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.
IMO insiders like the DF group are manipulating this stock. Look up the term "short swing trades"
If u shorted SPNG at todays high right before the news came out , the Great News come out at 11.30, and covered half hour later , you made a BUNDLE today....
Look closely at todays trading:
News - really GOOD news - comes out at 11.30AM
Look how the stock reacted before and after the news
Clearly short swing trades going on today.
Someday the SEC is going to light up this stock IMO
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=SPNG.OB#chart2:symbol=spng.ob;range=1d;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
IMO
Dicon SOLD for a whopping $4.5million , If Berkshire wanted DICON they would have never sold it AND if it was suddenly so valuable they could have made a play for it, $4.5milion is literally pennies to berkshire , why did they sell it and not want to buy it back? DICON is not what some here make them out to be IMO. HH Brown owns the Intellectual Property Licenses..... It IS a positive for SPNG that much is very true , but it is not as big a deal as some make it , the company sold outright for $4.5 million ... SPNG market cap is 20x that and they are a super small company....
If you review the 8K SPNG filed RE: The DICON buyout you will notice the following:
This is from the 8K:
3.2 Deliveries by the Company and the Sellers. On the Closing Date, the Company and the Sellers shall deliver, or cause to be delivered, the following:
(f) An acknowledgement from H.H. Brown Shoe Technologies, LLC (“H.H. Brown”) to the sale of the Membership Interests to the Purchaser, and an acknowledgement and confirmation from H.H. Brown that the Intellectual Property License Agreement effective November 30, 2007 by and between H.H. Brown and the Company (the “H.H. Brown License Agreement”) remains in force and effect as of the Closing Date, and that as of the Closing Date, the Company is not in breach of any of its material obligations under the H. H. Brown License Agreement.
_______
4.6 No Company Defaults or Consents. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement nor the carrying out of any of the transactions contemplated hereby will:
b) violate, conflict with or constitute a default under the terms, conditions or provisions of the H.H. Brown License Agreement;
__________
(b) Except as otherwise set forth on Schedule 4.10(b) attached hereto, since the Balance Sheet date, the Company has not done any of the following:
(xii) been notified on any default under the H.H. Brown License Agreement;
__________
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409037511/v154860_ex10-1.htm
follow link dude , these ARE the forms....
In August 2008 Gene Newton Filed with the SEC a REGD 504 ofering to SELL $1,000,000.00 worth of RCCH stock , The offering expired April 30,2009. Note the PR time line and think about it , He filed to sell the stock in August 2008, he had until April 31,2009 to complete offering.... What happened in between these dates , and AFTER those dates?
Here is the filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/08/9999999997-08-039420
IMPO RCCH IS LONG GONE WITH YOUR$$$$
sorry , read the filing it is April 30 , 2009
Here is the filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/08/9999999997-08-039420
HH Brown website has agriculture sponges listed as well. HH Brown was NOT part of the DICON aquisition, the true relationship with DICON/HH Brown has not been clearly disclosed IMO. IMO HH Brown has a lot more control over these sponge patents then some here think
HH Brown has Pet sponges , medical sponges , cosmetic sponges , agriculture sponges , ALL Using "HH Browns patented sponges"
"our patented hydrophillic urethane technology is benefiting the agriculture industry"
Click on link below , when the agriculture scrolls past click on it , as you can see HH Brown is claiming these are "HH Brown patented hydrophillic urethane technology" NOT DICON , NOT SPNG?
http://www.hhbrown.com/products/specialty-goods.asp
If you review the 8K SPNG filed RE: The DICON buyout you will notice the following:
This is from the 8K:
3.2 Deliveries by the Company and the Sellers. On the Closing Date, the Company and the Sellers shall deliver, or cause to be delivered, the following:
(f) An acknowledgement from H.H. Brown Shoe Technologies, LLC (“H.H. Brown”) to the sale of the Membership Interests to the Purchaser, and an acknowledgement and confirmation from H.H. Brown that the Intellectual Property License Agreement effective November 30, 2007 by and between H.H. Brown and the Company (the “H.H. Brown License Agreement”) remains in force and effect as of the Closing Date, and that as of the Closing Date, the Company is not in breach of any of its material obligations under the H. H. Brown License Agreement.
_______
4.6 No Company Defaults or Consents. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement nor the carrying out of any of the transactions contemplated hereby will:
b) violate, conflict with or constitute a default under the terms, conditions or provisions of the H.H. Brown License Agreement;
__________
(b) Except as otherwise set forth on Schedule 4.10(b) attached hereto, since the Balance Sheet date, the Company has not done any of the following:
(xii) been notified on any default under the H.H. Brown License Agreement;
__________
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409037511/v154860_ex10-1.htm
In August 2008 Gene Newton Filed with the SEC a REGD 504 ofering to SELL $1,000,000.00 worth of RCCH stock , The offering expired April 30,2009. Note the PR time line and think about it , He filed to sell the stock in August 2008, he had until April 31,2009 to complete offering.... What happened in between these dates , and AFTER those dates?
Here is the filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/08/9999999997-08-039420
IMPO RCCH IS LONG GONE WITH YOUR$$$$
IMPO RCC Holdings is an empty shell with NO current assets never mind revenues. Here are the (2) active cuspids that RCC has traded under in the past.... What one is going to be merged?
RCC HOLDINGS (0001421060)
State location: CA | State of Inc.: CA
Business Address
8599 HAVEN AVE, #306
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730
(909) 483-8500
Mailing Address
8599 HAVEN AVE, #306
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001421060&owner=include&count=40
OR IS IT:
RCC HOLDINGS CORP (0001143723)
SIC: 6311 - LIFE INSURANCE
State location: CA | State of Inc.: CO | Fiscal Year End: 1231 (Assistant Director Office No 1)
Business Address
4712 ADMIRALTY WAY
SUITE 263
MARINA DEL REY CA 90292
3108230181
Mailing Address
4712 ADMIRALTY WAY
SUITE 263
MARINA DEL REY CA 90292
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001143723&owner=include&count=40
I assume this is what you are referring to:
According to testimony Friday, Creaghan made that demand on Jefferson's behalf when Noreen Wilson, a Florida investor, wanted the congressman's help in resolving a dispute over oil-drilling rights for parcels off the coast of the West African nation of Sao Tome and Principe. She agreed to give Mose Jefferson one of three disputed drilling lots in exchange for the congressman's help, Creaghan said.
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/node/1840
someone shorted 500k shares? That would make sense... ?
IMO - When u have a stock with a monster amount of restricted unregistered shares , and then it shows up on REGSHO - U better believe insiders are playing games shorting , covering , shorting... smells like the DF "group" is working over the share structure.... Be ready for pull back on a dump to cover , BUY when everyone is selling , IMO We r going to get a chance in comings days ....
What do I need to know about the Regulation SHO Threshold List?
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=gn2007-022
Security Name|Security Symbol|OTC Market|Current Shares Short|Previous Report Shares Short|Change in Shares Short from Previous Report|Percent Change from Previous Report|Average Daily Share Volume|Days to Cover
SPONGETECH DELIVERY|SPNG|BB|505444|470173|35271|7.5|73749863|1
http://otcbb.com/dynamic/shortinterest/shrt20090715.txt
Symbol|Security Name|Market Category|Reg SHO Threshold Flag|Rule 3210|Filler
SPNG|Spongetech Delivery Systems, I|U|Y|N|
ftp://ftp.nasdaqtrader.com/symboldirectory/regsho/nasdaqth20090724.txt
Shortable Stocks for United States
Symbol: SPNG
Availability: 850'000
Exchanges: PINK, ARCAEDGE, NITE, IBSX, OTCBB
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/ViewShortableStocks.php?key=spng&cntry=usa&tag=United+States&ib_entity=llc&ln=
Dont forget the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC)is holding stock certificates for 100,000,000 units of ERHE stock as collateral for indebtedness/loans to Offor through his Chrome Oil Services....
Security- Chrome Group's Account with the defunct African Express Bank, Plc, were secured principally by a Lien on 100 (one hundred) million units of the common stock of Environmental Remediation Holding Company (ERHC)-an American registered company listed on NASDAQ. The originals of the share certificates of the above stocks are in the custody of the NDIC.
The reporting does mention:
He has a proposal before the Senate Committee on how he will liquidate the outstanding indebtedness to AFEX Bank.
http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=103691095
New and accessible silver investment trust goes live in the US
Gold and silver ETF investment has slowed recently as the markets have become more cautious; does the market have room for another instrument and are either silver or gold top-heavy?
The latest silver investment vehicle, the ETFS Silver Trust, starts trading on NYSE Euronext on Friday 24th July with trading symbol SIVR. The instrument is an investment trust, sponsored by ETFS Services LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETF Securities Ltd., which has a proven track record in a wide-ranging portfolio of commodity-based Exchange-Traded instruments. This offers another opportunity for investors to gain exposure to the silver market without having to have a "commodities" account with a bank or broker.
This silver instrument is the newest precious metals investment trust. It has a successful act to follow in the iShares silver fund and its successors the silver fund run by Zurich Cantonal Bank in Switzerland and the ETF Securities fund that is listed in London. The holdings in these three funds, the first of which was launched in late April 2006, currently amount to a total of 10,911 tonnes, equivalent to almost five months' global industrial silver demand and in late July they are valued at approximately $4.6 billion on the basis of silver prices in the region of $13.50/ounce. The iShares fund in New York currently accounts for 80% of the holdings in these three large-scale funds.
Fabrication demand in jewellery and silverware fell by just over 3% or 208 tonnes last year, from 6,914 tonnes to 6,706 tonnes. Investment in silver ETFs, meanwhile, rose by 1,115 tonnes and amounted to 2,894 tonnes. Investment in gold ETFs amounted to 306 tonnes last year, against gold jewellery demand of 2,159 tonnes.
Silver ETFs therefore absorbed the equivalent of an additional 43% of 2008 demand for silver in silverware and jewellery last year while gold ETFs took up the equivalent of 14% of gold content in jewellery demand. Silver ETFs currently hold the equivalent of 1.6 years' jewellery demand, while the gold ETFs, at just less than 1,620 tonnes, hold the equivalent of between 70% and 80% of one year's jewellery offtake, at a value of $49 billion with gold at just below $940.
Obviously jewellery and investment are not truly comparable as there are caratage, fabrication and taxation considerations to be taken into account, especially in the case of silver, and these ETFs represent a silver investment outlet that is not readily available in other forms, especially to investors that are prevented by their charters from investing directly in commodities. More to the point, private individuals can use these instruments as a method of gaining exposure to silver in small quantities and without having to take physical delivery of the metal, as these instruments effectively trade as equities, tracking the price of the underlying commodity with a very small haemorrhage for management fees.
This might suggest, therefore, that silver ETFs are top heavy by comparison with gold, when compared with the jewellery demand in their respective markets. This is not necessarily the case, however.
Roughly 70% of gold jewellery demand is concentrated in countries where offtake is price-elastic on the basis of high-caratage, low mark-up and it is therefore arguable that something of the order of 30% of jewellery demand is bought for adornment alone (forgetting the emotional cachet that gold jewellery carries regardless of content; here we are talking purely about purity, mark-up and scrap value). On this basis, then, taking a conservative view and making the simple assumption that just 30% of gold jewellery is purely for adornment and the rest of it has an intrinsic investment philosophy behind it, holdings in gold ETFs at just over 1,600 tonnes are equivalent to almost 2.5 times annual gold "jewellery" demand as opposed to gold "investment jewellery" demand.
These are highly arbitrary numbers, but the point of the exercise is to suggest that, while at first pass it might look as if there is a massive silver overhang in terms of investment when compared with overall jewellery offtake a comparison with "price inelastic" gold jewellery demand suggests that the silver funds are not top-heavy and have the scope to absorb more metal yet.
There is a risk, though and it must not be ignored.
Silver market fundamentals are not good.
The slowdown in global industrial production rates has obviously had an impact on silver demand, exacerbated in particular by the onslaught of digital technology, which has continued to eat into photographic offtake, for so many years the primary prop of silver's industrial demand. In the 1980s the photographic sector (including X-rays and professional demand, not just amateur film) accounted for more than 40% of silver demand; now it is down to less than 15% of total.
The slowdown in overall demand has not been that dramatic, however as the fall in photographic offtake has largely been offset by a proliferation in industrial uses of silver, which have grown from 11,640 tonnes in 2000 to 13,910 tonnes in 2008, an annual average growth rate of almost 2.3% per annum. These elements of demand, which include electrical and electronic uses, brazes and solders, did fall last year, but by less than 1.5%, with a fall in fourth quarter demand counteracting the effect of strong growth in the first half of the year. Total fabrication demand for silver fell to just less than 26,000 tonnes in 2008, compared with a recent peak of just over 27,700 tonnes of demand In 2000 (figures from GFMS Ltd).
All the indications are that this year's market will generate a substantial surplus. So far this year, investment in ETFs and by implication the Over the Counter market has been strong enough to absorb this metal, and probably more. The question for debate is whether this momentum can be maintained.
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page32?oid=86662&sn=Detail
China offers silver bullion for investment
Posted on 23 July 2009
From Cctv.com: China has introduced its first-ever investment opportunity for silver bullion. The bars are available in 500 grams, 1 kilogram, 2 kilograms and 5 kilograms with a purity of 99.9 percent.
Figures show that gold was 50 times more expensive than silver in 2007. But now that figure has reached to over 70 times, the highest in the past five years……….
Full Article: Source
http://www.cctv.com/program/bizchina/20090723/101308.shtml
JD AND GFCI = TOTAL SCAM
interesting reading: OTHER RELEVANT INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY
8. Grifco International, Inc. (“Grifco”), based in Conroe, Texas, is a publicly-traded corporation that claims to be an international provider of oil and gas services equipment. Grifco has never registered an offering of securities under the Securities Act or a class of securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Its shares are quoted by Pink Sheets operated by Pink OTC Markets Inc. (“Pink Sheets”) under the symbol GFCI.
FACTS
9.
On June 13, 2005, GGI employees participated in a conference call with a Grifco officer (“Officer”), in which the Officer told GGI that Grifco needed funds to purchase equipment and inventory immediately. On June 14, 2005, the parties executed a stock sale agreement pursuant to which Grifco issued GGI 1.5 million shares of purportedly unrestricted, nonexempt Grifco stock in return for an up-front monetary advance and a large percentage of the net sales proceeds. The agreement called for GGI to fund a portion of Grifco’s stock sales up front and then split the remaining stock proceeds with Grifco after GGI had sold the stock into the marketplace.
10.
On June 14, 2005, Grifco issued 1.5 million purportedly unrestricted shares to GGI, which GGI promptly transferred into one of its brokerage accounts. Two days later, on June 16, 2005, GGI received a two-sentence opinion letter from Grifco’s
3
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 4 of 8
attorney, which indicated, in its entirety:
11.
On June 17, 2005, GGI wired $146,250 to Grifco. By close of business the following Tuesday, June 21, 2005, GGI sold over 140,000 Grifco shares into the marketplace. By the end of the first week, GGI sold nearly 300,000 Grifco shares (20% of the purportedly unrestricted offering), generating gross proceeds of over $222,000. By August 18, 2005, GGI had sold all 1,500,000 Grifco shares into the marketplace.
12.
Soon after, on June 21, 2005 and June 29, 2005, GGI and Grifco entered into two additional stock sale agreements, which were virtually identical to the June 14, 2005 agreement. Each agreement called for Grifco to issue GGI 1.5 million shares of purportedly unrestricted Grifco shares and, in return, GGI provided Grifco with an upfront money advance and a large percentage of the net sales proceeds after GGI sold the stock. In each instance, GGI initiated trading within days of receiving the newly issued, unlegended Grifco certificates. By August 31, 2005, GGI had sold an additional 3,000,000 Grifco shares into the marketplace. GGI received another two-sentence opinion letter in connection with the June 21, 2005 transaction and no legal opinion in connection with the June 29, 2005 transaction.
13.
In total, 4.5 million shares of purportedly unregistered Grifco stock were offered and sold by GGI between June 14, 2005 and August 31, 2005, with gross proceeds of approximately $2,017,338. GGI gave Grifco nearly $1.1 million from the sales. GGI’s actual realized net profit on the 2005 stock sales was approximately $840,487 after expenses.
4
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 5 of 8
14.
GGI failed to perform the necessary due diligence to determine whether the stock sale agreements with Grifco were in compliance with the registration provisions of the Securities Act. GGI relied entirely upon opinion letters and emails Grifco supplied to GGI, which represented, without explanation or justification, that the shares were “properly and legally issued” and could be sold “without limitation.” However, the offers and sales of stock were not registered with the Commission and there were no applicable exemptions from registration.
15.
In January 2006, GGI and Grifco entered into another stock sale agreement that covered multiple unregistered stock transactions. As with the 2005 agreements, the Grifco Officer represented to GGI that all of the funds sent to Grifco by GGI would be used to purchase equipment and inventory for Grifco. At the same time, the Grifco Officer also sought a personal loan from GGI of $400,000 in order to purchase a gentleman’s club. GGI agreed to enter into the stock sale agreement and also agreed to make the personal loan to the Grifco Officer.
16.
On Friday, January 20, 2006, Grifco and GGI executed a stock sale agreement for 3.75 million shares of purportedly unrestricted Grifco stock in return for an up-front monetary advance to Grifco, with Grifco receiving a majority percentage of the net sales proceeds. That same day, the Grifco Officer obtained the personal loan. The 2006 stock sale agreement provided that GGI had the option to enter into additional transactions on the same terms and conditions by giving written notice. That day, the Grifco Officer provided a signed written statement that “the Stock being issued to Golden Gate Investors under the January 20, 2006 Stock Sale Agreement (including additional transactions) has been and will be properly and legally issued by Grifco, may be
5
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 6 of 8
transferred to Golden Gate Investors and sold by Golden Gate Investors without limitation.”
17.
GGI did not request a legal opinion, and none was received. By close of business Friday, January 20, 2006, Grifco issued 3.75 million shares to GGI. On the next trading day, January 23, 2006, GGI sold 142,000 shares of Grifco into the marketplace. GGI sold all 3.75 million shares into the marketplace by April 10, 2006.
18.
On April 11, 2006, GGI provided Grifco with written notice to enter into an additional transaction for 3.75 million shares pursuant to the terms of the 2006 agreement. On July 11, 2006, Grifco issued an additional 3.75 million purportedly unrestricted shares to GGI. Between July 12 and August 1, 2006, GGI sold all 3.75 million shares into the market.
19.
On August 2, 2006, GGI provided Grifco with written notice to enter into an additional transaction for 3.75 million shares pursuant to the terms of the 2006 agreement. On September 27, 2006, Grifco issued an additional 3.75 million purportedly unrestricted shares to GGI. Between October 4 and December 13, 2006, GGI sold all
3.75 million shares into the market.
20.
GGI neither received nor sought a legal opinion during 2006, and none was provided until October 3, 2006. The two-paragraph October 3, 2006 opinion, which purported to cover only the very last distribution of 3.75 million purportedly unrestricted shares of Grifco stock issued to GGI on September 27, 2006, indicated, in relevant part, that Grifco had “properly and legally issued . . . 3,750,000 free trading shares” of Grifco to GGI and that the shares may be “transferred to further purchasers and sold by those purchasers without limitation.”
6
Case 4:09-cv-01307 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/30/2009 Page 7 of 8
21.
As with the 2005 unregistered transactions, GGI failed to perform the due diligence necessary to determine whether the 2006 agreement and the underlying transactions were in compliance with the registration provisions of the Securities Act and, instead, relied entirely upon Grifco’s representations that the stock was free trading without restriction.
22.
In total, 11.25 million shares of purportedly unregistered Grifco stock were offered and sold by GGI during 2006, with gross proceeds of approximately $1,773,431. GGI paid Grifco nearly $1.25 million from the stock sales. GGI’s actual realized net profit on the 2006 sales was approximately $429,420 after expenses. None of the securities transactions were registered with the Commission and the transactions did not satisfy any exemption from registration.
The investigation is ongoing.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21019.htm
SEC Complaint
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2009/comp21019.pdf
Info courtesy of SEC via > R REX:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=GFCI&read=46477
EXOCET CORPORATION President - JAMES DIAL
Action Type: Acceptance of Registered Agent
Document Number: 20090089135-87 # of Pages: 1
File Date: 01/27/2009 Effective Date:
(No notes for this action)
Action Type: Reinstatement
Document Number: 20090089136-98 # of Pages: 1
File Date: 01/27/2009 Effective Date:
Officers Include Inactive Officers
President - JAMES DIAL
Secretary - JAMES DIAL
Treasurer - JAMES DIAL
Director - JAMES DIAL
https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=QJDPUP%252fX5nPSvnwbF%252bfpOw%253d%253d
What are you talking about? Follow link below , click on the center scrollin text , it outlines each of the specialty, NON Shoe products?
HH Brown has Pet sponges , medical sponges , cosmetic sponges , agriculture sponges
ALL Using:
"HH Browns hydrophillic foam technology"
http://www.hhbrown.com/products/specialty-goods.asp
HH Brown has Pet sponges , medical sponges , cosmetic sponges , agriculture sponges
ALL Using:
"HH Browns hydrophillic foam technology"
http://www.hhbrown.com/products/specialty-goods.asp
Please post link:
This is from the 8K:
3.2 Deliveries by the Company and the Sellers. On the Closing Date, the Company and the Sellers shall deliver, or cause to be delivered, the following:
(f) An acknowledgement from H.H. Brown Shoe Technologies, LLC (“H.H. Brown”) to the sale of the Membership Interests to the Purchaser, and an acknowledgement and confirmation from H.H. Brown that the Intellectual Property License Agreement effective November 30, 2007 by and between H.H. Brown and the Company (the “H.H. Brown License Agreement”) remains in force and effect as of the Closing Date, and that as of the Closing Date, the Company is not in breach of any of its material obligations under the H. H. Brown License Agreement.
_______
4.6 No Company Defaults or Consents. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement nor the carrying out of any of the transactions contemplated hereby will:
b) violate, conflict with or constitute a default under the terms, conditions or provisions of the H.H. Brown License Agreement;
__________
(b) Except as otherwise set forth on Schedule 4.10(b) attached hereto, since the Balance Sheet date, the Company has not done any of the following:
(xii) been notified on any default under the H.H. Brown License Agreement;
__________
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409037511/v154860_ex10-1.htm
Unreal - This is a complete fabrication IMO
Has anyone done any DD into the DICON sellers/owners?
Wonder if any of these folks been playin in the otc pinksheet playground?
MEMBERSHIP INTEREST PURCHASE AGREEMENT
By and Among
SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc.
as Purchaser,
and
Dicon Technologies, LLC,
and
Wayne M. Celia
Sam Ginsberg
Clyde Williams
Roy Geronemus
John Scheib
as Seller(s)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409037511/v154860_ex10-1.htm
DICON Licenses the technology from H.H. Brown Shoe , Now I see why the purchase price of DICON was so small... They DICON did NOT own the technology.....
ARTICLE III
CLOSING
(f) An acknowledgement from H.H. Brown Shoe Technologies, LLC (“H.H. Brown”) to the sale of the Membership Interests to the Purchaser, and an acknowledgement and confirmation from H.H. Brown that the Intellectual Property License Agreement effective November 30, 2007 by and between H.H. Brown and the Company (the “H.H. Brown License Agreement”) remains in force and effect as of the Closing Date, and that as of the Closing Date, the Company is not in breach of any of its material obligations under the H. H. Brown License Agreement.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409037511/v154860_ex10-1.htm
I bought a 1986 trans-am w some of my SPNG profits, it is being restored right now , black on black screamin chicken smokey n bandit bad boy , it was my dream car in high school , it should be ready soon... I have flipped SPNG 5X for some sweet cash , I will ADMIT I dont trust the insiders , this stock IS rigged , but if u watch closely , trade tightly , u can make money on these guys backs , but u have to be willing to buy when everyone is selling and sell when everyone is buyin , u may miss the tops and bottoms but if you trade SPNG in that sweet spot in the middle u can make monies..... but again IMO dont get holding this one long term , u will lose..... IMO
Your welcome... Not sure why this PR does not mention this safe harbor disclosure RE DOJ investigation specifically?
Good question Kobiashi2000...
If you review the latest SEC filing made by ERHE for the period ended 03.31.09 it does mention the DOJ investigation/legal procedings, in 2 seperate places thru the filing , but it is worded a little differently then I have seen in past filings... ? Interesting observation Kobiashi2000
First you find mention of DOJ on page 14:
Note 5 – Commitments and Contingencies
Subpoenas:
On May 4, 2006, a Federal court search warrant initiated by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") was executed on the Company. The ("DOJ") sought various records including, among other matters, documents, if any, related to correspondence with foreign governmental officials or entities in Sao Tome and Nigeria. Related United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") subpoenas issued on May 9, 2006 and August 29, 2006 also requested a range of documents. ERHC continues to interface with both the DOJ and SEC investigators to respond to the SEC subpoenas and any additional requests for information from the DOJ or SEC.
ERHC’s attorneys, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, are assisting ERHC in responding to the subpoenas.
THEN AGAIN > On Page 22:
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
DOJ, SEC and U.S. Senate Committee Subpoenas
On May 4, 2006, a search warrant issued by the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, was executed on ERHC seeking various records including, among others, documents, if any, related to correspondence with foreign governmental officials or entities in Sao Tome and Nigeria. The search warrant cited, among other things, possible violations of the FCPA, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and criminal conspiracy and wire fraud statutes. ERHC filed suit in federal district court in Texas in June 2006 seeking to protect the Company’s attorney-client privileged documents and to allow its counsel to determine the factual basis for the DOJ’s search warrant affidavit, which is currently under seal.
A related SEC subpoena was issued on May 9, 2006, and a second related subpoena issued on August 29, 2006. The subpoenas request from ERHC a range of documents including all documents related to correspondence with foreign governmental officials or entities in Sao Tome and Nigeria, personnel records (specifically, those regarding the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer, Franklin Ihekwoaba) and other corporate records. The Company has been actively responding to both subpoenas.
On July 5, 2007, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations served ERHC with a subpoena, in connection with its review of matters relating to the potential abuse of payments made to foreign governments. The subpoena, as amended on July 18, 2007, seeks documents and information regarding ERHC’s activities, particularly those related to the acquisition of ERHC’s interests in the Gulf of Guinea. ERHC’s attorneys, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, are assisting ERHC in responding to all subpoenas.
The Company anticipates that these investigations may be lengthy and does not know when they will conclude. If violations are found, the Company may be subject to criminal, civil and/or administrative sanctions, including substantial fines, and the resolution or disposition of these matters could have a material adverse effect on its business, prospects, operations, financial condition and cash flows.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799235/000114036109011718/form10q.htm
be careful , they will change gears and ride it back up just when u think it is going to tank further..... U have to BUY SPNG when the red is flowing hardest and SELL when the green is blinding, IMO
SPNG has gone form $.28 to UNDER $.08 in few short weeks on nothing but GOOD NEWS and a flood of positive PR. Something is drastically wrong with SPNG stock..... IMO
You forgot this from the report on ERHC website:
Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors – The United States Securities and Exchange Commission permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proved reserves that a company has demonstrated by actual production or conclusive formation tests to be economically and legally producible under existing economic and operating conditions. We use certain terms on this Web site, such as "recoverable reserves potential," that the SEC's guidelines generally prohibit us from including in filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 10-K. You may review our filing with the SEC at the following Web site: www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000799235.
This press release contains statements concerning ERHC Energy Inc.’s future operating milestones, future drilling operations, the planned exploration and appraisal program, future prospects, future investment opportunities and financing plans, future shareholders’ meetings, response to the Senate Subcommittee investigation, developments in the SEC investigation of the Company and related proceedings, as well as other matters that are not historical facts or information. Such statements are inherently subject to a variety of risks, assumptions and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated, projected, expressed or implied. A discussion of the risk factors that could impact these areas and the Company’s overall business and financial performance can be found in the Company’s reports and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These factors include, among others, those relating to the Company’s ability to exploit its commercial interests in the JDZ and the exclusive territorial waters of São Tomé and Príncipe, general economic and business conditions, changes in foreign and domestic oil and gas exploration and production activity, competition, changes in foreign, political, social and economic conditions, regulatory initiatives and compliance with governmental regulations and various other matters, many of which are beyond the Company’s control. Given these concerns, investors and analysts should not place undue reliance on these statements. Each of the above statements speaks only as of the date of this press release. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement to reflect any change in the Company’s expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any of the above statements is based.
http://www.erhc.com/en/rel/?116
lol , I seriously doubt it , but GLTA , Please make sure u read into the ADams Ranch Ozona pinksheet SCAM past before u invest in this one - IMO
lol , no panic here , i am calling .069 as buy point , might go even lower , but dont see .05 just yet , buy em under .07 , sell em under .09 , dont let "the group" play u like a fiddle , play off of THEM... imo
I agree.eom
Thats fine , u can have ur opinion. I just wonder why if these patents and SPNG royalties are so valuable why would they sell so cheap? Why would a major try to buyout SPNG for market cap of $50+million when u can buy the patent owner for a mere $4.5 million... I guess the patents , royalties and profits from these sponges is not very significant after all.....
Please dont start with the NSS theories..... SPNG got into bed with a dog that has flees , now the shareholders are scratchin.... IMO they need a dog sponge and scrub "the group" away....
IMO he is only here short term , they knows this , they must short tops and make all the money they can NOW , before SPNG tires and tries to rid themselves of this group , like many other clients have done , I agree the true SPNG insiders are here for the long term , to make big money long term , but IMO "the group" is here to make money now , as much as they can , short the tops , buy the bottoms , feed off the feverish retail longs.... I only hope they do not ruin SPNG for the long term..... All of this obvious manipulation causes uncertainty , the company issues 4-5 unreal awesome PRs and the price DROPS! IMO the market will tire of this and SPNG PPS will suffer , but "the group" is long gone made a fortune by then.... IMO
DICON sold for only $4.5 million cash , that is really small company IMO , something strange with that low price IMO , were is the 8K the PR said was forthcoming, maybe that has more detail , Maybe there is some debt and the like taken over or some restrcited shares or something given? Something not right with that purchase price IMO... If it is correct price then DICON was not some bigtime company , a large player could have taken them out and bought the patents and or the taken the royalties from SPNG on the license.... they must not be worth much if they sold entire thing for $4.5 million.... something strange about the price paid IMO..... I hope the 8K they alluded to in the PR and the upcoming filngs may have some detail....
In My Opinion Doug Furth and "the group" proved again today that THEY control SPNG stock price, NOT the awesome revenue growth , not the superb new distribution chanels , not the top notch marketing and advertising , Not the all cash buyout of the patent holder... etc.etc..etc... all that has very little to do with SPNG stock price as of late. IMO SPNG stock is controlled and intentionally manipulated for profit... IMO
Hello... WEGI is out of business , declared bankrupcy few months ago.... done deal over and out.....
lol!.eom
I dont recall ever saying it was going sub-penny or even saying it was going down? Just posting some Facts on D Furth
Not sure waht you r referring to? r u talking about Blue Chip(EGLY) or First Responder (GWS Tech) lawsuits? In the Blue Chip case The judge ruled in favour of Furth to move the case from Utah federal court to N Ohio federal court? However the case was NOT dismissed??? Please post link....