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.
LLEG will trade in the grey market after the suspension ends. OTC trading can resume after a market making firm files a form 211 for the company and FINRA approves it. The process is usually very time consuming and is essentially unheard of during SEC investigations. It is, however, possible.
You would have to request that a moderator remove the post. You can't change it after the "edit" window closes.
It may just be one of those things that ain't fixable.
I really doubt that a post like that will get you much satisfaction here. Maybe you could send a nice PM to Admin asking them to reconsider. Just a thought...
Majestic! For those who never had the opportunity to experience that up close and personally, it is absolutely breathtaking.
Get a 20 ounce framing hammer and hit the thing three times dead center. That's what I do and it always stops ding-donging.
Way to go, Janice! Richly deserved praise and position. Congratulations.
Could be. I'll send him that post in a PM.
Linda seems to be hiding somewhere. The procedure used to have a ban or restriction removed would be to send a PM to Admin requesting a review. Here's a link for Admin...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=111041
Thanks, jermart. The point being that the number of "issued" shares does not necessarily equal the number of "outstanding" shares. Jerry's quest revolves around that difference as, I believe, Expo announced a share repurchase. Knowing the numbers will confirm or refute such an action.
Fortunately, Jerry knows the difference between "issued" and "outstanding". I hope he is successful in his quest to pin down the numbers. They should be quite interesting.
Well, I'm not quite sure what to say about that one.
like I said
"Issued and outstanding" is not "the" term. What Jerry is so eloquently trying to explain is that it's two terms which do not necessarily have the same meaning. In the case of EXPH, the number of shares "issued" should not be the same as the number of shares "outstanding". Jerry wants to know how many shares have been "issued". Perhaps you could ask around and provide Jerry with this important information.
I'm gonna try this one time for the sake of those who believe a mystical 50+ billion naked short sales could possibly exist.
By definition, naked short selling results in a failure to deliver because there is no correlating share certificate issued by the TA. The fact that there is a claim of more naked short selling in SPNG than the total number of shares purchased in the history of the stock means that every single soul who ever bought a single share of SPNG would have been buying those naked short shares.
Now, rdailey4, go and look at your trading records. Were the shares credited to your account when you bought them? Were they reported as fails to deliver? Has anyone that you know of failed to receive the shares that they bought? What is the total number of fails to deliver recorded in the trading of SPNG stock? You see? In order for some devious entity to sell naked short shares, someone has to buy them. Who bought all of these shares and why are there no correlating fails to deliver? Why are the broker dealers who are on the hook to their clients for these billions of phantom shares not screaming bloody murder over the fact that they can't deliver them?
What you're claiming is that everyone who ever bought SPNG shares never received them, all of this illegal activity was never reported as fails, and the broker dealers are gonna eat hundreds of millions in losses to cover the shares they never delivered to their clients. Is this REALLY what you believe to be true?
LOL...poor thing looks like it's gonna cry.
OK, guys. I think I'm a bit less fuzzy now. My point which, in itself, must have been a bit convoluted, was that the proposal calls for the purchase of assets up to, but not including, the corporate entity, but including the "Spongetech" name. Clear as crystal. Thanks.
he's simply buying some assets.
Therein lies the source of my fuzziness. I'm not clear on which assets he wants. If the assets include the corporate shell it would come with contingent liabilities, including a bunch of pesky shareholders. If he's not buying the "Spongetech" name, I don't think "The New Spongetech" is gonna fly if someone else acquires the corporate entity. Of course, if no one else bids to buy the stripped corporate "Spongetech" entity, there would be no one to challenge the creation of a new corporate entity under that name.
Am I fuzzier than I need to be?
A good possibility depending upon which assets he has identified in his bid. I'm a little fuzzy on the mechanism he could use to shed the liabilities of the former entity.
I'd say it's probably some shareholder trying to establish standing in the case. I'd also say that it's unlikely to work.
Did you check the list for a recently repaired CNC router?
Jerry, all EXPH trades are the result of transactions such as yours. The conspiracy theories that appear in this *venue* on a daily basis are just that...conspiracy theories, and nothing based in fact or logic. It is truly mind numbing that some folks endlessly blame market makers, naked short sellers, trade imbalances, and fluffer nutter for the failings of this and many other management teams. The interminable dilution foisted upon shareholders as they're being gamed by management explains everything that has happened here.
Ya gotta be quick on your feet around this place. The competition in the "Smart Alec" category is pretty tough.
LOL...I think I read some of his iHub posts today.
LOL...maybe that's the "final tweaking" part.
As a side note, we have a fantastic educational channel launching soon, which takes the Eduation Wiki to the next level. Approaching final tweaks on it.
Thank you.
Try posting that question here...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=8253
Very helpful folks
When you get to my age you're gonna start getting greedy.
depends...Did ya want a short life or a long one?
1. The management of this company financially pillaged the shareholders. (allegations, no proof)... most of us have seen enough to make an informed judgement.
2. The company (Spongetech) is worth less than nothing and is therefore being shut down. Shareholders will get nothing from it. (your opinion, the shell is an asset that could be sold.)...nope, not my opinion. The Trustee, who knows far more about the situation than you or me, has made this determination.
3. The ticker (SPNGQ) is a toxic shell and anyone who is foolish enough to buy into it deserves exactly what they get, when they could simply select another shell without all the baggage. (So if a shareholder doesn't agree with you, that makes them "deserving" of what they get?)... Yes, if a shareholder chooses to acquire this shell, knowing the history, he/she deserves exactly what he/she gets.
Those things are the truth whether you choose to accept them or not. (I choose not to accept "your" truth)...I knew that.
Situations like this mess provide a golden opportunity for folks to better understand the markets, regulatory issues and many other factors that influence what will happen to their money when they decide to plunk it down in the cesspool created by people like Moskowitz and Metter. Some of those folks realize that expanding their horizons and opening their minds will serve them well the next time they get ready to buy any OTC stock. Spongetech has run the gamut of nearly every pitfall one can imagine and it, therefore, could be a perfect learning experience for those who fell victim to the lies and deceit foisted upon them here. Others choose to ignore the lesson and make the same mistakes again and again.
The bottom line here is
1. The management of this company financially pillaged the shareholders.
2. The company (Spongetech) is worth less than nothing and is therefore being shut down. Shareholders will get nothing from it.
3. The ticker (SPNGQ) is a toxic shell and anyone who is foolish enough to buy into it deserves exactly what they get, when they could simply select another shell without all the baggage.
Those things are the truth whether you choose to accept them or not.
I truly hope there are many lessons learned from this quagmire of a company.
I don't ever recall saying (or posting) that I would not want a buyer for the shell. Perhaps you could show me that post.
The reality of the situation has absolutely nothing to do with what I would like or not like. The fact is the purchase of a shell is a business decision. No businessman in his right mind would choose a sloppy mess when he can easily find a better option. SPNGQ is a sloppy mess.
You also seem to not grasp the fact that the company is being liquidated. There will be nothing left.
SEC could of forced management to step aside
...and just exactly where, pray tell, would the SEC get the legal authority to do such a thing?
The filings have nothing to do with it.
Unfortunately, the filings have lots to do with it. Again, why would someone wishing to manage a public company buy this mess when they can simply buy another shell? There are lots of good ones available.
Sadly, a lot of good folks lost a lot of money here. The company is in dissolution and there is no hope of survival according to the one person who is best positioned to make that determination.
Without those filings there is no hope of that happening. Even if there were hope, why would someone take over this disaster of a shell when there are hundreds of clean shells available?
filings are no longer a requirement unless the company is interested in uplisting back to the OTC.
Filings are required irrespective of the venue in which this company trades. Technically, the filings are still required right now.
I didn't think so but it gave me a chance to spout off. Thanks.
Itrader, assuming you're serious, I'll take a stab at that one for ya...
To begin, anyone wishing to short this stock has made a far wiser decision than those of us who chose to go long and it would have been and continues to be a breeze to cover at the all time low of .0001. There is no such thing as a "bear trap" at these levels despite assertions to the contrary.
Next, I have no idea where the notion came from, but no right minded company would think that a "bear trap" can be triggered by dumping a gazillion freshly printed shares into the market. That dumping simply gives shorters a golden opportunity to cover or, if they're on the ball, maintain their short position until the inevitable devaluation of the share price occurs. It always does.
This is really a very simple and proven matter. Expo Holdings is nearly or, perhaps completely penniless. Management put the company in a position where the only option they had was to scuttle existing shareholders in order to pay their grossly overinflated monthly expenses. If shorts existed to any degree in this debacle they have been the financiers who shorted this thing against the box while waiting for the company or transfer agent to issue newly printed shares with which they could cover their position.
That (at least in my mind) is the reality here as it is in most every subpenny charade where "kill the shorts" is trumpeted as the battle cry.
It's truly a sad state of affairs around here, Renee. Had this thing been handled differently from the outset it would be in a far better place today.
I don't see how it can be too far down the road, Mike. The last round of dilution went off at .0001. They may not be able to do that again.