPNG balance sheet.

Would you like to review them and then come back and retract them?

Otherwise one might have to show the big hole in your argument here.

thanks

recrem when you make such a bold claim as "growing revenues" for SPNG you must have a point to compare current revenues such that it can be proven that they have grown.

would you be kind enough to tell us what source you are using to make such a statement as "growing revenues", considering that the SEC has claimed that SPNG's sales and order figures in PR's and the financial statements filed with the SEC cannot be relied upon - and SPNG has not made a public statment on revenues/orders since the early Sept. 2009 press release?

and please please please don't tell us that SPNG's revenues are growing because spongbob has been spotted at a couple of Walmarts.

recrem is there something in the wording of this Wells Notice that maybe you don't understand?

you quote the SEC suspension wording and falsely claim that it is the SEC Wells Notice wording, which is what we are discussing, is it not?

let me help you with the Wells Notice wording:

On December 24, 2009, the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) sent a written Wells notice, which was received on December 28, 2009, to each of SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”), Michael L. Metter, SpongeTech’s Chief Executive Officer, and Steven Y. Moskowitz, SpongeTech’s Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer. The Wells notices advised that the Commission Staff intends to recommend that the Commission bring civil injunctive actions against them alleging violations of the federal securities laws contained in Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (“Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder; and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 13a-14 thereunder. The recommended actions would seek, among other things, permanent injunctions and civil penalties.

1jk, there is no "puzzle" to the share buybacks

SPNG constantly promoted the stock as being in the buyback phase while simultaneously issuing billions of shares to management and related parties.

no "puzzle" at all.

Taxman, are you forgetting that SPNG, the company, was also served with the Wells Notice - or that SPNG, the company, was also included as a defendant in the class action lawsuits?

and are you forgetting that fraudulent financials are just that, fraudulent, no matter who put them together?

Bringing in new management isn't going to change anything here in terms of making SPNG a more desirable company to acquire in an LBO.

By the way, LBO's usually require a positive operating cash flow, something that all the evidence that there is out there shows that SPNG does not have.

1kj, why would you say this?

Of course a Wells Notice is a formal allegation of wrong doing. It is a formal allegation that SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz violated at least 16 SEC securities regulations.

puppy, in fact many times you will see a Second and Third Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the SEC against scamsters such as SPNG when additional information is unearthed during the ongoing SEC investigation.

Taxman, by definition, LBO's are highly leveraged acquisitions of companies or assets.

There is not one LBO lender that would lend a dime to a company that has cooked its books, according to the SEC.

There is not one LBO lender that would lend a dime to a company that has received such a far reaching 16 count Wells Notice.

There is not one LBO lender that would lend a dime to a company that has been sued in several class action lawsuits.

recrem you really don't get it do you?

a conclusion can be reached in the middle of an investigation by an investigating body. This does not mean that the investigation was be concluded.

Do you want a clear cut example?



During the ongoing investigation of a murder, the Dictrict Attorney finds enough evidence to conclude that there is a high probability the an individual commited the murder. He he can arrest and charge the potential murderer. This is a conclusion that was reached in the middle of an investigation and does not imply that the investigation was conluded.

During the ongoing investigation of a securities fraud, the SEC finds enough evidence to conclude that there is a high probability that SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz commited the securities fraud. The SEC can then issue a Wells Notice to SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz, notifying them that the SEC intends to file securities fraud charges. This is a conclusion that was reached in the middle of an investigation and does not imply that the investigation was conluded.

recrem you do understand the difference between


1. An investigation being concluded

and

2. A conclusion being reached during the process of an investigation, don't you?

dale, no need to go to Florida to purchase swampland

its equivalent, SPNG stock, can be purchased on the Internet worldwide and you only need a brokerage account to do it.

drunk why don't you show us where I stated that the SEC investigation has been concluded.

I did not say this.

the Wells Notice is part of the continuing investigation of SPNG by the SEC, whereby the SEC has enough evidence to inform SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz that it intends to file fraud charges against them for a far reaching set of violations of SEC regulations

reserved name just expired yesterday in the State of Nevada


http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=lSICTLOuQYZ10l6Q2LtcOw%253d%253d&nt7=0

nils, yes you are correct and the SEC, after full investigations of SPNG, has concluded that sales and revenues announced by SPNG are false and misleading

1 million shares at 3.9 cents

is the amount and price that a poster on yahoo, richardfleet, claims to have bought today

almost 1/4 of today's volume

nowinvest, you see, that is NOT how it works

if you claim that a poster is wrong, then it is your responsibility to show the proof as to why he is wrong...

If you can't, then your whole argument goes out the window..

so, so provide the proof that each of my statements is wrong

we shall be waiting for you!

nowinvest, so what is misleading?


the part where Walmart selling SPNG's holiday inventory

the part that it is at significant discounted prices

the part that it is in clearance sales

or the part that it is at a few of their locations

timetomake - why would the company want to release news about Walmart selling SPNG's holiday inventory at significant discounted prices in clearance sales at a few of their locations?

eefland, there is no need to cover shorts by insiders, they gave themselves about 1.7 billion shares already...

dent, you really should do some research on this matter. You will find that your argument for the O/S not being in the 3 billion level is very very weak...

other examples can be posted here, but would only be deleted as "off-topic", unfortunately

ThePenny, I fail to understnad why you are claiming that Pike was trading with material confidential insider information?

ThePenny, thanks for telling us that the O/S was 722 million almost a year ago, on April 16, 2009, which as you know is the only O/S that is being used in the form 4's and 13D's to calculate percentage ownership of O/S.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409021409/v146656_10q.htm

puppy the Pike buying (and at the prices that Pike is buying) shows an attempt to jump start the momentum of SPNG.

However, with so many billions of shares in the float, it has not been too a successful attempt.

Once a few days pass by without any Pike buying, then you are going to see a softening of the stock price.

Rav4, in order to see whether a company is "strong" as you claim, one has to review current financials

SPNG refuses to file current financials with the SEC and previously filed financials were declared by the SEC to be unreliable.

what does that tell you?

fourkids, then why is it that only you and mingy seem to find a pattern with the data?

and yet you fail to tell us what pattern and conclusion from the pattern you perceived here...

loanranger, excellent point

so somehow one of the subsidiaries of SPNG seems to have vanished.

If it was transfered over to VAEV then it would have been mentioned...

maybe it was transferred over to a private entity controlled by Moskowitz..

oops, but no way is SPNG management stripping SPNG of its assets, is it?

More Red Flags for SPNG - Will the real "SA Trading" stand up?

It appears that SPNG is has used 3 different corporate spellings for its large client "SA Trading":


1. from the SEC filings:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409021409/v146656_10q.htm

"SA Trading Company"


2. From May 9, 2007 SPNG Press release:


http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services/4341529-1.html

"SA Trading Group Corp"


3. from Jan. 31, 2008 SPNG press release:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS178743+31-Jan-2008+PRN20080131

"SA Trading LLC"

SPNG - The missing financial statements


SPNG's 10-K for the year ending May 2008 and the 10-Q for the 9 months ending Feb 2008 included a "Statement of Changes in Stockholders' Equity".
2008 10-K:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420408050704/v125324_10ksb.htm

2008 Q3 10-Q:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420408022423/v110634_10qsb.htm


why has SPNG failed to file this very important financial statement with the

2009 first quarter 10-Q?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420408057701/v128905.htm

2009 second quarter 10-Q?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409002030/v137081_10q.htm

2009 third quarter 10-Q?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409021409/v146656_10q.htm

WHAT IS SPNG MANAGEMENT HIDING?

ha! I just fell off my chair laughing!

fourkids, it is YOU that claims a pattern

when you claim a pattern then you should have a conclusion that explains that pattern

what I am trying to tell you is that there is no pattern and no conlusion that can come out of the data that you presented, other that there have been more "purported" shorted shares as a percentage of total share sold during the month of February..

that is it

fourkids, thanks and what can you conclude from the pattern that you posted?

Mingy, but how could this be?

didn't you previously state that the evil naked short sellers have tens of billions of dollars to assist them in their bad deeds?

Mingy you should send letters to the President of the U.S. to complain about the evil naked short sellers.

Make sure that you include the links to the SEC's 10 day suspension notice and Wells Notice against SPNG...

that should really get his attention

mack, I don't understand?

why would the announcement of criminal indictments by the DOJ against SPNG, Metter and Moskowitz prevent Pike from buying SPNG stock for 3 days?

I don't unterstand?

puppy, yes, it is nothing going to be fun watching that stock price dive once Pike finishes with the buying...

We plan to engage in our proposed different lines of business through each of the subsidiaries and to hold all intellectual property in our America’s Cleaning Company subsidiary.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420408050704/v125324_10ksb.htm

dr33, so you like legal filings eh?

here are a couple for you regarding SPNG:


http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/2009/34-60788-o.pdf


and

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409067083/v170343_8k.htm

Does anyone know how many shares Pike has received from VAEV, if any, in order to buy shares of SPNG in the market?