Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[shajandr]

"I think Bomart may have been the right man for the job. There was no real reason for attorney opinion letters, so there was no reason for a real attorney.

And, no, I haven't contacted him, not by that name anyway."

1. 'David Bomart' was the fake name of a fake lawyer made up and used by STEVEN YEHUDA MOSKOWITZ and the reason the false attorney opinion letters were needed was to make the TAs issue new SPNG stock to RME and other front entities and then immediately delegend it under Rule 144 (which is WHY the attorney letters WERE needed and why MOSKOWITZ fabricated the fake Bomart letters and sent him from MOSKOWITZ's personal fax.

2. If you haven't contacted 'Bomart' by that name, the only other name 'Bomart' uses is STEVEN YEHUDA MOSKOWITZ, who (along with wife Mindy and daddy Arnold) are the only persons who have your munny. So it sounds like you finally contacted Moskowitz. Did he send you your munny back yet? Did Mindy?

The SEC alleges that Spongetech CEO Michael Metter and another senior executive, Steven Moskowitz, hyped fictional customers and grossly exaggerated sales figures through dozens of bogus press releases and fraudulent SEC filings to pump up demand for stock in Spongetech, a company that sells soap-filled sponges. After flooding the market with the false information to fraudulently inflate the stock price, Metter, Moskowitz, and Spongetech dumped approximately 2.5 billion shares by illegally selling them to the public through affiliated entities in unregistered transactions. They spent portions of their illicit profits in highly visible sponsorship deals with professional sports teams to further create the aura that Spongetech was a well-known and prosperous business.

The SEC suspended trading in Spongetech stock on Oct. 5, 2009, due to questions about the accuracy of the company's press releases and SEC filings. In today's enforcement action, Spongetech is accused of obstructing the SEC's investigation by producing phony sales documents in an attempt to legitimize the make-believe customers it hyped to the public. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York today announced a parallel criminal action in the matter.

"Spongetech used a menu of manipulative strategies to perpetuate this scheme, including fake sales orders and public statements as well as obstruction of the SEC's investigation," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "We will utilize all available means, including referral to criminal authorities, to prosecute those who attempt to thwart our investigations."

Christopher Conte, Associate Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, added, "Investors were deceived into believing that Spongetech was a successful business, while Spongetech and its senior executives were illegally dumping shares into the market."

Two of Spongetech's former attorneys — Jack Halperin and Joel Pensley — and stock promoter George Speranza are also charged in the SEC's complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. RM Enterprises International Inc., an affiliate through which Spongetech dumped shares, is also charged.

According to the SEC's complaint, after several years of relatively little business with a single customer comprising the bulk of Spongetech's limited sales, Metter and Moskowitz began to paint a more promising and misleading picture of Spongetech's business. Beginning in approximately April 2007, Spongetech issued dozens of phony press releases touting increasingly larger, yet fictitious, sales orders and revenue. The press releases fraudulently exaggerated the demand for pre-soaped sponges by referencing millions of dollars in sales orders, business, and revenue from five primary customers that purportedly accounted for 99 percent of Spongetech's business, yet none of those customers actually existed.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Metter, Moskowitz, Spongetech, and RM Enterprises used false and baseless attorney opinion letters by Pensley and Halperin to distribute shares of Spongetech to the public. Metter, Moskowitz, and Spongetech also used false and misleading attorney opinion letters — forged in Pensley's name and in the name of a fictitious lawyer, David Bomart — which were transmitted to Spongetech's transfer agents. The SEC further alleges that Speranza created websites and rented unoccupied office space for the fictional customers in an attempt to legitimize them.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Spongetech violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-13, 15d-1, 15d-11, and 15d-13. The complaint alleges that RM Enterprises violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The SEC alleges Metter and Moskowitz violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, 13b2-2 (Moskowitz only), and 15d-14, and Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and aided and abetted Spongetech's violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 15(d) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-13, 15d-1, 15d-11, and 15d-13. The SEC further alleges Speranza violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and aided and abetted violations of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission also alleges Pensley and Halperin violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.