Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc (fka SPNGQ)

[hoggey1]

"So you're basing your proof and decisions on a report from a company that used facts and figures supplied by moski & metter?"

Actually not Freddy. You couldn't be more wrong and you're right, it is incredibly funny, that you would even suggest that to be the case, since that clearly shows you've no idea what facts and figures are included or relevant.

And for you to even suggest that I would rely on information provided by defendants, M&M, is both ignorant & defamatory. If you had read my commentaries, posted here and elsewhere, you'd know only too well that my DD is very thorough, to "say the least."

Obviously you're the one lacking "facts and figures." So let me give you a few relevant "facts and figures" to chew on.

Let's be very clear here Fred, the Alvarez & Marsal report does NOT rely on "facts and figures" provided by Moskowitz & Metter. And in fact, had you read the report, you'd see that A&M was very careful not to rely on any "facts & figures supplied by" M&M.

A&M selected only those "facts & figures" from independently verifiable sources like customers (i.e Walmart, Walgreens, Dollar Tree, Dollar General), and where the shipments were made directly from company facilities and/or vendors, and using well know third party carriers (i.e Federal Express, UPS, etc), and the transactions selected were those where customer payments were made via check or wire transfer.

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/pmhcL

Furthermore Freddy, A&M was very careful in selecting the sales transactions for review and inclusion in their report. In other words, only those transactions involving multiple layers of indepedently verifiable documented facts & figures were "selected" for review and documentation.

And it's worth noting, so far at least, that neither the DOJ or SEC have disputed the A&M report.

Quote:

"On January 28, 2010, Spongetech, through counsel retained Alvarez & Marsal Dispute Analysis & Forensic Services, LLC (A&M), a leading professional services firm."

Now Pay CLOSE ATTENTION to the details.

"A&M recently performed a review of certain sales documentation for Spongetech and Dicon for purposes of the SEC's motion. A&M selected certain sales transactions that occured during the period of June 01, 2009 through April 30, 2010 and examined available supporting documentation. A&M found that the documentation available for the selected sales supported the amounts reflected in the schedules of sales transactions by customer provided by the Companies and reported in its findings to Counsel and the SEC."

Since paying CLOSE ATTENTION to details doesn't appear to be your thing, let me call your attention to some of the more relevant details. For example, A&M states, "it performed a review of CERTAIN SALES documentation for Spongetech and Dicon." Furthermore, A&M states in its report that it "SELECTED CERTAIN SALES TRANSACTIONS that occured."

So A&M didn't rely on facts or figures provided by M&M. Instead they were careful to "select certain sales transactions" that contained enough indepent documentation to verify the orders. In fact, A&M very carefully selected only the sales transactions that had all the independent documentation for verification. And A&M included the documentation necessary to verify the accuracy of that report. I suggest you check the facts next time before making any more assumptions or accusations.

Furthermore, as the A&M report states, Spongetech & Dicon provide jobs for 23 salaried employees and another 57 commissioned sales reps. A little common sense maybe...For example, it would be difficult, if not impossible to keep those workers if the company couldn't meet its payroll. And the fact they've kept these workers on payroll provides additional verification to the $7.7 million in sales documented by A&M. Since people don't work for free or in lieu of compensation, it's fairly safe to conclude the company generates more than enough business to provide jobs for 80 salaried and/or commissioned workers.

http://savannahnow.com/node/519378

And you can find other sources to verify that this is a valid and legitimate business, making products, generating sales and providing jobs through other independently verifiable sources, like for example, the Savannah Morning News - see link above.

"Dicon To Build Facility in North Bryan County"

"Governor Sonny Perdue and the development authority announced Dicon's plans June 19.

Now would you consider the Gov. of Georgia who made the announcement about Dicon, or for that matter, the Savannah Morning News which reported on the event, reliable sources?

"We've gotten a lot of positive feedback" Register said of the announcement. "It's a great thing for our county."

"The company, a medical component and supplier to our troops, will invest approximately $3.7 million"

"The facility is expected to be open by the end of this year." This year being 2008.

Ok Freddy, you can claim my "Facts and Verification" are "inadequate to say the least," but so far you prove yourself to be the one who's idea of "facts and verification" to be "inadequate," --- "to say the least."

Now is that a "defensive posture" on my part, or just a well thought out and thoroughly substantiated reply I've made in order to refute your false and misleading claims about my post and the A&M report? BTW, that's a rhetorical question.