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.
Immediate Capital (Florida Royalty) case update.
Apparently SPNG's attorney asked for a stay in the case based on his inability to secure guidance from his clients, citing the SEC/DOJ cases....presumably taking precedence for their attention.
On 5/24, according to the minutes, the judge denied the motion saying "If defendant's counsel does not receive guidance within 10 days, he may file a renewed motion to stay and/or a motion to withdraw."
I regret that I do not have scion's linking skills.
ab,
"On October 14, 2008, we entered into a license agreement with MTV Networks, a division of Viacom International, Inc. (“MTVN”). The agreement granted us a license to use the name, trademark, and logos, and likeness of characters associated with the MTV Network television series “Dora the Explorer”, “Go Diego Go” and “SpongeBob Squarepants”. Under the agreement the license may be used for bath sponges and packaging. The term of the agreement commenced on October 1, 2008 and expires on December 31, 2010. We are actively working with MTVN to fully develop the SpongeBob, Dora and Diego products licensed and to get these products to market as soon as possible."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409002030/v137081_10q.htm
I was NEVER able to find it on the e-courts (Web Civil) system, just the SCROLL system using the funny spelling. And all the SCROLL system ever showed was the Complaint pdf and a listing of the 4 summonses served.
Hey thanley,
Any chance you'll ever tell us where you really "found" it?
"The conclusion though, is the same. CAPITAL LOSS."
I never suggested otherwise. My post only provides support for that conclusion.
"If you do recover anything"...not me.
"you could get a couple bucks".....now that WOULD be theft.
Not sure whose posts you've been reading. Or what I said that warranted that response. Or the context for "is the same".
I believe we are in complete agreement, but you are welcome to disagree.
VD,
I don't believe that your conclusion is based on a proper comparison. The example that you use is not one in which an investor purchases a stock on the open market which loses value based on the fraudulent activities of the corporate officers, but rather an investor(A) who opens an investment account with an investment advisor(B) who proceeds to defraud him. The IRS views these two situations differently….don't ask me why.
The following, from April 2004 and hopefully still functional, is directly on point:
"The Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department are aware that some taxpayers who acquired stock on the open market for investment have been advised that they may be able to deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of their stock caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct of the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. The purpose of this notice is to advise taxpayers that the Service intends to disallow such deductions and may impose penalties under § 6662."
blablabla....
"Accordingly, the Service will disallow a deduction for a theft loss under § 165(a) relating to a decline in the value of stock that was acquired on the open market for investment. If the stock is sold or exchanged or becomes wholly worthless, any resulting loss is a capital loss."
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-16_IRB/ar09.html#d0e985
lug,
Maybe the following will help. One thing that it surely does is highlight why, if you call the IRS help line 3 times, you are likely to get 3 different answers. I would have to have lost a bargeload of money to justify even reading this....but it may be what you're looking for.
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-14_IRB/ar07.html
Good Luck......you're gonna need it.
Apparently DP withdrew it to make some additions.
There may have been other changes from the original, but these are the items that I found to be new.
"While the New York Supreme Court, New York County does not hold personal
jurisdiction over Patch in the initial complaint since Patch does not meet the standards for
minimal contact in the state of New York, this countersuit meets the jurisdiction of the courts
with all defendants identified in the counterclaim preside in New York and operate their business
within the courts jurisdiction. There is no other court to handle such claim. To further this cause
for relief, the lawsuit filed against Patch in attempts to impose injury and duress was done within
this court and thus the only logical venue to address damages.
What would a reasonable person conclude based on a timeline that is without dispute
and based on a trail of fraud and deception originating by Spongetech, Moskowitz, and Metter
and carried through by Alan A. Heller, Esq.? Moskowitz and Metter have a long history of legal
matters and Alan Heller has a history of representation regarding their activities."
A crime of malicious intent to cause injury was committed when Alan Heller, Esq. filed
the fraudulent lawsuit against Patch and others.
and Appendix A.
"Antar was the CEO of ZZZ Best."
Gotta keep our crooks straight, oa.
Barry Minkow was CEO of ZZZZ Best, which could be thought of as the first "America's Cleaning Company"………of carpets and shareholders.
"He was convicted of fraud and several other offenses and sentenced to 25 years in prison, but served only seven years."
"Today he is senior pastor of the Community Bible Church in San Diego, California, having renounced his felonious acts."
"While Minkow admitted to manipulating his company's stock, he tried to portray himself as the innocent victim of Mafia-connected figures who secretly controlled his company. It didn't work; he was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to 25 years in prison. He was also placed on five years probation and ordered to pay $26 million in restitution."
Antar ran Crazy Eddie's…….then to Israel, who returned him like a piece of bad fish.
"Based on information gathered over the course of its investigation, the SEC charged Eddie Antar with securities fraud and illegal insider trading on September 6, 1989.[10] In January 1990, a Federal district judge ordered Antar to repatriate more than $50 million he had illegally transferred to Israel."
"Antar eventually pled guilty to Federal fraud charges in May 1996. In February 1997, he was sentenced to eight years in prison. He was ordered to pay more than $150 million in fines, in addition to the more than $1 billion in judgments against him, stemming from various civil suits. Efforts to recover additional money from the Antar family on behalf of defrauded stockholders continue to this day."
"He was released from prison in 1999."
Quotes from Wikipedia.
"You can reach Susan at (516) 482-0155 or email her at susanu@corporateevolutions.com."
Maybe this, from the clearly unintimidated Teri Buhl, was already posted:
http://www.hedgetracker.com/article/Feds-Charge-SpongeTech-CEO-with-Obstruction-of-Justice-in-Pump-and-Dump-Stock-Investigation
It turned up in a search for Corporate Evolutions, whose website was interesting in that all 7 of the clients that they "take credit for" currently trade at a fraction of their 52 week highs.
http://www.corporateevolutions.com/profiles.php
From the Buhl article:
"It’s a move that hopefully shows the SEC, and their partners at the Department of Justice, are drawing a hard line on not only the companies that try to mislead investors but also the outside stock marketers who knowingly release false press statements that materially affect the price of a stock. When asked what the charges will be against the stock marketers Robert Nardoza of the U.S. Attorney’s Office said, “No Comment”. Sources say one of the stock marketers and corporate communicators being investigated in this scam is Great Neck-based Corporate Evolution. SPNG, the ticker for SpongeTech, is currently promoted on Corporate Evolutions website. When a call was made for comment no one answered the phone at Corporate Evolution’s Long Island office."
FWIW, while the highlighted statement above was made in an article dated 5/6/10, it appears no longer to be true.....at least I saw no mention of it.
Hopefully this makes more sense now that you've linked the actual documents:
scion,
I've never seen a Waiver of Service before, so I would think that Paul Bessette, attorney for Metter and SPNG in the SEC proceeding, would know far better than I how to fill one out. Which makes me wonder why he would send them to himself, providing his name as attorney for his clients, on the line that calls for "name of the plaintiff's attorney or unrepresented plaintiff".
:o)
(http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=50470787)
scion,
I've never seen a Waiver of Service before, so I would think that Paul Bessette, attorney for Metter and SPNG in the SEC proceeding, would know far better than I how to fill one out. Which makes me wonder why he would send them to himself, providing his name as attorney for his clients, on the line that calls for "name of the plaintiff's attorney or unrepresented plaintiff".
:o)
ps. On the criminal complaint, would you expect to see a memo docket entry or some such reflecting Metter's having provided the bail documents that he sought an extension to secure? I believe we're a week past the extension date.
Mike, Can't help with a specific date, but from these SEC complaint excerpts you can get a time frame:
"86. Moskowitz knew that Pensley had not authored the opinion letters he(Moskowitz) sent to Olde Monmouth from July 2007 through May 2009."
"91. Beginning in June 2009, Spongetech's new transfer agent, Worldwide Stock, began removing restrictive legends and transferring stock based on attorney opinion letters authored by Halperin, one of Spongetech's new attorneys."
Also, the Worldwide Authorized Share Report showing 2,000,000,000 O/S says "Upload Date 6/16/09".
Hope this helps.
"For Your Consideration."
OK Jay, consider it considered.
I'm sure you realize that absolutely NOTHING in that Risk Assessment, regardless of its source, either excuses or explains the fabrication of customers, sales, and an attorney or the altering of attorney letters for the purpose of improperly issuing common stock by the company's management. Maybe you think that management took those actions under duress. Or maybe you don't think that stuff happened. Or maybe that those activities are secondary to the actions of the horrible people that exposed them.
I'm not sure why you would highlight the Double U cert to the neglect of the 20+ other certs issued to various parties on the same day. I do admit to not knowing whether any of the individuals or officers of the companies holding them are multilingual, as if that were important. While the mystery document does describe Double U as a "potential threat", please explain how a cert identifying a 22,000,000 share long position represents a threat, especially when the concern expressed regarding Double U deals with their history of short sales.
The Risk Assessment document is a collection of nonsense. The fact that nefarious characters were attached to the company from back around Y2K should surprise no one and reminds me of the following (apologies to Arlo, no personal connection to him is implied):
"They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and
they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of the approach,
the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to
mention the aerial photography."
I considered it, Jay. And I don't get it.
Addendum to previous post:
Apart from Jeffrey Tao, note that one of the lawyers shown as working on the Goldman Sachs case (Richard Simpson) signed the SPNG SEC complaint as Attorney for Plaintiff.
Ris,
A clarification re "the Rosen suit".
Rosen was one of the plaintiff's attorneys in one of the class action suits filed in October, listing Spongetech as a DEFENDANT along with SM, MM, FL and RME….. and SPNG shareholders who bought during the class period as plaintiffs. Per Pacer, the class actions were ordered to be consolidated on 5/12 and a firm other than Rosen was appointed lead plaintiff's attorney.
On 5/13 (and I suspect the timing wasn't coincidental), the newly freed up Rosen firm filed the derivative action, which names Spongetech, Inc. as PLAINTIFF in a suit to recover damages from SM, MM, FL and RME.
Tough to tell the players without a scorecard.
Now THIS is really a new lawsuit....with a new plaintiff:
William Wesley, derivatively and on Behalf of Nominal Defendant Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc.
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/AdvSearch_D.jsp?Criteria=spongetech&Submit4=Search
Index #650403-2010
Important stuff.
Ris,
I'm pretty sure that's just the original Mets suit......note the /2009 in the case number.
Didn't you teach me that the RJI filing sometimes kicked off the public filings?
:o)
eg. "THIS INDEX NUMBER COULD NOT BE FOUND IN THE CCIS DATABASE. THIS INDEX NUMBER MAY HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. HOWEVER, AS OF TODAY NO RJI HAS BEEN FILED. CHECK THE "COUNTY CLERK INFORMATION" SECTION BELOW FOR ANY AVAILABLE INFORMATION."
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?IndexNo=601047-2010
"loanranger - this does no apply in any way to Class B shares that the Mutts BOUGHT."
If YOU have a link showing they bought 'em, I'd love to see it.
"I see no evidence that the Class b shares were issued to them as a bonus or as compensation."
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420408042150/v121013_8k.htm
That covers the first 10,000,000.
The basis for the next 18,000,000 shares was never reported.
I think that control will be put in jeopardy by:
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Section 304 -- Forfeiture of Certain Bonuses and Profits
a. Additional Compensation Prior to Noncompliance With Commission Financial Reporting Requirements. If an issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the issuer, as a result of misconduct, with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the issuer shall reimburse the issuer for--
any bonus or other incentive-based or equity-based compensation received by that person from the issuer during the 12-month period following the first public issuance or filing with the Commission (whichever first occurs) of the financial document embodying such financial reporting requirement; and
any profits realized from the sale of securities of the issuer during that 12-month period.
b. Commission Exemption Authority. The Commission may exempt any person from the application of subsection (a), as it deems necessary and appropriate.
I should note that I've been taken to task for addressing the control issue before. The simple question, and I found it to be convincing was: At this point, control of what exactly?
"I don't think he had any basis whatsoever for making this statement."
Thank you. Whether you are right or wrong about that.
That expression is more important to me than the fact that your statement that:
"his notion that the illegal shares are all going to be bought back"
is NOT the same as his statement that:
"Sellers of RESTRICTED SHARES being forced to buy them back..."
in response to "WHO IS BUYING?"
FWIW, I don't believe that the buying is represented by sellers of restricted shares. And I absolutely don't think that all the restricted shares are going to be bought back, should you run into anyone actually making that contention.
I should've recognized that your choice of terms, and the above misrepresentation, was a reflection of your feelings toward the poster in question's consistently negative position on the stock and less the merits or lack thereof of his statement.
I apologize for the interruption.
"I'm not sure what the exact adjective is to describe the poster in question".
"Mistaken", as previously suggested. Just as you were.
nonsense |'nän?sens|
noun
1 spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense : he was talking absolute nonsense.
• [as exclam. ] used to show strong disagreement : “Nonsense! No one can do that.”
• [as adj. ] denoting verse or other writing intended to be amusing by virtue of its absurd or whimsical language : nonsense poetry.
2 foolish or unacceptable behavior : put a stop to that nonsense, will you?
In this setting, I believe that the use of the term "nonsensical" would logically be taken by its target to mean acting foolishly. My point was simply that ttattle may have been mistaken, as you surely were, but that's all he was. He was no more acting foolishly than you were in June of last year......rationalizing a mistake doesn't make it go away.
By the way, I did not, nor would I, ascribe any intention on your part to deceive anyone with your primer. You cannot be held entirely responsible if the mathematically sound but totally false information that you provided, and that was provided to you, was used by others to further their agendas. Or gathered some credibility based on your stellar reputation.
"If folks came into SPNG based on my primers, then why didn't they exit when I posted that I was exiting?"
I don't know what you mean by this. I thought your primer was terrific and I'm sure many were given comfort by its renditions. The buy decision is always easier to make and more easily influenced than the sell..... even now some are having trouble with the latter.
My SOLE complaint was in your choice of terms. Your response, however, offers another opportunity. Please point out where ttattle expresses "his notion that the illegal shares are all going to be bought back". You can't because he didn't. If you have a history with "the poster in question" I apologize to both of you for imposing myself into it. I just know that, no matter how wrong a post of mine may be, I would find it offensive to have it attacked as nonsensical.
"and doing it publicly in PRs"
I think that they (Viacom and Marvel) are more likely not to bring the relationship to the public's attention, even if it's to say that it's over.
I suspect that the geniuses at GRBG just used this as an excuse to publish something other than their results.
W,
X did a good job explaining to you how tt's explanation of how volume might be composed of unregistered shares was probably incorrect (actually, he said "ridiculous"). But you were uncertain of it enough to have to ask in the first place ("Seems unlikely to me -- but I have no idea"). So for you to call it "nonsensical" seems a little harsh, don't you think?
After all, it's not like he posted a multi-page thesis on the glorious prospects of Spongetech, including a very specific and subsequently often quoted dollar amount for 4th quarter 2009 sales that had no basis in fact whatsoever and was merely the result of subtracting the first 3 quarters sales from a company projection for the full year. A dollar amount used on many boards as a real number based on your personal credibility. I believe that it would be correct to call your putting forth that value to have been mistaken, or deceptive....but not a lie. Just as tt's explanation of volume might be called mistaken, or flawed...but not nonsensical. Words matter.
"from what I heard sponge never even placed an order for the pens."
The fact that your source is a guy named "sexypapa" has no bearing on this response :o)
It appears from the following that there was never an expectation that SPNG would order pens from GRBG, but rather that SPNG would earn a fee on sales of the pens by GRBG to others. It would also appear from the PR that SPNG had some kind of IP rights to the pens that allowed them the licensing privilege.......but this strikes me as similar to the recent licensing of an unissued trademark. Please don't be mad if I don't spend any time trying to determine if there ever was a pen to begin with.....
"SARANAC, Mich., July 29, /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- NXGen Holdings, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: NXGH) is pleased to announce that the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Green Bridge Industries, Inc., has entered into a licensing agreement with SpongeTech(R) Delivery Systems, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SPNG), in which Green Bridge Industries has the exclusive nationwide rights to produce, market, and distribute the SpongeTech(R) Stain Remover Pens."
ps. I'll bet you one of those cardboard chessboard with the hollow plastic pieces that I wouldn't have to go far to find somebody that would blame the purchase by a buyer of old GM shares on the broker who took the order.
:o)
pps. I always think of Vanna White and buying vowels when I see that symbol. G_RB_G_
ab,
None, but Risi's explanation is as good as any.
I see no reason why today would've been special though. And have no clue whatsoever what may have motivated the folks on the receiving end of the "People getting out before they lose everything".
Hardly worthy of a "TIA", I'm afraid.
Maybe we'll find out on Wednesday, but I doubt it.
"Green Bridge Industries, Inc. Terminates Licensing Agreement With SpongeTech....."
A relationship that most companies would be happy to live without.
In the quarter ended 12/31/09 Green Bridge had sales of $6,375 (Six Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five and 00/100 Dollars).
http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=30442
Today, in a less public fashion, Green Bridge advised PinkSheets, with whom they file their financials, the following with regard to their quarter ended 3/31/10:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=32092
No harm no foul, right?
Current Pacer docket report lists Metter :
Plaintiff
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
V.
Defendant
Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc.
Defendant
RM Enterprises International, Inc.
Defendant
Steven Moskowitz
Defendant
George Sperenza
Defendant
Joel Pensley
Defendant
Jack Halperin
Defendant
Michael Metter
MLM,
Thanks, but it doesn't seem like work.
For instance, I just read Exhibit SS AKA (Document 6-19), which carries Neal's interview with SM wherein he describes his individual conversations with the various non-existent representatives of the non-existent companies. He sat, with the subsequently departed attorney Seigel (can't imagine why he left :o)), across the table from someone that KNEW he was full of crap and spoke as if he was just hangin' out with the boys:
re: Ahmad Elsayed of Dubai
A. Actually Michael Metter introduced me to him
Q. Where
A. In the, I believe the 2007 or 2008 auto show 2007, I believe auto show the Seaman Show in Las Vegas
Q. And have you had any contact with him since
A. Yeah Recently a lot more
Q. By phone or --
A. By phone
Q. Okay. And why more?
A. Why? Because, well, lately he has been pissed ever since the New York Post article came out. So -- and then he recently got letter from--an envelope from you guys that he has, I believe sent off to overseas to see what to do with. And so I told him to be as cooperative as possible.
How could I NOT read this stuff?
I have a Pacer account. What I don't have is scion's ability to turn the stuff into shareable Zoho files. Transcribing things like the above is tough for a hunt and peck typist and rife with opportunities for error, but I thought you might like to see why I couldn't possibly consider reading it to be work. Watched the Celtics beat the Wizards with my other eye. All-in-all an entertaining afternoon.
OT,
Read Items 83-86 of the SEC complaint, "Forged Pensley Letters".
Sure looks to me like it alleges that SM altered Pensley's original letters not 100 times, but 216 times.
pj,
You really threw me with that salutation (Sorry, DP)......the two owners of those initials couldn't be further apart on the issues. That said, I think dpilon's email exchange is probably very real and a valuable bit of info. I've spent a fair amount of time trying to connect the two Hellers to no avail.....I suspect others have, too.
I expect that others have expressed this, but it seems pretty convenient that the guy that purportedly requested that the websites be created (in March, yet not used nor paid for until September!) is no longer around to deny that. The phrase "dead men tell no tales" might apply here. The FBI even says on page 19 of the SEC complaint: "assuming GS
actually met with Heller in February or March of 2009".
The control persons of RM Enterprises are:
per Form SB-2 filed 7/8/03
Richard Heller Chief Executive Officer
Michael Metter President
Steven Moskowitz Secretary
Jerome Schlanger Treasurer
The Mindy Moskowitz and
Steven Moskowitz Trust Stockholder*
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000118474903000027/0001184749-03-000027-index.htm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(3) Richard Heller was Chief Executive Officer of RM Enterprises until March 2, 2004;
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000126210604000025/spongfifthamend.txt
No other mentions in SPNG filings found.
"Moskie did it."
And the SEC verified it? Because that was the contention and I was looking for a source for the SEC's verification of the act, not the act itself (not that you provided a source for that, either). If you can provide a source showing that the SEC verified that "Moskie did it", please do.
"STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS
_______________________________________________
In the Matter of the Petition
of
SMALL CLAIMS
STEVEN Y. MOSKOWITZ "
"The letters of Richard Heller and Martin Pelman submitted in support of petitioner's position are properly given little weight herein as such letters are unsworn, and neither individual testified, thus their credibility cannot be evaluated."
http://www.nysdta.org/Determinations/820444.det.htm
"It is verified by the SEC that moski PAID people to go out and buy products."
Did the SEC drop you a personal note to that effect? Because unless I missed it, the SEC hasn't reported that "moski PAID people to go out and buy products" in any public document that I've read. It wasn't in the complaint, was it? I'm not suggesting that you made it up......I just couldn't find it anywhere. Can you help? While such an activity might not be improper in and of itself, it might support the theory that there was a pattern of deception. Surely it must've been in the complaint.
Thanks in advance.
panglozz,
Just to make sure I understand:
Metter's attorney asked for the extension based on the excessively cumbersome nature of "the process for providing such a lien in Connecticut".
Are you saying that he was implying that it was an administrative delay when it was actually a delay required in order to come up with the funding to pay off the mortgage?
I'm sorry that I can't give you a decent answer to your last post of the day.
The rule that was originally posted by greedy_malone doesn't cover "organized deception using the internet" as far as I can tell. Of that I'm reasonably certain. When it says "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States" I believe it refers to statements made to certain law enforcement bodies, Congress or in court.
I don't know the answer to your question and no amount of thinkin' before I answered was gonna fix that.
"There are SEC filings, FTC license applications, and press reports that put Metter at this address earlier than the reported sale. "
There's some support for your theory in the fact that r/e tax bills were sent to the couple since around the time of the reported "sale", yet were sent to "Deborah Metter" in previous years. It could've been a re-finance or an actual re-titling of the property.
Staying current on certain obligations........
https://greenwichct.munisselfservice.com/citizens/RealEstate/ViewBill.aspx
Parcel ID 11-2515
g_m......Probably, but I don't actually know who any of these folks, with one very notable exception, might be........except for a couple people who haven't posted in quite a while.
In any event, your excellent advice still would only apply to statements made "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States", not statements made on Ihub. Any statements made here would be covered under laws other than the one you cited. Of course, I guess any statements made on Ihub that ran counter to statements made in a covered proceeding could be used to impeach the witness.
g_m,
FWIW, the exact wording is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html
If I'm not mistaken, the law applies to participants in a US Government proceeding, not to IHub board posters. Those who wish to can further this fraud all they want HERE :o)