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.
"you dont think the sec could get spng back on the otcbb
by tomorrow if they so desired?...even without a 15c-211?..is that what you think?.."
It's what I think. Got an example of it happening before or would this be the first time?
dog,
Good stuff.
Just in case (ha!) some folks might not want to take the time to click through, the following is from a paper published by a major law firm entitled "SEC Enforcement – What Chief Legal Officers of SEC
Reporting Companies Should be Focused On".
"The auditors have their own duties in the event they discover material fraud in the course of an
audit. They are under duties to report to management and the audit committee. If, after informing the
audit committee, the auditors conclude that the company has not taken “timely and appropriate remedial action” they must report up to the board. Upon receiving such a report, the board has one business day to report to the SEC, failing which the auditors must resign and report, or just report, the matter to the SEC."
Just a couple points.
This interpretation obligates the auditor to define "material fraud".....an issue of law and intent versus "mere" improper accounting. By taking the indicated action by resigning and making the issue a public one they expose themselves to legal recourse by the client, so they need to be extremely certain of their position. They presumably can escape that jeopardy by taking the "or just report" option....it's not clear to me whether, should they choose that option, either the client or the shareholders would ever hear about it. In which case the "fact" that Robison is still in place may not be all that telling.
For the record, in this case once the auditors report to management and the audit committee they have already reported "up to the board".
NaNA,
You better explain it to me again, too. No matter how many times it's explained to me I just don't get it.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Section 12 -- Registration Requirements for Securities
j. Denial, suspension, or revocation of registration; notice and hearing
The Commission is authorized, by order, as it deems necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors to deny, to suspend the effective date of, to suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to revoke the registration of a security, if the Commission finds, on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing, that the issuer, of such security has failed to comply with any provision of this title or the rules and regulations thereunder.
Kitt,
Am I missing something here?
"No one knows how much more money it really costs spng for a marvel license. That figure of 25,000 was quoted by another poster and repeated on and on. Even if it comes from marvel, there's most likely more fees as well..."
This isn't a PR, it's a License Agreement, signed by the parties.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409063031/v168199_ex10-1.htm
Whether there will be sales flowing form it may be a separate question, but there can be no question that there's an agreement with specific terms that dictate pricing.
If they could possibly achieve the needed financial standards organically they would still need to meet the governance qualifications. What signs have you seen that suggest that there's a willingness to elect independent directors, establish an independent audit committee, etc.? Not only are these standards required for NASDAQ entry, but they would be in both shareholders and the company's interest TODAY. Do you really expect the current control people to willingly give up a measure of their control for a listing?
I know it was picky....just trying to keep stuff clear.
Panther,
re: "they cannot revoke without a court trial". Actually they don't need the court system....they hold a hearing. In fact, in many cases the companies are so far gone they get revoked because they fail to respond to the hearing notice. They can also suspend a registration for 12 months but I never ran into one of those.
Section 12 -- Registration Requirements for Securities
j. Denial, suspension, or revocation of registration; notice and hearing
The Commission is authorized, by order, as it deems necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors to deny, to suspend the effective date of, to suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to revoke the registration of a security, if the Commission finds, on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing, that the issuer, of such security has failed to comply with any provision of this title or the rules and regulations thereunder.
Gets some support from:
http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809.shtml
"Apr. 15, 2009 Steven Moskowitz, Massachusetts"
STEVEN Moskowitz
Title and Company:
President, U.S. Tower Division at American Tower Corporation
Address:
116 Huntington Avenue Fl 11
Boston, MA 02116-5749
It's true. 3 guys have enough votes to be their own little quorum.....no need to even ask other voters what they think. But I don't understand how they duck an annual meeting. I'm pretty sure that both the company by-laws and the State of Delaware require one.
Come to think of it, the next time somebody suggests exposing some unsupported positions via a dividend maybe someone should ask whether a shareholders meeting wouldn't serve the same purpose.
MLM: OT
re: I gave you a person mark for keeping it interesting......
Thanks, I think :O)
I'm not totally tuned in to the Ihub nomenclature.
As mentioned, I don't have PM and did want to respond......thought this might be more "private".
My participation in that board is motivated by general interest and not a position. I suspect that you might run into posts of mine that fall on both sides as a result. From your postings I suspect that that will not result in the erasure of my "person mark".
To provide a little "on topic" justification......Some 40 years ago when I shared my first apartment with a couple buddies one of them painted a chessboard on an entire wall of one of the bedrooms. It was a masterpiece......from an angle, requiring shading and perspectives, etc. When we beat feet I suspect the landlord was THRILLED.
We used to play regularly. Unfortunately I'm very in-the-moment.....a lousy planner and a lousy student, so I got my butt kicked very regularly by guys that could foresee moves well ahead of me. It probably didn't help that it was the late 60's, but to be honest they could've used that excuse as well but didn't need it.
Finally....nice screen name! My boat's name is First Light and I can relate.
Good Luck.........
patchman,
re: "the actual releases of information (lawsuit) that confirms that additional dilution took place"
Please point me to the above releases........I missed them.
TIA
Again:
"Every issuer which is engaged in interstate commerce, or in a business affecting interstate commerce, or whose securities are traded by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce shall--
within one hundred and twenty days after the last day of its first fiscal year ended after July 1, 1964, on which the issuer has total assets exceeding $1,000,000 and a class of equity security (other than an exempted security) held of record by seven hundred and fifty or more persons"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44291027
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44300044
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44299907
You're the rules 'n regs guy. Why are you making me repeat myself? My "tude" isn't something I woke up with......please try harder.
The Form 8-A has specific requirements that precipitate its filing, none of which are "being under the 34 regs (having started trading following the SB2 offering".
I've linked the rules (Section 12 of the Exchange Act) governing that filing previously and recently. If you read them you'll realize how little sense your "take" makes. As of now, you can find them easily at:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44299907
Section 12 -- Registration Requirements for Securities
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec12.html
Sorry, Tex. I don't know how else to say it.
The companys shares were not "registered pursuant to Section 12", as the filing instructions call for, prior to 9/28/09.
The companys shares were "registered pursuant to Section 12" on 9/28/09 so they were then required to file.
That's it. I have no other point.
re: Beneficial ownership filings
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44291027
Corrections are encouraged.
GL
MLM,
I noticed something interesting in the process of doing some research for a post this morning.
You said: "they could have filed form 4 if they wished, and wanted to give their PR more teeth".
I responded with "they couldn't file a Form 4 without filing a Form 3 first anyway......it's called INITIAL filing of beneficial ownership. And SEC filings are supposed to be filed because they are required, not to provide promotional support."
While I DO feel that the use of an unrequired SEC filing for promotional purposes is an abuse (given that the cost of administrating the SEC is a burden EVERYONE bears and that they should have more important things to do), I was foolish to think that it doesn't happen with some frequency.
There were two Form 13G ownership filings made in late 2008 (obviously PRIOR to the 1934 Act registration filing of 9/28/09 required by Section 12). In order that the following is a little clearer I should explain that a Form 13G is basically a short form for a Form 13D:
Rule 13d-1 -- Filing of Schedules 13D-G
Any person who, after acquiring directly or indirectly the beneficial ownership of any equity security of a class which is specified in paragraph (i) of this section, is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than five percent of the class shall, within 10 days after the acquisition, file with the Commission, a statement containing the information required by Schedule 13D.
paragraph(i): " For the purpose of this regulation, the term "equity security" means any equity security of a class which is registered pursuant to section 12 of that Act......"
So, according to the above, the Form 13G filings made late last year appear to have been made for reasons other than that they were required.
TEX,
Here's the Fisher-Price version:
1. The original issuances of SPNG shares were made via a Form SB-2......under the 1933 (Securities) Act.
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&filenum=333-123015&owner=exclude&count=40
From:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul04.htm
"In August 1992, the SEC adopted a simplified form (Form SB-2) for use by small business issuers. A small business issuer is a United States or Canadian issuer that had less than $25 million in revenues in its last fiscal year, provided that the value of its outstanding securities in the hands of the public is no more than $25 million.
An alternative to Form 5-1, Form SB-2 permits the offering of an unlimited dollar amount of securities by any small business issuer. The form may be used again and again as long as the issuer meets the definition of small business issuer. Form SB-2 offers certain advantages, including the location of all disclosure requirements in a central
repository, Regulation S-B. These disclosure requirements are presented in simple, non-legalistic terminology."
2. Rule 12(g) of the 1934 (Exchange Act) says:
g. Registration of securities by issuer
Every issuer which is engaged in interstate commerce, or in a business affecting interstate commerce, or whose securities are traded by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce shall--
within one hundred and twenty days after the last day of its first fiscal year ended after July 1, 1964, on which the issuer has total assets exceeding $1,000,000 and a class of equity security (other than an exempted security) held of record by seven hundred and fifty or more persons..........
register such security by filing with the Commission a registration statement (and such copies thereof as the Commission may require) with respect to such security......"
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec12.html
The 8-A filed on 9/28/09 was filed to comply with the above Rule 12(g), which resulted in the company's shares being registered under the Exchange Act for the first time. Note that ALL the previous Amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation were attached as Exhibits to that filing and that the SEC File Number changed at that time.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409050269/0001144204-09-050269-index.htm
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&filenum=000-53791&owner=exclude&count=40
3. As described in previous posts, the beneficial ownership reporting forms are required for shares registered under the 1934 (Exchange) Act. From the Form 3 instructions:
(a)This Form must be filed by the following persons (“reporting person”):
(i)any director or officer of an issuer with a class of equity securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”); (Note: Title is not determinative for purposes of determining “officer” status. See Rule 16a-1(f) for the definition of “officer”);
(ii)any beneficial owner of greater than 10% of a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, as determined by voting or investment control over the securities pursuant to Rule 16a-1(a)(l) (“ten percent holder”);"
http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form3data.pdf
I enjoy looking into these things and I'm reasonably comfortable that the above represents conclusive evidence.
In fact, I'm comfortable enough to link this post in your RnR board for YOUR future reference. I'm very aware that, should I be proven wrong, I will be subject to significant ridicule. Wouldn't be the first time.
ps. I'll be addressing a post to MLM soon that you might find interesting.
MLM,
We don't have to agree to disagree at all..these aren't matters of opinion. One of us appears to be mistaken and I'm convinced that my position is well supported.
Also, they couldn't file a Form 4 without filing a Form 3 first anyway......it's called INITIAL filing of beneficial ownership. And SEC filings are supposed to be filed because they are required, not to provide promotional support.
As far as the 8-A is concerned, it was filed precisely on time.
BTW, I don't have two things that I'm perfectly happy not having: PM and a position. Hopefully my posts are reflective of the latters absence.
Good Luck to you, too!
TEX,
No offense, but please try not to put words in my mouth.
What I'm saying, and ALL that I'm saying, is that the company's securities were not registered under Section 12 of the 1934 Act until the 8-A was filed. I made no reference to the issue that you love to raise....nor did I need to in order to address the issue at hand.
MLM,
First and foremost, I would like to claim amateur status on this stuff.
That said, I believe that being "subject to 1934 regs" is not the same as, nor does it require having shares registered under the pertinent section(s) of the 1934 Act that apply to beneficial ownership filings. The following is from the Form 3 (initial ownership) instructions, but the Section 12 reference also appears on the Form 4 (subsequent transactions) instructions:
"1.Who Must File
(a)This Form must be filed by the following persons (“reporting person”):
(i)any director or officer of an issuer with a class of equity securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”); (Note: Title is not determinative for purposes of determining “officer” status. See Rule 16a-1(f) for the definition of “officer”);
(ii)any beneficial owner of greater than 10% of a class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, as determined by voting or investment control over the securities pursuant to Rule 16a-1(a)(l) (“ten percent holder”);"
Note the phrases "securities registered pursuant to/under Section 12". The Form 8-A filed at the end of September served the purpose of doing exactly that:
"FORM 8-A
FOR REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF SECURITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934"
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Unless, of course, someone that actually KNOWS something shows otherwise.
"One last thing we can take from this example is that the SEC took 70 days from the time that they announced a trading suspension of MRVC to complete and notify the company that the investigation was complete
and that they were clean."
As you pointed out in your post the MRVC trading suspension was imposed by Nasdaq, not the SEC, and based on late filings. The SEC investigation was in no way related to that issue.....it pertained to option pricing...and I was unable to locate information as to when that investigation began.
Extrapolating anything from the MRVC situation in terms of when one might expect the SPNG SEC investigation to end isn't gonna work. There is nothing comparable about them.
I wondered about that and then thought better of it. His Form 4 would've had to reflect his holdings after the buys at -0-, something I've not seen before.
But screwier stuff has happened.
MLM,
I think you should reconsider item #2. It's my understanding that the Registration filing at the end of September was the starting point for any filings required under the 1934 Act. So the purchases referenced here (from the website) would've occurred prior to that point and hence did not require filings:
"Posted: Mon, July 20, 2009
SpongeTech® Delivery Systems, Inc. CEO and COO Purchase Company's Stock
SpongeTech® Delivery Systems, Inc., The Smarter Sponge™, (OTCBB: SPNG) is pleased to announce that its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Board Members*** have been purchasing SpongeTech®’s common shares in the open market. Together the team has purchased approximately 18.2 million (eighteen million two hundred thousand) shares of the 722.86 millions shares issued and outstanding as reported in the Company's 3rd Quarter 2009 filing."
However, those purchases should have been, and presumably were, reflected as holdings in the Form 3 initial ownership statements that were eventually filed.....to the extent that the shares were still held. An attempt to reconcile the 2008 10K reported holdings plus the PR'ed purchases to the Form 3's was interesting, but a subject for another time.
A suitable replacement Item #2 might be the SEC imposed trading suspension.
***Members?
You're not suggesting that a retailer might buy a sponge company, are you?
Truer word was never spoken.
"absolutely correct."
You seem surprised :o)
Fact is, in terms of materiality, if Marvel had filed on this agreement everybody in the employ of the SEC other than the cleaning crew would've plotzed.
Mike,
Material definitive agreements can be the toughest filings to make the "to file or not to file" call on because of the subjective nature of materiality. My guess is that the SEC wouldn't have blinked if they didn't file the royalty agreement. From the company's perspective the decision is easy: If it can be perceived as good news, file. One can only speculate as to whether the filing would have been made had an agreement of similar value been made with an entity that offered less promotional value.
Congratulations Kitt.
Not only am I not sure what you are saying (no, I don't "got it"), but what I'm saying seems like it's slipping away on me, too.
From the top:
lr: FWIW, I think that the Pike purchases provide the single strongest piece of evidence supporting a long position.
K: What's you idea of a long position... how long is long... I can almost guarantee pikes idea of long wouldn't match your concept of long.
lr: To me, a long position is one that is purchased with the expectation that the company and its share price will grow commensurately over time. It is any position that is not made with immediate price adjustment as its priority.
K: "FWIW, I think that the Pike purchases provide the single strongest piece of evidence supporting a long position."
~!~ From the above statement I was almost sure you knew what pike believes is a long position...as you think pike thinks ... got it?"
My initial comment used the term "long" to mean a holder of the stock (antonym: short).
When you asked "how long is long" it sure seemed obvious to me that you were using a different meaning...as in length of time...so I responded accordingly.
I don't know what Pike thinks about anything. I know, at one point at least, that he held shares, hence he was/is long the stock.
Now, one more time since I'm too dim to follow your previous response, just what is "pikes idea of long" and have I described my concepts of the word well enough for you to tell me what aspect of which one of them you can "almost guarantee" wouldn't match Pike's and how? Or, does my concept of long match "pikes idea of long" and if so, in what respect? And if it's the latter, please remit the value of your "almost guarantee" ASAP.
"how long is long... I can almost guarantee pikes idea of long wouldn't match your concept of long."
I'm not convinced by your question that you read my post, but:
To me, a long position is one that is purchased with the expectation that the company and its share price will grow commensurately over time. It is any position that is not made with immediate price adjustment as its priority. I have purchased companies that were bought based on what I perceived to be a depressed price relative to value, only to be surprised by the market reaching the same conclusion at the same time, resulting in the pps getting to the point where I no longer felt it was a value in short order.......so I sold it, but I bought it as a "long" position. Alternatively, I'm holding shares of MCD, JNJ, MO and others for half a dozen years or more.
So, I don't establish a long position in a stock with any pre-conceived notion as to holding period. It took a long time for me to realize that there's a benefit to making one simple decision: Are you a trader or an investor? I don't know anyone who is good at both.
And, while you seem to feel you possess some clairvoyance regarding Pike's "idea of long", I don't claim such powers. Just what is "pikes idea of long"? I can't be the only one that wants to know.
The phrase in the agreement under 3(a) reads:
"Marvel hereby grants to Licensee and Licensee hereby accepts the non-exclusive license to utilize the property but solely upon and connection with the manufacture, promotion, sale, and distribution of the articles, products and/or services identified in Section 1(c)........"
I think (don't quote me) that the non-exclusivity issue in the statement merely indicates that other companies may be licensed by Marvel to use the "property"......property being the specified Marvel characters. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, unless they expected that SPNG was securing an exclusive license to use the characters....something no one company could hope to do. The second half of the statement simply limits the products on which SPNG can use the images, again no surprise.
If Marvel was to try and sell a license to SPNG which provided exclusivity on sponges or sponges w/soap in 'em I suspect that would put Marvel in the position of defining the nature of SPNG's products in terms of patent status, etc. that they would probably want no part of. This way SPNG has to worry about such things....if a competitor should secure a similar license from Marvel it would be SPNG's problem to establish that the base product infringes on whatever rights they may be able to estblish.
Pure guesswork.
FWIW, I think that the Pike purchases provide the single strongest piece of evidence supporting a long position. But who cares what I think, right?
re: "I also don't think the legalities of an issue like the one you describe would matter to him in the least. "
I can't speak to his willingness or lack thereof to obey the trading rules, but as far as filing rules are concerned
his history doesn't support your statement......I have not studied the details of all his beneficial ownership filings, but the following link suggests to me that he knows how and when they should be filed:
http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1365921.htm
Whether his filing integrity can be extrapolated to bolster his trading integrity isn't for me to decide.
re: "the greater motivation was to "affirm" to the share holders that the OS was still, supposedly, 722 million."
Frankly I don't know the profile, if there is one, of the ownership of this stock. But I think that it's logical to assume that institutional, versus retail, sized volume is what it takes to move a stock.....especially one bogged down like this one is. Do you really think that someone with Pike's background would expect to be able to "fool" institutional money with what is basically a ruse? I think that it may be a mistake to believe that his Forms 3&4 were filed for any other reason than Pike felt they were due.
re: "However, lets assume that since that time he has become aware that the OS is much greater, in the 2 1/2 - 3 Billion range as many believe, so that his percentage ownership has now fallen from 19.3% to under 5%. Bingo! Technically, he no longer has a beneficial ownership position and no control. He is thus, free to trade. And, i don't know of any rule (I am not by any means an expert) that would require him to file anything under those circumstances."
He is required to file a Form 4 up until and including any transaction that results in his ownership dropping below 10%. Fortunately, since I'm no expert either, Pike's latest Form 4's filed on American Dairy (link) provide clear proof of that statement. A series of sales that he made from 5/20-5/22 took him below the 10% level of outstanding shares that ADY reported on their most recent 10Q at the time (link). In the top left hand corner of the final forms filed by the 2 Pike entities is a little box that says "Check this box if no longer subject to Section 16.". And that box is checked on both forms. So I think that it is reasonable to expect that he is aware of his filing requirements regarding sales of SPNG shares.
http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1220289.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789868/000114420409026660/v148880_10q.htm
I could be wrong.....it happens.....but I see nothing that suggests that the Pike investment wasn't made with both eyes open and an expectation that the price he eventually sells the shares for will be higher than the prices he paid for them based on his own parameters of risk, return and valuation...as in an investment. In spite of the "environment", there's no evidence of chicanery. That said, I don't understand why he chose to add 40%+ to a position the minute an SEC suspension ended. He obviously is way out of my league in the cojones department.........and he may be up to something......but there's nothing in the record that I looked at to suggest it.
I don't claim any expertise in these issues, but:
1. For the purpose of determining beneficial ownership the outstanding share denominator remains 722+million. It has not changed based on any published, authoritative document. So there is no question that Pike's ownership percentage qualifies as a beneficial ownership position. Otherwise he would have had no need to file a Form 3.
2. Rule 144 covers both restricted and control shares. Are you saying that Pikes shares 1)aren't control shares or 2)Pike Capital isn't an affiliate under the definitions provided or 3)both. In any case, please explain your basis for "the 42,000,000 Pike supposedly bought after the suspension were not 144 shares".
Also, given that your original post includes "the insiders" ("Its more likely that Pike is selling and, IMO, the 8K/PR was meant to help him and the insiders get rid of more"), please address the above issues as they relate to the directors. Their shares are definitely control shares, are they not? ("Control securities are those held by an affiliate of the issuing company. An affiliate is a person, such as a director or large shareholder")
I know that Rule 144 is usually brought up in the context of restricted shares, but per the link in my previous post it clearly has application to control shares, too.
I'm not sure such selling is possible due to Rule 144:
What Are the Conditions of Rule 144?
If you want to sell your restricted or control securities to the public, you can follow the applicable conditions set forth in Rule 144........"
(Control securities are those held by an affiliate of the issuing company. An affiliate is a person, such as a director or large shareholder, in a relationship of control with the issuer. Control means the power to direct the management and policies of the company in question, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise.)
2. Adequate Current Information. There must be adequate current information about the issuer of the securities before the sale can be made. This generally means that the issuer has complied with the periodic reporting requirements of the Exchange Act.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm
"Read: form 8k line 19 section k Code of Conduct"
I have.......twice. Nothing in it relates to SEC compliance. Nothing in it suggests that the 10K is forthcoming.
Is the SEC investigation over?
Nothing in your post makes sense to me. If possible, please explain.
I plead guilty.
I was watching the he-said she-said tennis match and decided that a little real research might be interesting.
lakeside linked 3 research items to prove his point and I looked at them. From the first one:
PR Newswire
Article: SpongeTech(R) Delivery Systems, Inc. Receives Orders from Major East Coast, Mexican, and South American Chains Totaling $4.95 Million Dollars.
Article from:
PR Newswire
Article date:
May 22, 2008 CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2008 PR Newswire Association LLC. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
SpongeTech(R)'s First Orders from Wal-Mart Mexico, Winn Dixie, Ollie's, and Price Chopper Stores; Re-Order from S A Trading South America
NEW YORK, May 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- SpongeTech(R) Delivery Systems, Inc. (BULLETIN BOARD: SPNG) announced today that they received initial orders from three well-known east coast chain stores -- Winn Dixie, Ollie's, and Price Chopper, as well as Wal-Mart Mexico, including Wal-Mart South America. The three east coast chains have ordered "Shippers" of SpongeTech(R)'s Car Care Kits, which include their wash and wax sponge, a detail sponge, and a chamois. A shipper is a freestanding display containing 24 kits that is ...
I took it upon myself to try and find the product at "Wal-Mart South America" but could not locate an entity under that name on the Walmart website, where one might expect to find such a thing. I reported my lack of results and linked the website for confirmation.
Is it a trite issue? Probably.
Do I care? Definitely not.
No doubt. Per the link I provided there are Walmarts in Brazil, Argentina, etc. but they are identified by country. The original articles referred to an entity know as Walmart South America and that is the entity which I couldn't locate and which isn't referenced on the Walmart Corporate website.
You guys sure that there really is a "Walmart South America"? I can't find one.
http://walmartstores.com/AboutUs/246.aspx
:O)
Projecting the sales:
$80,000 minimum royalty required @12%.
Sales based on min royalty = $666,666.
Contract expires 12/31/11.
"is that legal since we all know SPNG is not trading on the OTC?"
We don't ALL know that...it may be the sub-basement of the OTC, but it's still the OTC. The tricky part is leaving out the ".pk".
"OTC equity securities can be quoted on the Pink Quote system, and/or, if the securities are registered with the SEC and their issuers are current in their reporting obligation, on the OTCBB. Some OTC securities are not quoted on either the Pink Quote system or the OTCBB; these securities are sometimes referred to as grey market or "Other-OTC" securities."
http://www.pinksheets.com/pink/otcguide/investors_index.jsp