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.
It's hardly a model.....it's simple arithmetic. No matter how the shares were acquired, his subsequent filings result in the original 100,000,000 having an average price of $.138.
And if you're speaking for Jim, he's mistaken. Hopefully you're not and he'll find time to respond.
Jim?
"That's assuming Pike bought that 100 million in the open market"
What's "assuming Pike bought that 100 million in the open market"?
Weeble,
His INITIAL filing is here:
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000101359409001619/xslF345X02/spongetechfm3-102909_ex.xml
Note that it indicates "event requiring statement-9/28/09".
That date refers to the date that SPNG filed to register its shares via a Form 8-A:
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409050269/v161426_8a12g.htm
Basically, what this means is that his first 100,000,000 shares were purchased prior to 9/28/09. That's all we know about them date-wise.
As far as what he paid for them is concerned, I was able to back into the average pps (.138) by working backwards from subsequent filings:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45348177
As you can see, based on that average I took a poke at his timing, but couldn't be certain of it.
Renee,
The filing criteria for Form 4 is 10%, not 5. Theoretically he is already below it, however I believe that he still owes us at least one more filing, if he buys or sells any additional shares, to reflect that fact.
I believe that his obligations governing his Rule 13 filings, however, are triggered at the 5% point in both directions. The only related info in the regs that I could find basically says that a percentage change caused by a change in the o/s amount cannot, by itself, require a filing:
"Provided, however, That an amendment need not be filed with respect to a change in the percent of class outstanding previously reported if the change results solely from a change in the aggregate number of securities outstanding. Once an amendment has been filed reflecting beneficial ownership of five percent or less of the class of securities, no additional filings are required unless the person thereafter becomes the beneficial owner of more than five percent of the class and is required to file pursuant to Rule 13d-1."
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule13d-2.html
My attempts to determine whether the filer by rule must use the o/s number from the last filing or should instead rely on the SEC's unequivocal statement that "As of March 24,2010, there were 2,999,984,950
shares of Spongetech stock issued and outstanding" have met with failure. But it seems like ignoring the SEC's own number when making an SEC filing might not be the best idea.
Mike,
My "thoughts" are based on the assumption that the o/s number that appears in the complaint is the number on which beneficial owners must rely.
There are 2 forms at issue for Pike.
Form 4 has a little box on the top that says "Check this box if no longer subject to Section 16. Form 4 or Form 5 obligations may continue. See Instruction 1(b)." It's my feeling that his next transaction, purchase or sale, WOULD require him to file the form......checking that box based on his no longer being a 10% beneficial owner. The obvious, though unlikely(?), exception would be if he were to purchase another ballpark 120,000,000 shares to retain his 10%+ position.
I believe the Form 13D would also require a filing on his next transaction using similar logic, although there's no little box for me to point to for support. I should note that, while I'd like to cite the rules that directly deal with the above, I could not find an English version of same :o)
Those are my guesses.......I believe he has at least one filing to make on his next trade.
I'm going to point something else out here, kind of hoping no one will notice:
He holds 182,000,000 shares.
There are 3,000,000,000 shares out.
An investment of $13,180,000 if the current price held would make him majority holder.
Well, somebody hadda say it. He's lost more than that already, hasn't he? If he didn't sell in response to the latest news, what could he be thinking? A guy in his position shouldn't be doing the deer caught in the headlights act. Doing nothing isn't an option, is it?
"He "claimed" that he didn't have to file because SPNG was still a 1933 company. I believe this was gone over many times, but you may not have known Furth started the whole argument.
He once stated he owned over 200 million shares I believe, and was still accumulating."
That rings a bell:
"This was gone over many times last summer where Furth claimed that SPNG was a 1933 reporting company, so he didn't have to report his holdings over 5%, even though he claimed over 200 million shares. If that was true then, I doubt that
scumbag holds anywhere close to 5% now."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=49131203
I just thought I might share MY understanding of the governing regulation with themanfromboston, who posted
"he and his group was selling millions of shares
into the market all along". And, again, it is that he had an obligation to file if he sold to a position below 5% of the published outstanding, his protestations notwithstanding. That, BTW is based on the same rule that he filed his holdings under in the first place. And they didn't change.
I don't disagree with anyone's opinion that he unloaded a boatload of shares....I don't care either. My only point was rule-related and I apologize if it's an old subject. Hopefully it was new to themanfromboston.
rocky,
Your theory seems sound. It's the execution that I wonder about. It requires the identification of the naked shorters and those that allowed it, right?
Ya know........at some point I'd be happy to consider that this has nothing to do with SPNG. Rather than trying to understand it.
"If they have nothing to lose by NSing then how can they have anything to gain?"
Unless I misunderstand the process.....distinctly within the realm of possibility.......they got their cash up front and it would've been freed up as the price dropped. Identical to the legal shorting process without the silly borrow and replace routine. I'm not clear on how the original naked short sale is facilitated though, so you probably shouldn't pay too much attention to this.
"he and his group was selling millions of shares into the market all along"
IF that's true, and he sold down below the level of 5% of the published o/s, he should've filed. Ordinarily that would bother the commission. Under these circumstances it might REALLY bother the commission.
Don't forget the "IF".
Please help me understand the VW issue so that I might see how it applies to SPNG, thereby remaining on topic :o)
If I followed the link (thank you), it seems that the squeeze only damaged the LEGAL shorts, who were required to cover at the prices bloated by the lack of supply. The naked shorters, in whatever number they actually existed, weren't forced to cover because they never borrowed any shares and didn't suffer at all.
Do I have that right?
TIA.
ab,
Thought you might be watching.
The formal filing closes for the purposes of establishing a filing date at 5:30 Eastern for all forms except Form 4 (there may be a few others). I only discovered this recently and I'm afraid I can't provide the Form 4 closing time......pretty sure it's either 8 or 10PM.
This file is updated in real time:
http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcurrent
Ris,
He did that interview the day before his arrest.
Still dopey.
And he may do another one tomorrow to vindicate your post. Just wait. Like rain in Seattle.
:o)
"If a firm fails to satisfactorily address any of the quality control criticisms within 12 months, the portion of the report discussing the particular criticism(s) is made publicly available."
I guess R&H satisfactorily addressed the criticisms......I found no evidence of the PCAOB subsequently making them public.
greedy,
"The $4 million had to be part of the stock sale proceeds and the locations that money was wired from to SPNG is more than likely the safe havens where the money was put, making locating it that much easier."
Excellent deduction.....see Items 53&54 of the warrant support claim (Payer Names and Stated Payment Purposes):
"Hungary, Panama, Switzerland and the Bahamas".
"two wires contain a note stating "investment share purchase"."
Ris,
It's short on hilarity, long on nonsense. DP has it linked here (last 2 items):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=49841927
Following up re:
"ps (meaning purely speculative). Maybe my search feature is failing me....it does with certain documents....is the name Lazauskas missing from the complaints? Is it possible that his participation is limited to his part in RME to the exclusion of his directorship and audit committee position within Spongetech? Is he benefiting from some kind of cooperation agreement? "
The following is from a Yahoo thread dated 1/1/10 and entitled Interesting that Frank Lazauskas not named in Wells Notice but named in Class Action:
"There is a section of every 10Q entitled "ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS". As a reminder, the initial issuance of Class B...4,000,000 each to MM & SM and 2,000,000 to FL, worth 100 common votes apiece.
There were 2 such votes reported in the 10Q dated 1/14/09 for the period ended 11/30/08:
"On October 7, 2008, our Board of Directors and shareholders holding a majority of the outstanding voting stock of the Company approved a resolution to amend our certificate of incorporation to increase our authorized capital to 950,000,000 shares of common stock from 750,000,000. We maintained our current authorized 40,000,000 shares of preferred stock and 10,000,000 shares of Class B stock. Stockholders Steven Moskowitz, Michael Metter and Frank Lazauskas cast a total of 1,000,000,000 votes in favor of increasing the authorized shares of common stock."
AND
"On December 12, 2008, our Board of Directors and shareholders holding a majority of the outstanding voting stock of the Company approved a resolution to amend our certificate of incorporation to increase our authorized capital to 1,305,000,000 shares, of which 1,250,000,000 was common stock, 15,000,000 was Class B stock, and 40,000,000 was Preferred stock. We maintained our current authorized 40,000,000 shares of preferred stock and 10,000,000 shares of Class B stock. Stockholders Steven Moskowitz and Michael Metter cast a total of 800,000,000 votes in favor of increasing the authorized shares of common stock."
Was Frank busy at one of his pizza places for the second vote? Did he vote against? What happened to Frank?
FWIW, the 10Q preceding the above shows that the full 1,000,000,000 votes were voted in favor, on the same type of issue naturally, in the one election reported. And in the following 10Q the results were reported simply as a "majority" versus a specific vote count. That 10Q's results, from the last 10Q filed, are quoted below only for the purpose of noting the inexplicably inconsistent last sentence in each one.
"On March 9, 2009, our Board of Directors and shareholders holding a majority of the outstanding voting stock of the Company approved a resolution to amend our certificate of incorporation to increase our authorized capital to 1,555,000,000 shares, of which 1,500,000,000 was common stock, 15,000,000 was Class B stock, and 40,000,000 was Preferred stock. We maintained our current authorized 40,000,000 shares of preferred stock and 10,000,000 shares of Class B stock.
Also, on April10, 2009, our Board of Directors and shareholders holding a majority of the outstanding voting stock of the Company approved a resolution to amend our certificate of incorporation to increase our authorized capital to 1,860,000,000 shares, of which 1,800,000,000 was common stock, 20,000,000 was Class B stock, and 40,000,000 was Preferred stock. We maintained our current authorized 40,000,000 shares of preferred stock and 10,000,000 shares of Class B stock."
To sum up the sequence:
1. Frank votes
2. Frank doesn't vote
3. Company stops reporting whether Frank votes."
Maybe FL grew uncomfortable with the process?
Show me…..or anybody else…the money.
I began wondering about this when MM and FL didn't fork over their piece of the last $1.1mill due on the BC Media settlement…..resulting in the well known freezing of their Ladenburg accounts, etc.. It seemed at the time that, if the dumping of unregistered shares rumors were true, the plaintiffs attorneys would have been able to turn over enough rocks to be able to find some of that mountain of proceeds from the sales. But we weren't sure if that was true at the time and even though it didn't make sense that they were tapped out, we couldn't establish otherwise.
Today there was a number of shares attached to the issue……..2,500,000,000. Presumably some of those shares went to parties other than RME & Co. and we don't know what the actual proceeds to the company were…..they never seemed to have any cash. While some of the shares were reported to be sold to RME at a 40% discount to the market, there was little evidence in what filings there were to support that the company received, or held on to, any significant amount of cash. We do, however, have an idea of the market value of those shares….albeit a sketchy one. I believe that the shares were sold at a time when the shares were selling for a significantly higher price, but for example purposes lets say they sold for a nickel, on average. If, for example, 2,000,000,000 shares were sold into the market at the average price of a nickel, the proceeds of those sales would be $100,000,000. To understate the issue……..it's reasonable to assume that some portion of that ended up in the coffers of the defendants. Virtually any percentage of $100,000,000 is still a big number where I come from.
Where's this going?
MM put up his house for $2mill bail……I guess he either owns it outright or has that much in equity in it. SM got Mommy and Daddy to put up their house to cover his nut. I guess if they had the funds to put up themselves and they used them, the source of those funds could be tracked backwards. Anyway, the court has decided that the defendants will be compelled to stay put by putting up assets that they won't need if they don't stay put?
At the same time, "The Commission further seeks civil penalties, disgorgement with prejudgment interest of all ill-gotten gains, and accountings from all defendants; asset freezes against Spongetech, RM Enterprises, Metter and Moskowitz". So the SEC thinks there's money somewhere?
Hope they are keeping the no-fly list current.
ps (meaning purely speculative). Maybe my search feature is failing me....it does with certain documents....is the name Lazauskas missing from the complaints? Is it possible that his participation is limited to his part in RME to the exclusion of his directorship and audit committee position within Spongetech? Is he benefiting from some kind of cooperation agreement?
ab,
No problem. The answer is precisely the same...buy or sale.
ttmm,
Friday evening at the outside. He could file tonight or tomorrow voluntarily.
OT,
Not sure how your request would have ended up at Antitrust, but they wouldn't have anything to with SPNG's known issues.
That said, the words anti and trust certainly seem to fit.
Ab,
Friday by Form 4 rules.
"1. When Form Must Be Filed
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
(a) This Form must be filed before the end of the second business day following the day on which a transaction resulting in a change in beneficial ownership has been executed........etc.
With the NY Post suit filed - I see the sequence as this:
1. PR to announce settlement of Wells Notice (with wrist slap)
2. PR to announce OTCBB listing restored
3. Super 8k (with PR) to explain how it went down
4. 10k 10q 10q 10q 10k with PR
2 can't precede 4.
"where was her *expose* last june when
they (GS) were the recipients of a Wells Notice?"
Goldman never reported the receipt of a Wells Notice in June (or July or August...they didn't even receive it until September 10th) and is being sued for not reporting it. If you knew about it in June I'm sure there are some folks that would like to chat with you about that.
Spongetech, on the other hand, received their Wells Notice 2 full months AFTER the bulk of her articles appeared......no expose was necessary at that point.
Once again, there is no pattern here.
It is what it is and your forensics are faulty.
"Were was she during GS , AIG , B.Stearn scandle. I just don't get it."
Take a quick spin through some of these:
http://search.nypost.com/search?q=kaja+whitehouse&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&entsp=a&client=redesign_frontend&entqr=0&oe=UTF-8&ud=1&getfields=*&proxystylesheet=redesign_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&site=default_collection&filter=p&search_submit=Search
OT,
"sources can always be wrong. This one has been dead on so far."
First, let me echo the sentiments of the posters who have commented on your established credibility......pretty rare stuff. Others making a similar post would be accused of making it up in no time....no one has and I sure wouldn't.
But you're the only one that can vouch for your source. And I'm wondering if you might have an example or two showing where your source "has been dead on" in the past, so the rest of us can assess THEIR reliability.
Needless to say this is some BIG revelation and, if our positions were reversed, I would expect you to be asking me the same question. It's the only question short of asking who the source is that I can think of to ask that might provide a better feel for: Just how likely is it that "There will be no 10K. Period......"?
ps. This is no time to be "technologically impaired".
:o)
Mike,
You're welcome, but I'm not sure thanks are in order.
You're initial comments were in response to the issues of filing and access to documents, suggesting that the RJI was needed first. I'm still not sure that that's not true and welcome any comments regarding the point in time at which the public can gain access to filings. The Summons and Complaint that we've seen posted/linked to the board were assigned a number by the court, but it's not clear to me whether the court was the SOURCE of the posting or whether a copy was provided by an involved party. Have you heard of anyone having any success accessing documents directly from the court in this case? Maybe I'm just missing something.
Anyway, I was really trying to correct the impression that the RJI preceded service of the complaint to the defendants, and you weren't the source of that.
That was a fantastic call, wasn't it!
"Will there be a father's day sale on the website in a couple of weeks?"
A far easier call is probably to predict that the same PR will be re-released in a week or so.
Nice timing, bbr.
"no defendants served, etc., right? Are you and I the only 2 people on this entire board that understands this? "
Well I sure don't (didn't). Maybe this guy does. He doesn't appear to agree with you (Note: Steps One and Two):
http://www.stephanpeskin.com/CM/Custom/NewYorkLawsuitFilingSteps.asp
What Are the Steps of Filing a New York Civil Lawsuit?
New York Civil Action Steps
While all cases are unique there is a symmetry which is universal to all lawsuits. From the filing and service of a summons and complaint to start an action to the discovery phase including the all importation deposition and concluding in the trial. Along the way, settlement is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
What follows is an outline of the pivotal points in the lawsuit. There are too many variables to assume that the outline is definitive in any respect. What it does is highlight for the potential client the stages/steps in litigation and where along those stages settlement comes into action.
* Summons & Complaint (Step One)
* Service of the Summons and Complaint (Step Two)
* Answer
* Discovery
* Request for Judicial Intervention (Step Five)
* Deposition
* EBT Preparation
o Conduct During the EBT
o How Do You Answer a Question
o Listen, Stop, Think, Answer
* Note of Issue
* Motion for Summary Judgment
* Trial
* Order of Trial
* Settlement
* How Much is the Case Worth
* Glossary of Terms
So this guy, representing a real law firm, is suggesting that service of the complaint to the defendants precedes the filing by the plaintiff of the RJI, thereby offering an opportunity for resolution prior to any substantial involvement of the judicial system other than the assignment of a case number and a repository for documents. Does this not make sense?
No service, no suit.
Thanks Mike. That's what I thought.
I just thought that the poster that answered the following question the following way might know more than we do:
Q: How do you know that no one has been served?
A: It's in the court documents on file if the Post or anyone else has been served.
If he does I'm sure he'll respond.
hh,
"It's in the court documents on file if the Post or anyone else has been served. The process server returns a notice to the Court indicating that the suit has been served on the named party. And it's retrievable online."
I know that that is generally true, but I wasn't aware that the court documents were available directly from the court at this point. Can you provide a link?
Thanks in advance.
Bill,
re: "even behinf Preferred shareholders, and the preferred shareholders are none othe than out management team".
Actually there are no preferred shares outstanding (at least as of 2/28/09 there weren't). The Class B shares just convey a voting privilege and a 1 for 1 conversion privilege, so there's no preferential monetary benefit to them.
tmfb,
All the most recent missing SPNG press releases were made through Business Wire.
I checked VAEV and found that their Business Wire releases for a similar time period were also missing.
So I'm thinking that maybe they are related somehow...........maybe payment issues.
I then selected UGNE randomly from the OTCBB Dynamic Watchlist and lo and behold, same problem.
It seems to be a Business Wire/OTCBB issue.
All the missing PR's can be seen at Nasdaq.com.
tmfb,
Are you saying that the MB told the Drakeford story, so the company didn't really have to?
A few thoughts:
There are lots of dollars invested daily by people that have never seen a message board.......and a lot more that have seen them but don't rely on them as the sole or primary source of their research. It's those people that I had in mind. All I was saying is that a potential investor that uses SEC filings for financial information might be deterred less by:
Despite diligent efforts, the work necessary for Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc.'s (the "Company") preparation of its Annual Report on Form 10-K could not be completed:
(1)due to the revocation of our previous certifying accountant's registration, based on issues unrelated to the company, during the preparation of our 10-K.
than:
(2)due to unforeseen delays in the collection and review of
information and documents affecting disclosures in the Report on Form 10-K.
It's obviously open to debate as to which is preferable from a PR standpoint........an accountant change based on a revocation sure isn't GOOD news.......but it might raise fewer red flags than a statement that implies that, while the company has found a way to PR the value of their orders on a monthly, sometimes bi-weekly basis, it can't pull together a more comprehensive document in the 90 days provided to do so. Keeping in mind that this was on 9/1, prior to the Post and the suspension, so the investing public had no reason to expect "unforeseen delays in the collection and review of information".
Of course I could be missing the obvious reason NOT to lay it off on Drakeford. While their departure was filed on 7/28, it was "erroneously" described as a resignation without reference to their revocation. Obviously, to me, the company knew on 9/1, the date of the NT 10-K filing, that they had made that "mistake". So, to use the term resignation on that form would've been in furtherance of that "deception". It wasn't until 9/16 that the 8-K amendment was filed: " This Amendment No. 1 to the Form 8-K (the “Form 8-K/A”) is being filed to clarify that Drakeford’s decision to resign was due to the revocation of Drakeford’s registration by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.........
Did I answer my own question?
Sorry to put you through that. But having done the work, I couldn't just throw it out. How about this:
If the company had been forthright about the reason for Drakeford's departure in the first place, THAT would've been a better explanation for the delay than "unforeseen delays in the collection and review of information".
Hope this post hasn't kept anyone from something important :o)
There are 5 defendants named in the suit.
DP responded to some questions, several of which were obviously related to the suit.
I was merely trying to provide some info relating to how the other defendants might respond, if they indeed were to respond.
Tim Sykes posted some stuff on Yahoo and I posted it.
I linked TB's Blogs and KW's articles and suggested that they would probably not provide responses and that their writings were available for evaluation.
When I wrote "The Post itself will undoubtedly have a very capable attorney address their part in "the scheme" should it ever get to court" I meant that the Post itself will undoubtedly have a very capable attorney address the Post's part in "the scheme", as it is titled in the lawsuit, should it ever get to court. There is no secret message. I suppose that the Post COULD provide an editorial response, but I seriously doubt that they will. I'm not sure what else about those 22 words needs explaining.
As far as "Do you actually believe in this crap lawsuit?" is concerned, I used ALL CAPS, red ink and a bold typeface in my answer the last time you asked:
"No.
Make that NO."
And if you feel that my post carries implications regarding my own opinion, the only one that I think you might've sensibly drawn is from my use of the phrase "should it ever get to court". But the purpose of the post was NOT to express my opinion and I only share it at your request.
I'm at a loss as to what is confusing you about my post and my position on the suit at this point, but if I'm still not being clear please ask a new question.
EOM
"It was the last line in your post, so it implied your opinion.
Sorry that I took it that way."
No problem at all....I opened myself up to it and it gave me an opportunity to reference "The Scheme" details in the lawsuit, which are telling. But for the record, the only thing that the last line in my posts implies is that the post is over :o)
No.
Make that NO.
Didn't mean to suggest that. It's the heading used in the lawsuit itself, starting on Page 6 and including Sections 22 through 25, and essentially sums up the complaint.
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/wCaxs
I was hoping that putting "the scheme" in quotes would attach to the reference and not to my own feelings. Thanks for the chance to clean that up.
"I would think that phrase would have been there."
OT,
Using the phrase "subject to audit" wouldn't have been appropriate because they used the word "approximately" in their references to revenue and income. Both of those terms don't fit well in the same sentence and they chose to use the one that provided the biggest wiggle room.
What I'll never understand is why they didn't take the golden opportunity to lay off some of the blame for the delay on Drakeford. It would've slid neatly into the narrative explanation that they did provide, in lieu of "unforeseen delays, etc.":
"Despite diligent efforts, the work necessary for Spongetech Delivery Systems,
Inc.'s (the "Company") preparation of its Annual Report on Form 10-K could not
be completed due to unforeseen delays in the collection and review of
information and documents affecting disclosures in the Report on Form 10-K.
Accordingly, the Company requests additional time to compile and review all the
information necessary to accurately complete the Form 10-K."
ps. The Form gives them the choice of making those estimates or explaining why they can't:
"(3) Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operations from
the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the
earnings statements to be included in the subject report or portion
thereof? Yes |X| No |_|
If so, attach an explanation of the anticipated change, both narratively
and quantitatively, and, if appropriate, state the reasons why a reasonable
estimate of the results cannot be made."
Thanks for that exchange. Others could learn from the direct answer to a direct question approach. It's rare enough to be a little startling.
I don't know what it leaves unaddressed in terms of the suit and DP. Assuming he is answering honestly, and if I were him I simply wouldn't answer if I was going to be deceptive, the company doesn't have a case. Leaving Kaja (by the way, I challenge anyone to find another lawsuit since the beginning of time wherein one of the defendants is referred by their first name with such frequency), TS, TB and the Post itself.
TS addresses his involvement with the so-called "scheme" with candor elsewhere:
"My Updated Quote On the Lawsuit
see the story...I never even talked with the NY Post before they wrote their articles nor was I short when the articles came out...I shorted SPNG for one day and one day alone in June 2009...the rest was just educating people and saving a few of you."
http://hedgefund.net/publicnews/default.aspx?story=11208
AND
"I shorted AFTER the stock dropped 50%, I shorted on the bounce which happened due to the late day spongetech press release....never touched the stock again because I don't normally trade stocks this low, this is more my kind of stock to trade"
http://www.timothysykes.com/2010/04/this-pied-piper-just-led-his-followers-to-50000-in-profits-on-one-stock/
"as for the NY Post, the only time i messaged kaja of the ny post was to ask her why she didnt contact me before she used my blog post in several articles...she replied she didnt have my contact info so i gavce her my email but never heard from her
that is why the accusations of short and distort are ridiculous".
It's probably reasonable to assume that KW and TB won't be specifically addressing the issues of the suit publically, but the KW articles are still available for all to see at NYPost.com. The TB blogs are no longer available at their original web location, but I believe that the following links reproduce them accurately:
http://www.greenwichtime.com/default/article/Greenwich-radio-executive-faces-SEC-inquiry-347955.php
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47992425
The Post itself will undoubtedly have a very capable attorney address their part in "the scheme" should it ever get to court.
From the source of all the expectations:
"A Disappointment.
Well, April 30th has come and gone, and the financials have not been released.
That’s a disappointment, to say the least.
I can only conclude that Lazauskas and Metter have been able to pay off the BC Media obligations via some other source of cash, and thus no longer need to liquidate their SPNG holdings despite the court order. This also explains why the BC Media case has not been updated since February.
At this point I have nothing more to say. I wish I had something to say but the silence on all fronts is deafening… No new court documents of substance to analyze, no other new information to process… A guy can’t do any real DD under these conditions.
I’m still holding my entire position but will take things day by day and week by week.
We shall see.
I do not think I shall be posting any updates until some meaty new information comes out that I can chew on. Until then, as everyone is wont to say, GLTA."
http://spngdd.com/2010/04/30/a-disappointment/#comments
re: I can only conclude, etc.:
That conclusion assumes that Ladenburg Thalmann ignored the court order, either didn't or couldn't sell any SPNG shares and MM, FL and JL would have reported the sale of any shares on From 4 if they had. The remaining debt as of 1/29 (~$450,000) would have required the sale of ~10,000,000 shares, a number that could have been sold since that date without a noticeable lump in the volume numbers. When the court first ordered Ladenburg to liquidate the accounts in early December, the remaining settlement was $1,100,000 and the court was clear in their order that the first shares to be sold were the SPNG shares in the account of Jean Lazauskas which would have required a filing by FL. Again we are forced to assume that the initial $650,000 liquidation didn't include any SPNG shares based on the lack of Form 4 filings. Whatever the reasons, either the US District Court or the SEC has obviously been ignored.
Jeff,
I'm sorry to interrupt. The fact is, absent information supplied from someone within the company or the tax preparers themselves, no one KNOWS whether the Spongetech 2009 IRS1120 was filed. Some folks have a manner of speaking, however, that might lead people to believe that they KNOW "something" when in fact they are merely concluding that "something" based on their experience and their version of what they feel is logical.
If you have some time on your hands, the thread starting at the following link may give you a better feeling of what I'm trying to say:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47499156
I certainly don't know whether the SPNG return was filed and I'll bet that your guess is good as anybody else's. But no matter what we might think, I doubt either of us would say "The SEC have the "FINANCIALS". Via 1120 Corporate tax return filed on Feb 15th, 2010" just because it made sense to us. Others apparently would.
PNG