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.
M.....Thanks very much for that.
A little more help, please?
Much has been made for a long time...maybe even more of a stink recently........of a list that dates back to June that may or may not be a legitimate list of o/s shares as of that time:
http://spngbane.angelfire.com/spngshares.html
I assume that that list is the one you are referring to here:
"You do realize that a transfer agent list (or the NOBO list) contains actual issued certificate numbers of real share certificates, eh right?"
Can I correctly draw the conclusion from the description that you provided that, even if "the list" is legitimate and accurate, it would not be a complete list of outstanding shares due to its exclusion of OBO's? Rendering any use of a statistical summary of that list as an o/s share list to be an inexact use?
When you describe the OBO's as "shareholders that do not wish to be contacted by the company", might not it also describe shareholders who do not wish to appear on the NOBO list in the event of its publication? Is a company's NOBO list normally available and to whom?
Thanks for your help with this........it's part of my self-directed senior adult education program :O)
Mike,
Can you help with the distinctions between:
Non Objecting Beneficial Owners NOBOs and Objecting Beneficial Owners OBOs
and, if the descriptions don't answer it, why is it just a "NOBO" list?
TIA
hasher,
"It's just service of process in the Madison Square Garden suit. Moskowitz accepted it for SPNG; Mongomery for RME."
I knew that. And it's possible that the descriptive details for "both" individuals were filled out by the server, Sebrina Gaise......which might account for the identical handwriting (who knows what might account for the identical descriptions).
But none of that was the reason for my post. I just thought that it was ironic......and it's possible that I'm the only one.......that the relationship of both parties to Spongetech and RME was described as Principle. Which I thought was funny, given that the proper term would have been Principal.......and there being no sign of any principles in any of the involved parties. Maybe it's just me.
FWIW, I don't think anyone knows of a Steven Montgomery in the employ of RME as a principal.......no matter how you spell it. So, even if the server herself filled out the form, someone apparently misled her. However, given the historical performance of a certain party in the spelling department, it's seems......to me anyway.......more likely that the details were filled in by the recipient(s!). Anyway, since it's a notice requesting summary judgment with the purpose of avoiding a trial, it isn't likely that Steven Montgomery will be called to testify.
"Same height, weight, hair color and age."
And both Steven's are "Principles" :o)
Freud Lives!
"If someone can give me a link to either SPNG or Delaware refuting this or calling it a mistake,....do fill me in."
The Corporation’s Board of Directors has determined it to be in the best interests of the Corporation for strategic purposes to not proceed with these actions at this time.
4. The Certificate of Amendment, as previously corrected by the Certificate of Correction, is hereby rendered null and void.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409050122/v161351_ex3-2.htm
I was only suggesting that the $35,000 production payment for the second commercial referred to in the 10Q might match up to the Halleluyah! $35,000 receipt in the court document and be the source of all the glee :o)
"On January 31, 2008, we entered into a production agreement with an unrelated party to produce and manage a television campaign of a broadcast quality commercial for various broadcast lengths in consideration for the payment of royalties aggregating 5% on all worldwide retail sales less loss on any returns or collectible accounts from orders obtained though such party’s efforts. In February 2008, we began the airing on a variety of cable and satellite channels, which is expected to run through February 2010. We also entered into an agreement to produce a new commercial, at a cost of, $35,000, for the Uncle Norman’s™ Pet Sponge products. This commercial is also expected to run on a variety of cable and satellite channels through June 2010. The Pet Sponge campaign premiered on TV in August 2008 on the YES TV network."
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420408050704/v125324_10ksb.htm
In NY, "Issuing a bad check is a class B misdemeanor."
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article190.htm
The following phrase appears in the original filing as part of the description of the agreement:
"the Yankees determine that the continued association with the Company will be injurious to its reputation or goodwill"
And you availed yourself of that contract term to post, and I quote:
"the Yankees went on to say this about Spongetech
the Yankees determine that the continued association with the Company will be injurious to its reputation or goodwill."
And rather than admit that the Yankees didn't "say this about Spongetech", you say "as usual, you're making it more than it is".
I don't think that I am making it more than it is. I had a point to make and I made it....
That's quite the response, pup.
The issue wasn't the Mets, it was the Yankees.
Specifically, your post at http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45589417 in which you said the following:
"the Yankees went on to say this about Spongetech
the Yankees determine that the continued association with the Company will be injurious to its reputation or goodwill. "
panther (and I and at least one other poster) did not recall seeing where the Yankees made that statement and he asked for a link.
He has since indicated that you did not provide him that link privately and I have not seen where you have posted it to the board. I can only assume that you don't have a link to provide and are attributing a statement to the Yankees that they have not made.
I'm far from a cheerleader for this mess of a company, but the truth still counts for something......to me. If you have a source for that statement please provide it. Please keep in mind that your statement attributed the statement to the Yankees, not the Mets, and that I am requesting a source and not your explanation of why someone might be feeling the way that you might reasonably expect that they are feeling.
If you don't have a source just say so.
pj,
Help me understand this.
puppy couches a statement with the following phrase: "the Yankees went on to say this about Spongetech".
You, having missed the statement in question as I did, asked for its source.
Your next post was "Thanks, puppy. Somehow i missed that statement by the Yankees."
oa repeated puppy's post.
You subsequently repeated the introduction and the phrase itself as if it were correct.
Perhaps pup provided a link to the statement to you privately. If so, please share it with the rest of us. In the interim, please note that I have not repeated the statement here due to the lack of a citation and I'm very surprised that you saw fit to describe it as "that statement by the Yankees".
If it is merely a phrase pulled out of context from a historical document that enumerates the POSSIBLE causes for termination of their agreement, and no direct connection can be made to show that it is a recent statement by the Yankees, please say so. I have always read your posts with full confidence in their integrity and this post is just an attempt to assure that that comfort level continues.
TIA.
"~!~ And that's the rub with the posts... there are no facts there...
"and could not reasonably be a coincidence..." speculative like everyone else on this board."
Silly me. I thought that statistics WERE facts.
And you're right of course. The fact that the ratio of PARL to SPNG shares in both Pike Funds is 6.018 to 1 could absolutely be a coincidence. No more speculation for me!
"Pike is moving cash around to take the lest amount of loses" must be the explanation.
Clearly he deserves less attention.
pj,
responding to 2 posts:
Didn't take much digging....stumbled over it. If you weren't aware of the following, it has proved helpful to me...just type in a name:
http://www.justia.com/
On the T/A thing, there has to be some consideration given to both cost and benefits, obviously. Nirvana in the form of daily access can only be achieved by the requirement that both the issuer or a T/A, if one is used, maintain the facilities to provide the information. That's Step One. Step Two is establishing a process allowing for the enforcement of the providing of the information by the parties (issuer or t/a) and confirmation of its accuracy. Cumbersome and expensive, right?
I was just trying to suggest a middle ground, like requiring its inclusion on ALL SEC FILINGS, that wouldn't add overwhelming burdens for ALL the parties. Obviously there would be no way to confirm accuracy......nor is there any significant auditing of same now, obviously, and one could hardly expect daily reporting to improve on that...at least in my opinion. But there would be a source for the information........SPNG has filed well over a dozen 8-k's since they filed the 10Q, on 4/20/09, that we still must rely on for an o/s number. Baby steps.
Finally, since there is a handy example, consider how many people who have experienced the drop in pps from its heights who:
1. would have noticed the status of the number of o/s shares on a daily basis,
2. appreciated its financial meaning and
3. done anything differently than they have done in the absence of that information.
That'll give you the economic benefit.....and I would suggest that we spend just a little less than your result on a reasonable solution.
h,
A math/legal fee question.
Would a days VAEV trading at the average daily volume so far in January (3,780@$.15) be more or less than the amount that was billed to send that letter?
Maybe a better question is who paid for it?
"You are basing some sort of assumption and questions on a dynamic formula that is built internally by any financial institution to maximize profits at any given point in time in relation to a market climate. "
Huh? I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely providing a statistical fact in response to patchman's inquiry:
"So can any of you longs explain why PIKE keeps moving shares between funds?"
I believe that the fact that there is a consistent ratio between the holdings and the funds themselves is intentional......and could not reasonably be a coincidence. That is all I said.
So can any you explain "why PIKE keeps moving shares between funds?" Or was this it?:
" a dynamic formula that is built internally by any financial institution to maximize profits at any given point in time in relation to a market climate."
'Cause if it was, I'm pretty sure in this case that that's horsepucky. Please try again.
"How would they know how much they are owed?"
Damned if I know. Perhaps extrapolating from previous payments, which they say they DID get.
The Marvel agreement requires that SPNG provide documentation for their Marvel-related sales (and an upfront royalty payment). I imagine that it is possible that ID had a similar requirement and could determine from SPNG provided documents what they are owed. Then again, it's just as easy to argue "why would SPNG provide documentation for royalties that essentially amounts to invoicing themselves"?
I don't know. The court'll find out.
jay,
The number of SPNG shares is 1.73% of the number of PARL shares in both funds.
In case the link doesn't work, the following case was filed in Florida on Friday. The claimant alleges that:
1. They created TV commercials for the wash and wax system and the pet sponge in 2007 and 2008.
2. They were entitled to and received royalty payments through 3/09 at which they point they stopped.
3. Royalties in excess of $100,000 have been earned and not paid.
https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/doc1/05117486465
"In other words, any/all public companies are free to keep the TA function in-house."
Exactly. And that's the catch in Renee's proposal. The control point for the SEC is the issuer, not the T/A.
Currently, filers are obligated to report o/s basically quarterly......make that 4 times a year. To increase that level of frequency would require supplementing the information already provided or creating a separate facility...filing...to provide it.
Rather than creating a whole new source of information why not simply require that the number of outstanding shares be published as part of the heading of not just the Q's and the K's, but EVERY SEC filing. Or, if that's too much to ask, incorporate it into the " FORM 12b-25 NOTIFICATION OF LATE FILING" filings which would provide updates even in the absence of the Q's and K's themselves.
Of course, as we know, this process will not protect investors that rely on the soapiness of the sponge and the heat generated by the cartoon character whose visage appears on it to make their investment decisions.......and there's nothing wrong with that either.
I takes pride in my gozinta's!
The raw numbers can be found here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114036110001954/xslF345X03/doc1.xml
and here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/802356/000114036110001956/xslF345X03/doc1.xml
for checking purposes.
Here are the real questions for me:
1. Are these transfers taxable events?
2. Does the issue f whether they are private sales or open market sales have any bearing on the answer to that question?
"So can any of you longs explain why PIKE keeps moving shares between funds?"
I'm not a long (or a short), but I think that the explanation may be a lot less nefarious than you imply.
Todays movement of PARL shares from LP into QP left the ratio of PARL shares in QP to PARL shares in LP at 6.018 to 1.
Todays movement of SPNG shares from LP into QP left the ratio of SPNG shares in QP to SPNG shares in LP at 6.018 to 1.
We don't know what the dollar values of the respective funds might have been on, say 1/12...the day before the reported transactions.....but I suspect we might be able to guess their relationship. This appears to be a simple re-balancing of the funds.....but I don't pretend to know its purpose.
That said, one indeed must wonder whether the respective shareholders, whose level of sophistication SHOULD allow them to follow this re-balancing exercise, readily accept the fact that profits and losses are being recognized in the process. Unless they are the same shareholders?
"Obviouslly, but why? Why transfer 3M shares from one accoutn to another."
Strictly a guess.....to free up some cash in one of the accounts?
They are different funds...and I believe that they have different minimum investment requirements and possibly different strategies and turnover rates. That said, if I remember correctly they did seem to be maintaining a specific ratio in their buys.
Kitt,
Did you read the entire original linked post? Because it addresses your specific concern....."I believe M&M also own the majority of common stock in spng so all other commons shareholders are SOL...without the affirmative vote of a voting majority of the shares of the Common Stock ... M&M ARE the voting majority." I repeated it below for your convenience.
And by the way, the piece of the provision that requires a separate vote of the common shares is dictated by Delaware, not a creation of M&M...I'm sure they would rather it not be there.
Excuse the abbreviations, rounded to millions:
MM 11+9 (common+class B)
SM 6+9
FL 28+5
RME 66+5
So, the total common shares beneficially owned (suggesting probably under the control of for voting purposes) as of 9/28/09 was 111 million. The officers should have filed Form 4's if they had any subsequent transactions.....I would have expected a Form 3 for RME (based on their Class B holding) and Form 4's for subsequent transactions, but that's just my opinion.
Based solely on the above, if there are more than a total of 222 million shares outstanding and if there have not been any increases in the holdings reported as of 9/28, the 3 directors cannot authorize an increase or decrease in authorized shares by themselves.....without soliciting the votes of all shareholders.
Those are 2 very big ifs and as I said, this is just food for thought.
By the way, Pike indicated ownership at that date of 100 million plus 42 million added later. And we don't know the status of the Signature and Levin(sp?) holdings, but I can't imagine that their shares could participate in a vote without a notification to ALL shareholders.
Ris,
I still think that the relatively small number of RME held common resulted in jeopardizing the insiders ability to increase the number of authorized common. The following was roundly pooh-poohed, but I think that was more because it was weird than because it was proven to be wrong. Anyway, it proposes that it may be incorrect to say "You could own every single common share issued and it would not give you any say in the company" and I thought that I'd just toss it out there. Again.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44673699
The aggregate number of shares of stock of all classes which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 3,068,000,000, consisting of 3,000,000,000 shares of Common Stock, having a par value of $0.001 per share, 28,000,000 shares of Class B Stock, having a par value of $0.001 per share, and 40,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, having a par value of $0.001 per share."
It also said, and this appears in all prior amendments:
"(b) The provisions of this Article IV of the Certificate of Incorporation shall not be modified, revised, altered or amended, repealed or rescinded in whole or in part, without the affirmative vote of a voting majority of the shares of the Common Stock and of a voting majority of the shares of the Class B Stock, each voting separately as a class."
pj,
It's for that very reason that I sent this email yesterday:
To: sales@spongetechs.com
subject: pre-orders
When are pre-orders charged to my credit card, when ordered or when shipped?
Thank you.
Nothing yet.
OT,
Just a reminder:
1. The fact that the company has decided to withhold and require the t/a to withhold o/s share data
defines it as non-public information.
2. The SEC does not care about or regulate the right of a company to not provide o/s share numbers (except in the required K's and Q's, proxies, etc.) and to require a t/a to withhold that information. However, the release of that information by the company to any outside party requires its immediate release to the public.
3. An NDA could be signed allowing non-public information to be provided to a party to such an agreement, however any subsequent open market transactions executed by that party would be violations of the insider trading rules.
And a 4th note:
The fact that the company is not current in the filings that normally provide the share structure also precludes any other insiders from open market trading. The non-public information issue is the same.
Don't give up!
I think I can confirm that. My city came up as one within 20 miles of my computer.
Take the banner to the dry cleaner every other Tuesday.
Steve,
"CNBC covering this now! Ruh-roh! "
Now isn't 10/12/09.
Ruh-roh indeed!
Not sure what you mean by "break point"......see if this helps?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45348177
Music,
Can't help with the New York law, but I suspect that it's different, rightly or wrongly, for the consumer versus the corporation........probably true for Florida, too, given the difficulty in pulling corporations over and slapping cuffs on 'em.
But I sure do agree that for a company to issue an insufficient funds check rather than to not issue a check at all is weird......it almost could be described as a sign of corporate "immaturity". In most situations, either the debtor has an arrangement in place with the bank on which the check is drawn to accomodate overdrafts via a credit line or extended terms are negotiated with the creditor.......or the phone is left off the hook. The possibility has not been mentioned that the checks could have been drawn on a closed account, which wouldn't seem likely, but....... BTW, I suspect that the closed account situation is what precipitates the Fla cuffs, given that the fact that the account is closed can be construed as intent.
"Yea I didn't see a follow-up announcement, just noticed it still isn't trading and obviously still suspended. Just illustrating the difference in how the two companys were handled by the SEC with somewhat similar charges."
1. There wasn't a follow-up announcement because they CANNOT extend the suspension.
2. Both SPNG and SMAS were given 10 day suspensions. Period.
Based on that equal treatment I didn't look into the SMAS charges at all. I did note that SMAS showed a price of $.0001 before the suspension and shows a price of $.0001 now, AFTER the suspension.
The SEC's announcement provided for the initial suspension period, ending on 12/31 for SMAS. There has been no subsequent announcement, either on the SEC website or Scottrade's quote page, suggesting that the suspension was extended "til further notice". If you EVER see such an extension please post it.
Well if anyone wants as example of how the SEC handles matters with a company that has REALLY done something wrong, look at SMAS--lot of similar charges with this one yet the suspension of trading was planned to to terminate December 31 at 11:59pm, but didn't--still suspended til further notice. Point being, SPNG didn't have a problem resuming trading as scheduled--Maybe because the SEC knew they couldn't find any proof of the alleged wrong doing.(just one example)
h,
That post drew a lengthy rebuttal:
"Due to the difficulty in determining the viability of SA Trading and Dubai Imports, a third customer is offered up as the source of the majority of sales for the periods in question......those being the first quarter and the first 9 months of the 2009 fiscal year. Why not the second quarter??? You'll see.
The question posed was:
"If we were to completely throw out SA Trading & Dubai Export Import Company, could it be that US Asia Trading (aka U.S. Asia Distribution Company, Inc.) is actually the main customer whos purchasing activity makes up the majority in sales, that is, of the majority in sales within the 67.7% & 99.4% figures within these 2 time periods?"
Using the posted figures:
The first USAT order for 25,000 units was shipped in the third quarter of FY 2008 (December). Assuming that to be true, it would have no impact on FY 2009 sales and not be a part of the sales figures in question.
The subsequent order called for 250,000 units, generating $2,750,000 in (presumably) wholesale sales to be recorded as revenue by SPNG. These were scheduled for shipment from August to December 2008, straddling the first, second and third quarters of FY 2009 for sales purposes. SPNG reported revenues for that 9 month period of $31,050,633. ASSUMING (I admit it) that the order in question was shipped during the intended period and that no additional shipments were made, USAT would have accounted for a shade less than 9% of the company's 9 month sales and as such could hardly have made up for "the majority in sales, that is, of the majority in sales within the 67.7% & 99.4% figures within these 2 time periods?" FWIW, a customer with the "majority in sales" (99.4% of $31m x 50%) for the 9 month period would have been a $15,000,000 customer, which USAT clearly wasn't.
Being mistaken is hardly a crime.......we all are at one time or another. The thing that struck me about this analysis was the use of the first and third quarter data to the neglect of the second quarter. So I looked at it.
The post provided the following, with links:
“For the first quarter ended August 31, 2008, three customers, SA Trading Company, US Asia Trading and Dubai Export Import Company, accounted for 67.6 percent of sales.”
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...
“For the nine months ended February 28, 2009, six (6) customers, SA Trading Company, Dubai Export Import Company, Fresco Sales Corp, US Asia Trading, New Century Media and Walgreens accounted for 99.4% percent of our sales.”
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...
The post did not provide this:
For the six months ended November 30, 2008, three customers, SA Trading Company, Dubai Export Import Company, and New Century Media accounted for 82.9% percent of our sales.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...
So the customer proposed as possibly accounting for the "majority in sales":
1. was one of the 3 customers that accounted for 67% of the sales for the first 3 months of the year.
2. was one of the 6 customers that accounted for 99% of the sales for the first 9 months of the year.
3. yet was NOT one of the 3 customers that accounted for 82% of the sales for the first 6 months of the year. And a customer that did not have a piece of the 67% in the first 3 months has some how managed to replace them as one of the 3 customers that accounted for 82% of the first 6 months.
I'm pretty sure that that is mathematically impossible and I'm certain that it is mathematically improbable. And I believe that the statistical probabilities that the 6 month statement was innocently overlooked are similar."
From the last 10Q filed:
(edit: also previously filed by Scion)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409021409/v146656_10q.htm
"Also, we have expanded our 2009 sponsorship of MLB professional baseball sports teams by entering into agreements with the New York Mets, New York Yankees, and the St. Louis Cardinals (site of the 2009 MLB All-Star game), the terms of which are follows:
On February 4, 2009, we entered into an advertising agreement with the Queens Ballpark Company (“QBC”) to advertise our cleaning products and for certain advertising rights during all games (including practices or workouts) played by the New York Mets during the term of the Agreement. The term of the agreement commenced on the opening day of the 2009 Baseball Season and expires on December 31, 2011. The Agreement may be terminated by (A) either party if (i) the other party materially breaches the representations and warranties contained in the Agreement, (ii) the Mets permanently relocates to another facility as its primary baseball facility; (B) by QBC, (i) if the Company fails to pay any payments under the Agreement, (ii) if the Company files for bankruptcy or is adjudicated bankrupt or insolvent or files a petition or seeking reorganization or otherwise under any applicable bankruptcy or insolvency statute, (iii) the occurrence of any factor which in the judgment of QBC will cause an adverse reflection upon the goodwill, reputation or integrity of the Mets and its associates."
The agreement itself was not attached as an exhibit.
Also, FWIW:
Posted: Thu, October 1, 2009
SpongeTech® Delivery Systems, Inc. Partners with Miami Dolphins for the 2009 NFL Season
SpongeTech® Signage at the 2010 Super Bowl
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--SpongeTech® Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”) “The Smarter Sponge™”, (OTCBB: SPNGE) is pleased to announce today that the Company has partnered with 2008 AFC East Division Champions, Miami Dolphins. SpongeTech will become an official sponsor of the team and will leverage the Dolphins and Land Shark Stadium’s high profile marketing platforms to generate brand awareness of SpongeTech’s “The Smarter Sponge™” product line. Included in the partnership is a 14 feet by 21 feet permanent in-bowl sign that will be displayed throughout the 2009 Dolphins season, the FedEx Orange Bowl, the 2010 Pro Bowl and Super Bowl XLIV.
NY Mets beaned by ads
Sues SpongeTech
By WILLIAM J. GORTA and KAJA WHITEHOUSE
Last Updated: 4:52 AM, January 14, 2010
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/ny_mets_beaned_by_ads_mKGomQWFRpA7cA8iDJuPKP
"That was silly to ask for examples of wells notice that got a wrist slap. That is actually the standard and not the exception in a wells notice."
Apples to apples? Wrist slaps?
1. GE... http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN781220080905
Company only...no officers received Wells. Notice received in 2008 based on investigation started in 2005 surrounding transactions from 2002-2003.
"Under the terms of the settlement, the Company consented to the entry of a judgment requiring it to pay a civil penalty of $50 million and to comply with the federal securities laws."
"The Company reviewed and produced approximately 2.9 million pages of e-mails and other documents to the SEC and incurred approximately $200 million in external legal and accounting expenses to ensure that all issues were addressed appropriately."
2. AIG... http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/21/cx_tm_0921video2.html
Company only, no officers.
"As part of the settlement with the SEC, the SEC filed a civil complaint, alleging that from 2000 until 2005, AIG materially falsified its financial statements through a variety of transactions and entities in order to strengthen the appearance of its financial results to analysts and investors."
"AIG, without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC complaint, consented to the issuance of a final judgment on February 9, 2006: (a) permanently restraining and enjoining AIG from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2) and 13(b)(5) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13 and 13b2-1 of the Exchange Act; (b) ordering AIG to pay disgorgement in the amount of $700 million; and (c) ordering AIG to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100 million. These amounts have been paid into a fund under the supervision of the SEC to be available to resolve claims asserted in various civil proceedings, including shareholder lawsuits."
3. Charles Schwab... http://seclaw.blogspot.com/2009/10/schwab-receives-wells-notice-for-mutual.html
"On October 14, 2009, the Company received a Wells notice from the staff of the SEC that the staff intends to recommend the filing of a civil enforcement action against Schwab Investments, CSIM, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., and the president of the fund for possible violations of the securities laws with respect to the fund."
The above quote is from the most recent Schwab 10Q. I found no evidence that the SEC has yet to file any action.
4. Diebold... http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/diebolds-cfo-resigns-after-sec-wells-notice/
The CFO resigned immediately upon receipt of the Wells....other employees also received notices, however I found no evidence that the company itself received a notice. However:
" On May 1, 2009, Diebold, Incorporated (the “Company”) reached an agreement in principle..... Under the terms of the agreement in principle with the staff of the SEC, the Company will neither admit nor deny civil securities fraud charges, will pay a penalty of $25.0 million and will agree to an injunction against committing or causing any violations or future violations of certain specified provisions of the federal securities laws."
5. West Marine... http://www.siliconbeat.com/2009/03/05/west-marine-gets-wells-notice-from-sec/
The company received a notice, however no officers were noticed.
"Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, West Marine agreed to a permanent injunction against future violations of Section 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 under the Exchange Act."
"That was silly to ask for examples of wells notice that got a wrist slap. That is actually the standard and not the exception in a wells notice."
Seems to me that the sings that were silly about the original proposition were:
The Wells notice itself is an action that can carry a penalty.....it isn't.
Wells notices have similar end results. There is not "standard".
Due diligence is easy.
"the Fed requires a margin of 2.50 per share or 50% which ever is higher, for short sales."
Ris, I don't doubt that to be the case, but I'd like to see the specific rule. Were should I look?