News Focus
News Focus
Followers 7
Posts 129
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/16/2008

Re: puppydotcom post# 323216

Sunday, 06/20/2010 5:30:45 PM

Sunday, June 20, 2010 5:30:45 PM

Post# of 346953
"I very much doubt the receiver will be interested in fighting any legitimate judgment or lawsuit after review..."

I have no argument with your statement. Only I ask, has the judge granted the motion to appoint a receiver?

"and we have no idea...what the company has been hiding from everyone as far as lawsuits and other liabilities."

FYI, the company can't hide anything, since it is not a living being, with a mind or any ability to think or act. In other words, while M&M may be guilty of all sorts of criminal endeavors, including selling illegal, unregistered shares of SPNG and then hiding the proceeds of their illgotten gains; the company itself, would be incapable of planning or carrying out such activity.

And that's where I think the Feds may have erred in naming SPNG one of the defendents in this particular case. Since it's been demonstrated that SPNG has a legitimate business, or at least $7.7 million worth, I don't believe it should have been named as such in the complaint.

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today