Spongetech didn't file Form D and possibly send forged opinion letters. I think both fall under rule 10b-5

"Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices":

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,

in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b-5

There was a 27+ million buy at .0003

Form D's are not important, they would only upset shareholders, just like the OS. If shareholders knew the real OS they probably would be slightly upset. Shareholders are good for one thing and one thing only: to hold shares and buy more shares. To that end, it is best to focus on baseball and football teams and TV ads showing us sponges. GO Spongetech

I see no Form D for Spongetech do you?

http://idea.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-idea?action=getcompany&CIK=0001201251&type=&dateb=&owner=include&count=40

Yes, nice DD. It is astonishing how many red flags this company can generate and get away with it.

Do you think the SEC and the DOJ will ignore all what we have seen? I think something will happen really soon.

.153 x .1539

As I understand it, if shares are issued with no legends, they are not restricted, while shares issued with legends are restricted (the legend on the stock says it is restricted). No this seems to be freshly issued shares.

"LOL! crash are you for real? You say the letter proves dillution then you say you can't even prove the law firm is real because you can't find them. You are getting desperate!LOL!!!"

Could it be both? Dilution authorized/utilized with a fake opinion letter?

So it comes down to only two possibilities correct?
a) Someone fabricated this document and posted it on the internet just to hurt Spongetech or
b) Spongetech (or someone working there) fabricated the letter so that SPNG can get free trading shares.

I'm sure those that claimed letters to the SEC from Olde Monmouth were fake will claim this letter to be an obvious photo shop production.

Raising capital thru fake opinion letters would be a crime as far as I know. Spongetech / Moskowitz has some explaining to do if that's where that letter came from.

Yes, I noticed. Rather odd that the law firm uses the FAX # of Moskowitz as their own when writing an opinion letter about Spongetech. I now hear voices telling us that this is another "photo shopped" document?

Yes and I find nothing on David Bomart or Bomart, Cone & Rolland etc. There is a Cone in Florida. Also rather odd, they use a Gmail e-mail address. Maybe someone has access to the NY bar and can find the firm there?

.153 x .154 problem solved

TT, thanks. That sure proves that more shares are issued despite what Spongetech says in the PR's. I can't find any Bomart, Cone and Rolland LLP. Has anyone found them?

Most scam companies have real products. As for the financial picture, so far the numbers in the filings look less than impressive. Of course you could go by what the PR's say, but now you entirely relying on the honesty of management. Beside all they have been talking about is "new orders" which seem to be down from last years announcement. Oh, and they talk about the share structure, kind off, they tap dance and quote old numbers while telling us things they "want to do" sometime in the future. All typical signs of a P&D.

What happened to that secret escrow account or all the secret assets that Seaway Valley was holding?

Cool, numbers:

Total stockholders' equity (deficit)
March 31, 2009 December 31, 2008

(5,705,654 ) (1,765,850 )


Net loss attributable to Parent Company
$ (3,481,692 ) $ (2,930,356 )

Basic and diluted loss per share
$ (1.08 ) $ (15.41 )


Cash at End of Period
$ 158,678 $ 988,165

No, but it got to be back in the billions by now.

I have been saying that for almost 2 years now.

SPNG is down today, the Dow up over 100 points and the Nasdaq not far behind. I think we will see more days like today for SPNG.

SPNG .149 and falling

I'm browsing through tons of adds of Nasdaq companies, not one is advertising with their stock ticker like Spongetech is. Mmmmh I wonder why?

z4lover,
"You ever hear of branding?"

Yes I have heard of branding, I have never ever seen a legit company brand with their stock ticker, have you? However if you want to sell stock it would be logical to do that, although I believe it is illegal.

Fact, you see Spongetech's ticker SPNG on every advertising banner in the ball parks.
What is Spongetech selling, sponges or stock?

Wow,
Fact, I see 31 press releases for this month alone. That's 1 press release/day including weekends and holidays. SPNG management never rests.

Rocketstocks,
"Financiers dont whack the bid out like this, this is dumb money"

Was it dumb money that was selling at .024 or .02? Last week when we discovered the new Form D it became painfully obvious that the companies revenues are still less than $1 million, it was argued: "yeah but see, the sp is not falling". Do you think that that argument is still valid?

"MM short and trying to cover?????"

LOL, stock is going down, yes it must be. It just couldn't be that WNBD is an overbought worthless stock that is drifting back down to where it belongs.

Will ignorance be his defense?

Posted by: IH Admin [Matt] Date: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:33:32 PM
In reply to: Churak who wrote msg# 121752 Post # of 130295 [Send a link via email]
>>One would think, eh? Except for one minor detail...MATTY has the attention span of a gnat & there is no way he will read that book you wrote a couple of posts ago...try & sum it up in 2 sentences or you got no shot...

Well said, Cupcake.

Probably paid by WNBD to "initiate coverage":

Disclaimer must be read and fully understood. Skymark Research is an independent electronic publication providing information on selected public companies for entertainment and/or as a public relations service. Companies profiled by Skymark Research may pay consideration in cash and/or stock or other securities to Skymark Research for the electronic dissemination of company information. In some cases Skymark Research may be retained as consultants to featured public companies for various services, including the electronic dissemination of information concerning the profiled company, and/or services pertaining to cultivating market awareness. In the event that compensation in any amount is obtained it will be fully disclosed in accordance with rule 17(b). All information on featured companies is generated by proprietary research, provided by the companies profiled, or is available from public sources and Skymark Research makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of said information, although it is believed by Skymark Research to be valid. Skymark Research is not a registered investment advisor or a broker dealer. Skymark Researchhas been advised that the investments in companies profiled are considered to be high risk and use of the information provided is at the investor's sole discretion. Skymark Research has also been advised that the purchase of such high risk securities may result in the loss of some or all of the investment. The information provided by the profiled companies may include information from outside sources and interviews conducted by Skymark Research. Investors should not rely solely on the information presented. Rather, investors should use the information provided by the profiled companies as a starting point for doing additional independent research on the profiled companies in order to allow the investor to form his or her own opinion regarding investing in the profiled companies. Factual statements made regarding profiled companies are made as of the date stated and are subject to change without notice. Skymark Research makes no recommendation that the securities of the companies profiled should be purchased, sold or held by individuals or entities that learn of the profiled companies through Skymark Research

I'm wondering if the arrangement has any thing to do with SPNG and NXGH not only sharing products but also selling each others shares in the open market.

I and others were surprised that one of the eight charged, who also works for IHUB/ADVFN was not suspended or fired from his job. Considering that IHUB is exactly the kind of environment where worthless penny stocks are being pumped to high heaven, I thought that the company had the sensibility to have Matt 'lay low' at least until the resolution of those charges. The reputation of the place that I associate with means a lot to me, yet the let down continues as Matt is apparently active in the day to day business:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profile.asp?user=2744

Not only that, he is personally involved in banning negative/critical posters from the current pump and dumps:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/seeBans.aspx?boardid=7664

I don't know how the SEC/DOJ will look upon this, but I would venture to guess that it won't be helpful when it comes to sentencing (if it ever gets there). As for myself, I'm not a happy camper seeing this.

I have very bad experiences with that forum.

Which board would you like us to discuss it with admin?

Smart remarks don't help, see my PM to ADMIN.

I'll wait for the 10k to see that. If they adhere to GAAP accounting I doubt you will see $10 million in net income. So far they have an awful lot of receivables.

"further yes you think it is expensive, but the whitney report which shows that sponge tech has been in the top 10 as seen on products in sales begs to differ in terms of consumer consumption."

I don't necessarily disagree with the whitney report. The problem here is, how much revenue does the Spongetech create vs. how much Spongetech spend on advertising. Ok, we know SPongetech already spend $10 million or more on advertising and is planning to spend $20 million the coming year. We don't know how much revenue that will actually generate but we do know that the awesome auger was also a top 10 product and sold a total of $10 million. If Spongetech only generates $10 million or even $20 million in revenue, shareholders will be looking at huge losses.

That is not surprising, $14.99 is an outrageous price for a sponge. Obviously the product is not moving and I doubt it will at $8.99. I haven't seen much Spongetech car washing in my neighborhood have you? IMO that store and many more won't re-order any.

You better read that page F-2 again:

Common stock, $0.001 par value, 1,250,000,000 shares authorized, 1,249,451,605 and 365,473,214 shares issued and outstanding at February 28, 2009 and May 31, 2008


of course they magically reduced the shares page 9:

On April 16, 2009, RM Enterprises cancelled 526,585,544 common shares to reduce the common shares issued and outstanding from 1,249,451,605 to 722,866,061 common shares. These common shares were put back into the treasury.

"but I firmly believe Eric is bringing in at least 5M a year in gross sales right now, again just my opinion."

That's overly optimistic, as the latest Form D clearly shows revenues are less than $1 million. Look it up, it is a public filing.