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.
CYRX,
You're right.....the only thing that they are correcting is a (d) to an (a). The numbers don't change nad if one had checked the cumulative numbers from the previous Form 4 and added that 2million the fact that it was just a designator typo would've been clear:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45302848
(Forgive me for patting my own back, but if I don't.....:o)
There won't be any change required to the SC 13D/A and there is no wait necessary for additional purchases (or sales, for that matter). The 10 day restriction only applied for the period following the initial 13D filing based on their hitting 20% ownership.
"Pike has lost small fortunes in some of his past microcap stock gambles. Recently he lost over 9 million in one of them"
I've heard this before.....do you know which one?
"What do you think carries more weight, a PR or an SEC Filing?!?!"
This is silly and I don't need a dictionary. I've got a pretty good handle on the difference between a postponement and a cancellation.
Legally they carry equal weight....the Wells process will bear me out on that. And while the filing begins with the phrase "On September 22, 2009, the Company issued a press release announcing the postponement ", it was filed to report a press release that is entitled "SPONGETECH® DELIVERY SYSTEMS CANCELS REVERSE STOCK SPLIT ".
It's not an issue worthy of debate........the point was moot then, it's moot now and there is no sign of that changing.
tt,
It seems that you would like to use my posts as reference material or a jumping off point for your anti-SPNG campaign and I can't do much about that. I don't think we differ too much regarding the health and future of the company, but I don't appreciate being used that way.
Be creative and initiate an issue you can call your own, like this one:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45332747
Wherein you stated that Pike had 2 sell transactions for 6,000,000 and 2,000,000 shares respectively.
That would've been a helluva find with interesting implications IF IT WAS RIGHT. Had you spent another 2 minutes looking into the issues you would have found that the former was an exchange within Pike Funds and the latter was a typo which actually represented a buy. In fact, I suspect that you actually knew that when you posted.
Please use someone else. I don't wanna play.
dl....I have the feeling that you're tongue is jammed in your cheek, but just in case......the company appears to disagree. From the PR to which the company refers in their 8-K:
SPONGETECH® DELIVERY SYSTEMS CANCELS
REVERSE STOCK SPLIT
NEW YORK, NY – September 22, 2009 – SpongeTech® Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech”) “The Smarter Sponge™”, (OTCBB: SPNGE) today announced that its Board of Directors has decided to cancel its previously announced reverse stock split until after the Form 10-K for the Company’s fiscal year 2009 has been filed.
Somebody, and I have the feeling that it's not either of us, needs a dictionary:
cancel |'kans?l|
verb ( -celed , -celing ; Brit. -celled, -celling) [ trans. ]
1. decide or announce that (an arranged or planned event) will not take place.
The word "cancel" should never be followed in a sentence by the word "until". "Unless" perhaps, but never "until".
What Pike paid and when he paid it:
These numbers came out of an attempt to determine when the Pike Funds acquired the original 100,000,000 shares that they reported holding as of 9/28/09.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000101359409001619/xslF345X02/spongetechfm3-102909_ex.xml
I compiled the number of shares purchased and the dollars spent to purchase them on the first 2 Form 4's that were filed.
They totaled 45,570,000 shares and $2,037,825 (resulting in an average pps of $.0447).
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000101359409001621/xslF345X03/spongetechfm4-102909_ex.xml
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000101359409001678/xslF345X03/spongetechfm4-122409_ex.xml
The cumulative shares purchased and dollars spent were first reported by Pike on their 13D filed on 12/24.
It reflected a total of 145,570,000 shares and $15,871,027 (an avg pps of $.109).
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000101359409001676/spongetech13d-122409.htm
Deducting the intervening purchases from the cumulative purchases resulted in the original 100,000,000 shares having a cost of $13,833,202.....or an average pps of $.138.
According to Nasdaq. com, the last time that the pps was ABOVE $.138 was on 9/14.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/historical_quotes.aspx?symbol=SPNG&selected=SPNG
Unfortunately, all that we can be SURE OF mathematically from all of this is that at least SOME of the shares in the original 100,000,000 were purchased PRIOR TO 9/14.
Just for time frame purposes:
1. The NT 10K, which included the statement "|X| (b) The subject annual report, semi-annual report, transition report on Form 10-K, Form 20-F, Form 11-K, Form D N-SAR or FormN-CSR, or portion thereof, will be filed on or before the fifteenth calendar day following the prescribed due date", was filed on 9/1. It also included the following: "Both our sales and net income for the year ended May 31, 2009 increased. Sales for the year ended May 31, 2009 were approximately $50,000,000 compared to $5,633,084 for the year ended May 31, 2008. As a result, our net profits for the year ended May 31, 2009 also increased to approximately $11,000,000, compared to $1,244,455 for the year ended May 31, 2008."
2. The 1:100 reverse split was PR'ed on 9/8 and scheduled for 9/22....it was then canceled on 9/22.
3. The formal SEC investigation began on 9/18, but was not filed until 9/25.
Not a thing. Strictly SOP.
Nobody held anything.....
They were accepted into the Edgar system on 1/8, shortly after 5PM Eastern. 20 minutes later and they would've been considered to be filed tomorrow. In fact, he could've filed the 1/7 purchases after the close tomorrow if he wanted to.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000101359410000014/0001013594-10-000014-index.htm
Pike was responsible for the filings....their transactions precipitated them.
Spongetech had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the filings that reflect Pike's transactions.
Leaving a couple very silly questions:
Is Spongeables licensed by HH Brown to use their process in the making of their product?
And, um, does Dicon manufacture it for them?
Sorry....hadda ask.
Steve,
The following footnote appears on the Form 4 Pike filed on 10/29:
1. Represents securities owned directly by Pike Capital Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("LP Fund"). The reported price is a weighted average price of the shares purchased on each such date. The LP Fund agrees to provide upon request by the Staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission information about the shares purchased on each date.
The 2 subsequent Form 4's filed carry no such footnote and the most recent SC 13D/A shows 3 separate transactions and one individual transaction for each of the 2 funds.
I think that the above answers your question, but without knowing exactly what YOU mean by wash-trading I can't be sure. Can you provide your definition, please? Maybe I can give a better answer.
"Although, I can find no bright line test that has been adopted in order to determine when an amendment to a Schedule 13D is officially "prompt."..."
Glad to hear that.....because there isn't one! However we don't have to rely on the Selective Disclosure definition of the term, because the 13D use has been tackled before.
Hopefully the folks in charge of such things will recognize that this post pertains to Pike and SPNG and leave it on the board.
What I think that you will find the following to say, in my words, is that if it can be reasonably expected that the "material information" that requires the amendment will have an impact on an investors perception of the share price of the stock, then the amendment must be filed as soon as reasonably practicable....the next business day. The SEC's own example, referenced below, makes it clear enough, but it may be too obvious to learn anything from in terms of "but what about amendments that aren't quite so market-moving?"
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-39538.txt
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 240
[Release No. 34-39538; File No. S7-16-96
<(14)> The determination of what constitutes "promptly" under Regulation 13D-G is based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the materiality of the change in information triggering the filing obligation and the filing person's previous disclosures. Any delay beyond the date the filing reasonably can be filed may not be prompt. See In the Matter of Cooper Laboratories, Inc., Release No. 34-22171 (June 26, 1985).
http://content.lawyerlinks.com/default.htm#http://content.lawyerlinks.com/library/sec/sec_enforcement/cooper_laboratories.htm
In the Matter of COOPER LABORATORIES, INC.
June 26, 1985
Release No. 34-22171
Read the above when you have time....it's too lengthy to post, but very informative.
Basically Coopers had a stake in another company, Frigitronics, and had already filed a 13D on 8/20/84 to reflect their position. They continued to purchase shares until, on 9/6/84, they reached the point where they had added in excess of 1% of Frigitronics o/s shares since their 8/20 filing. So at that point they became obligated to "promptly" file an amendment. They did not, however, file the amendment until 9/13....and continued to acquire shares during the intervening trading days.
The SEC made it very clear that that wasn't what they meant by "promptly", especially since the people that traded (or chose not to trade) Frigitronic shares
between 9/7 and 9/13 in the open market were deprived of information that the rule was designed to provide. They made Cooper create a fund for any investors who could figure out how to file a claim that established that they had losses as a result of the delay.
Here are a few quotes from the release:
"No bright line test has been adopted in order to determine when an amendment to a Schedule 13D is "prompt"."
"Whether an amendment to a Schedule 13D is "prompt" must be judged, at least in part, by the markets sensitivity to the particular change of fact triggering the obligation to amend, and the effect on the market of the filing persons previous disclosures."
And here's the one that I like:
"Although the promptness of an amendment to a Schedule 13D must be judged in light of all the facts and circumstances of a particular situation, "any delay beyond the time the amendment reasonably could have been filed may not be deemed to be prompt." See letter from Division of Corporation Finance to Law, Weathers, Richardson & Dutcher (Feb. 13, 1976)."
The thing that I don't understand......and never will......is why they don't just strip this issue of its mystery, freeing up a bunch of lawyers to find more valuable pursuits, and require any amendment that requires filing under the rule to be filed the next day. Boneheads, all of 'em.
"Although, I can find no bright line test that has been adopted in order to determine when an amendment to a Schedule 13D is officially "prompt."..."
Glad to hear that.....because there isn't one! However we don't have to rely on the Selective Disclosure definition of the term, because the 13D use has been tackled before.
Hopefully the folks in charge of such things will recognize that this post pertains to Pike and SPNG and leave it on the board.
What I think that you will find the following to say, in my words, is that if it can be reasonably expected that the "material information" that requires the amendment will have an impact on an investors perception of the share price of the stock, then the amendment must be filed as soon as reasonably practicable....the next business day. The SEC's own example, referenced below, makes it clear enough, but it may be too obvious to learn anything from in terms of "but what about amendments that aren't quite so market-moving?"
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-39538.txt
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 240
[Release No. 34-39538; File No. S7-16-96
<(14)> The determination of what constitutes "promptly" under Regulation 13D-G is based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the materiality of the change in information triggering the filing obligation and the filing person's previous disclosures. Any delay beyond the date the filing reasonably can be filed may not be prompt. See In the Matter of Cooper Laboratories, Inc., Release No. 34-22171 (June 26, 1985).
http://content.lawyerlinks.com/default.htm#http://content.lawyerlinks.com/library/sec/sec_enforcement/cooper_laboratories.htm
In the Matter of COOPER LABORATORIES, INC.
June 26, 1985
Release No. 34-22171
Read the above when you have time....it's too lengthy to post, but very informative.
Basically Coopers had a stake in another company, Frigitronics, and had already filed a 13D on 8/20/84 to reflect their position. They continued to purchase shares until, on 9/6/84, they reached the point where they had added in excess of 1% of Frigitronics o/s shares since their 8/20 filing. So at that point they became obligated to "promptly" file an amendment. They did not, however, file the amendment until 9/13....and continued to acquire shares during the intervening trading days.
The SEC made it very clear that that wasn't what they meant by "promptly", especially since the people that traded (or chose not to trade) Frigitronic shares between 9/7 and 9/13 in the open market were deprived of information that the rule was designed to provide. They made Cooper create a fund for any investors who could figure out how to file a claim that established that they had losses as a result of the delay.
Here are a few quotes from the release:
"No bright line test has been adopted in order to determine when an amendment to a Schedule 13D is "prompt"."
"Whether an amendment to a Schedule 13D is "prompt" must be judged, at least in part, by the markets sensitivity to the particular change of fact triggering the obligation to amend, and the effect on the market of the filing persons previous disclosures."
And here's the one that I like:
"Although the promptness of an amendment to a Schedule 13D must be judged in light of all the facts and circumstances of a particular situation, "any delay beyond the time the amendment reasonably could have been filed may not be deemed to be prompt." See letter from Division of Corporation Finance to Law, Weathers, Richardson & Dutcher (Feb. 13, 1976)."
The thing that I don't understand......and never will......is why they don't just strip this issue of its mystery, freeing up a bunch of lawyers to find more valuable pursuits, and require any amendment that requires filing under the rule to be filed the next day. Boneheads, all of 'em.
The rule that you cite deals with an issuer that has filed a SC 13G and is now expressing a desire to influence control. The rule that you cite indicates that such an act would require the filing of a Schedule 13D.
1. The recent transactions have NOTHING to do with that.
2. The company has ALREADY filed an SC 13D.
3. The recent transactions require the amendment of that 13D.
4. The rule that I cited provides the time within which that amendment must be filed ("promptly").
Check your post. Read it again and get back to me.
I think the record shows them buying on the 6th and the 7th. The Form 4 requires filing in 2 business days and the SC 13D/A calls for filing "promptly".
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule13d-2.html
Rule 13d-2 -- Filing of Amendments to Schedules 13D or 13G
1. If any material change occurs in the facts set forth in the Schedule 13D required by Rule13d-1(a), including, but not limited to, any material increase or decrease in the percentage of the class beneficially owned, the person or persons who were required to file the statement shall promptly file or cause to be filed with the Commission an amendment disclosing that change. An acquisition or disposition of beneficial ownership of securities in an amount equal to one percent or more of the class of securities shall be deemed "material" for purposes of this section; acquisitions or dispositions of less than those amounts may be material, depending upon the facts and circumstances.
ps. No, I don't know what they mean by promptly. I do know that all the references to 10 days that we're hearing don't apply to this issue.
Steve..."he filed before he needed to"?
I wasn't under that impression. Please explain.
But what about the two(2) America's Cleaning Company trademarks previously filed showing Spongetech Delivery Systems as Applicant and Registrant?
OT....hello again.
I know you want a link and I don't have one right now, but I'm certain that I could get one if it didn't jeopardize my scampi. I have no doubt that the following are true:
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.
Good luck with your call and let me know if you really need link stuff.
Thanks, Mr. Mahi.
Occasionally I see 2 green arrows chasing each other in a circle to the right of the message number. What does it/they mean?
TIA
Polsih......I messed up.
Thanks for the kind words.....unfortunately the post to which you were responding, while unbiased, was also wrong.
I indicated that the recent Pike buys did not meet the materiality test (1% of O/S) to require a 13D amendment, but they did. So Pike was required to file the amendment "promptly" according to the rules and they certainly did that.
So, it cannot correctly be said that either the Form 4 or the Schedule 13 D/A "early". They were both filed when due. You may have read elsewhere that Pike had 10 days to file.....there is no 10 day deadline....the rule calls for filing "promptly".
rs,
Appreciate the measured words, BUT:
"Surely, we can agree that, save for filings, just about everything posted here is speculative at best."
We surely do...and I made what I thought was a clear effort NOT to question the authors speculations, but rather to address the statements that appeared to me to be put forth as fact. I believe you would be very hard pressed to find posts of mine that question anyone's speculations or opinions......to me, that would make no sense at all.
Here are the statements. I see no sign of phrases such as "I think", "I believe" or "it appears to me" and, while poetic license is taken in terms of sentence structure, they all appear to be statements put forth as fact:
"a resolution has been successfully negotiated. The arrival of the Wells notice part of the settlement. Signifying actual implementation."
"No enforcement action to be taken against the company itself. Meaning that the numbers are sound. No need for any material restatement(s) as talked about."
"Minimum Bid price requirement waiver secured."
Inasmuch as the author has a history of unwillingness to respond to a direct question directly, I was happy to "allow you". Unfortunately you have not responded to my question directly either, but hope you will try again. However, if the statements in question are pure speculation, as you seem to be suggesting, I would hope that the author would say so directly and not by proxy.
"If the author, or anyone else for that matter, can provide an iota of factual support for ANY of the following I appeal to you to do so."
I don't know how that prompts an lol.
Any person, whether their motive be payment, investment growth or entertainment, who deceives other investors should be challenged to either admit to their deceptions or support their statements. It's not lost on me that such deceptions have been going on since the beginning of time, but it appears that you may have forgotten their cost to unsuspecting investors. And it's not funny.
I suspect that people who provide bad information would be more than happy to have others who point out their expensive little games ignore them, leaving them free to peddle their misleading nonsense. I won't do it and my inclination to respond is in direct proportion to their apparent level of influence.
I repeat the question here in the hope that it will generate an appropriate response:
If the author, or anyone else for that matter, can provide an iota of factual support for ANY of the following I appeal to you to do so. I take note that TEX cannot.
"a resolution has been successfully negotiated. The arrival of the Wells notice part of the settlement. Signifying actual implementation."
"No enforcement action to be taken against the company itself. Meaning that the numbers are sound. No need for any material restatement(s) as talked about."
"Minimum Bid price requirement waiver secured."
The Form 4, as to the purchases of the 6th, was due. See Section 1.(a):
http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form4data.pdf
The SC 13 D/A due date is less specific:
Rule 13d-2 -- Filing of Amendments to Schedules 13D or 13G
a. If any material change occurs in the facts set forth in the Schedule 13D required by Rule13d-1(a), including, but not limited to, any material increase or decrease in the percentage of the class beneficially owned, the person or persons who were required to file the statement shall promptly file or cause to be filed with the Commission an amendment disclosing that change. An acquisition or disposition of beneficial ownership of securities in an amount equal to one percent or more of the class of securities shall be deemed "material" for purposes of this section; acquisitions or dispositions of less than those amounts may be material, depending upon the facts and circumstances.
"Promptly" is defined in the rules somewhere.......but not so's any human could understand it. And his purchases did not meet the materiality test (7.22million). So it appears that it could be said that the 13 D/A wasn't due at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Pike has the practice of amending a standing 13D whenever he files a transaction on a Form 4.
Always check my work.
If the author, or anyone else for that matter, can provide an iota of factual support for ANY of the following I appeal to you to do so.
"a resolution has been successfully negotiated. The arrival of the Wells notice part of the settlement. Signifying actual implementation."
"No enforcement action to be taken against the company itself. Meaning that the numbers are sound. No need for any material restatement(s) as talked about."
"Minimum Bid price requirement waiver secured."
As far as I know there is nothing in the public domain supporting the above statements.
pj,
"We didn't know of an SEC investigation of SPNG either until the Suspension letter"
Actually, they knew about 2 weeks before the suspension letter and took a week to tell the rest of us. I still wonder...and I guess we'll never know.....when and if an informal investigation (MUI) was started.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409050122/v161351_8k.htm
"IMO, Pike is buying to cover illegally unrestricted shares on the advice of his own attorneys."
Are you suggesting that he's establishing legitimate ownership of previously owned shares by buying them a second time?
I find trying to determine the facts challenging enough without getting into conjecture, OT.
But since you're asking....my purpose in providing the actual instruction was not in any way meant to suggest that Pike had been able to determine the actual outstanding number. I don't think he has (unless he's got a mole at the t/a....I kid). Given the current situation I would have to wonder whether Pike would believe an o/s number that SM paid to have run across the Jumbotron, let alone one that was whispered in a poorly lit room.
I can't explain his purchases and have been stumped as to his reasoning from day one, but I just don't think he's working with any reliable, non-public data.
It's a really odd way to word a rule. If the filer knew the last reported o/s number to be incorrect he would have no basis on which to file......without using an unreported number, which he couldn't properly have.
The white knight talks backwards a lot around here.
OT.....FYI from the 13D instructions:
Item 5. Interest in Securities of the Issuer.
State the aggregate number and percentage of the class of securities identified pursuant to Item 1 (which may be based on the number of securities outstanding as contained in the most recently available filing with the Commission by the issuer unless the filing person has reason to believe such information is not current) beneficially owned (identifying those shares which there is a right to aquire) by each person named in Item 2.
You're right...No Guessing!
;o)
We should see a Form 4/A.
The fifth item down was mistakenly reported as a disposal versus an acquisition......maybe resulting from an inattentive copy and paste from the previous Form 4 where there was a swap within the funds.
Also, FWIW, the following did NOT appear in the SC 13D/A, which indicates there has not been a change of strategy......only changed Items are required to be reported on an amended SC 13D.
Item 4. Purpose of Transaction
The Reporting Persons acquired the shares of Common Stock for investment purposes in the ordinary course of business.
".the sec doesnt release detailed accounts of their investigation, the process or what exactly they did and did not do in each one...and im sure thats why you so smugly ask for proof.. "
They don't.....you're right. Which means that all we have to rely on is your version of common sense, a version that appears by numerous responses to be growing exceedingly uncommon. Please tell those of us who don't see things quite so clearly:
1. Do you have experience in actual SEC investigations that gives you a unique insight into the process?
2. If so, can you provide an example from your personal experience of the SEC preventing an issuer from filing a current report or issuing a press release?
3. If you do not have such experience would you not agree that your personal idea of "common sense" might be better described as simply "my apparently minority opinion".
"I'll be giving up now."
I understand your frustration........and hope to renew your interest.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that you are basing this:
"Dicon licenses the technology from H.H. Brown now. That is from SPNG's own description of Dicon. "
on this, from the "acquisition" 8-K:
"On July 9, 2009, SpongeTech Delivery Systems, Inc. (“SpongeTech,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) closed the transaction contemplated by a certain Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, the salient terms of which are set forth in detail under Item 2.01 below. The identities of the parties to this material definitive agreement are set forth below and in the agreement attached as an exhibit to this Current Report on Form 8-K.
Dicon is a manufacturer of certain of the Company’s products. Dicon has also performed research and development services and packaging and shipping services for the Company in the past. Additionally, the Company previously relied upon certain technology patents which are licensed by Dicon."
FWIW, my interpretation of the highlighted text is that the patents are licensed to SPNG by Dicon. And not that the patents used are licensed to Dicon by H H Brown as you indicate. I may be mistaken and welcome your comments, but if your interpretation is correct I believe the proper word to use in the 8-k would have been "to" and not "by".
Finally, I think the Pandoras box is Schedule 4.13 in the MEMBERSHIP INTEREST PURCHASE AGREEMENT, possibly to remain sealed.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409037511/v154860_ex10-1.htm
Audited financials of Dicon were due, if I remember correctly, 71 days after the closing and haven't been made public if they exist. They MIGHT (should) provide a detailed schedule, but.......
Steve, A quick click through the patents at the link I provided (I believe there may have been several others linked by nilem) shows that not ALL the patents were assigned to H.H.Brown. And the differences between those that were and those that weren't may be important. And I don't believe we have any information regarding non-SPNG licensees to the extent there are any and the terms of those licenses.
Just saying that there's a bunch of information on this subject that we don't have and likely never will due to prior relationships and agreements.
Again, this may be an issue of tricky wording:
"SpongeTech®'s proprietary, patent (and patent-pending) technologies"
The license rendering it proprietary. And the absence of "ed" allowing the interpretation that the technology is patented, while not definitively stating that the patent is Spongetech's.
Some guys get the big bucks for this crap.
Rav,
We have to watch the language very carefully....it's probably been crafted very carefully.
"SpongeTech® uses an innovative and patented nonabsorbent “sponge-based” technology"
I use an Apple. They could say, truthfully:
"Apple uses an innovative and patented dual-core technology"
even though the patent is held by Intel.
legal,
I'm afraid that the science involved is way over my head and comparing Popovsky's application to Celia's issued patents isn't something I'd feel comfortable tackling. FWIW, it appears that whatever Celia has protection on was in place prior to the Popovsky filing. Which suggests (to me anyway) that Popovsky may be doing something different.....he would've been aware of Celia's work and the legal process is to expensive to justify just taking a poke at it.
SF..."I found the 18-month bit hard to believe".
To clarify:
1. An application is filed.
2&3. Examiners attempt to determine if it's really "new art" and I believe will typically kick it back to the inventor for changes and clarifications. If they come to a point where they are satisfied that it's warranted and adequately documented, a patent is issued. Regardless of the status of that process, after a period of time from the original filing (which I believe to be 18 months) the original filing is published and becomes available for public viewing.
This is just stuff I picked up as a result of bumping into it before, so if it's critical to you you should double-check every word of it.
"Spongetech's claimed patent(s), right?"
Please don't hold me to any of this and throw the terms reportedly, allegedly and purportedly in at random:
It's my understanding that SM's filing of a patent application for a packaging design for the original sponge shape is the only patent-related item that SPNG can lay claim to. That is, until the "acquisition" of Dicon, which I believe to be the original manufacturers of the product. Wayne Celia, who I believe is the President of Dicon, invented a number of products/manufacturing processes which I believe were assigned to Dicon (see the link). An employment agreement was signed with Mr. Celia at the time of the "acquisition". It should be noted that the Popovsky item that you brought up is a patent applied for versus the Celia items, which I believe to be patents granted.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=celia%3B+wayne&FIELD1=INNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
Good Luck
The patent was originally filed in 2007.....they are usually published 18 months from filing. A most unfortunate coincidence :o)
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20090285875.PGNR.&OS=DN/20090285875&RS=DN/20090285875