Replies to post #263355 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[Leirum]

Good thoughts on a subject we do not have much experience. However,I called a friend of mine who is a SEC lawyer and his opinion is "no" this rule doesn,t apply to SPNG. The good point he mentioned: As this company no doubt is surrounded by excellent lawyers - they have been mentioned and one has to admitt they are top - those people will navigate SPNG through this difficult time in a way, which in hindsight will be clear to the point and have no room left for further questions. As they know the SEC and FINRA rules we should not worry about exceeding a certain reporting limit.

[Stock Stallion]

yep thats the way i see it as well.

[loanranger]

Please explain this:
"I see it as a fully reporting otcbb issuer"

in view of these excerpts from SPNG's own 8-K:
Item 3.01 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.

"The Company’s shares of common stock will not be eligible for continued quotation on the OTC Bulletin Board if the Company fails to comply with this requirement."
"If the Company does not request a hearing with a FINRA Hearing Officer, or file its Annual Report by October 16, 2009, it is anticipated that the Company’s shares of common stock will be delisted effective October 20, 2009 as set forth in the FINRA letter. "


BTW, IF they had a hearing they wouldn't have been spared the delisting based on:
"The Hearing Officer will consider only the issues of whether the issuer's security is then eligible for quotation in the Service and/or whether the issuer filed a complete report by the applicable due date taking into account any extensions pursuant to SEA Rule 12b-25. The Hearing Officer shall not have discretion to grant any extensions of time for ineligible securities to become eligible."

If they caught up on their filings tomorrow they could theoretically get an MM to File a Form 211 that would allow for "immediate" quotation if approved.
If they were currently in violation of Rule 6530 that would not be the case.
It's my opinion that they cannot violate the pertinent section(s) of Rule 6530 without being an OTCBB listed company, which I believe I have shown them not to be.

It is interesting.