LR, you seem a little overzealous to win this ongoing debate on spng. As a result, you have grossly overstated and mischaracterized my comments.
First, I only stated certain facts based on the latest available information. For example, according to the latest and only audited financial statements, SPNG has no secured debt outstanding. Furthermore, according to these reports, SPNG has no long term debt outstanding or listed on its books. I never claimed that information was accurate, reliable or gospel. And I can only assume a certain level of intelligence will read and/or respond to my posts. Hopefully you and others have enough IQ to evaluate whether the information provided is authentic, reliable, credible and/or authoritative. If not, then perhaps you shouldn't be investing in, or commenting on penny stocks like SPNG.
Second, I never said SPNG didn't have any problems, or that it was a great or even good investment. In fact, I've made no recommendation on the stock. Instead I've presented information for review and generally to counter some of the one sided, overly negative and obviously biased comments being posted around the clock and on a 24/7 basis.
Third, most of you posting overly negative and biased comments have argued the lawsuits should be treated exactly as a senior secured debt obligation when no judgment has been awarded. Furthermore, it's doubtful these suits will be resolved any time soon. Rather it could take years before any suit settles or any damages awarded - if any damages will be awarded.
And you've ignored that SPNG has their own lawsuit claiming some $90 million in damages. Regardless, no suit has been won against SPNG and no damages awarded. That outcome is undecided, and likely to remain so for some time. So who's Kosher and who's not - me for posting the only available financials or you for claiming a lawsuit filed is the same liability as a senior secured debt obligation. Also, A&M, the forensic investigator makes NO MENTION of any secured debentures owed by SPNG.
Last, twisting my words about USXP is not Kosher. I never claimed USXP had a favorable outcome for shareholders. The fact I posted the Receiver, Jane Moskowitz's report on USXP and the $700 million jury award makes that only too clear.
I merely stated some of the relevant facts, which you seem only too eager to distort. I have no trouble accepting that M&M committed securities fraud in order to sell illegal, unregistered shares of SPNG. But I also have no trouble accepting what I've seen with my own eyes suggesting SPNG is also the victim of an aggressive (naked) short and distort campaign, which is equally abusive and illegal, and it too defrauds SPNG investors/shareholders by manipulating them into selling, while further driving the pps lower and lower.
There are a lot of shares in circulation - a lot more in fact than either M&M seem capable of distributing onto the public markets. I've said in multiple other posts, here and elsewhere, for M&M to have sold "approximately 2.5 billion illegal, unregistered shares" as alleged by the Feds, one or more Broker Dealers would have to have accepted the shares in on deposit and for eventual resale onto the public markets. And any BD willing to accept a large volume of unregistered shares of a penny stock like SPNG from M&M, would also be very likely to add their own into circulation through naked short selling. One crime begats another so to speak. In other words, I think SPNG stinks on both sides of the ledger. It looks like M&M sold illegal shares and it looks like some broker dealers and/or market makers helped themselves to some illegal profits by selling a whole bunch of share short, as in naked short.
AI
