And nothing has been proven against SPNG...if there is then provide the links saying so.
There is no SPNG
don't you get this?
The company no longer exists
The SEC charged the corporation and the crooks with Securities fraud
The judge is in the process of discharging the chapter 7 liquidation of whats left of the old SPNG
The SEC will revoke the stock - there are no if's, and or buts ..
The stock will be revoked
SPNG is gone = the company NO LONGER exists
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.
