Replies to post #270571 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[loanranger]

spit,
re: "concluded it was forced upon SPNG by the state of Delaware and was not voluntary".
Apologies if I left that impression. I did not mean to suggest that Delaware wrote their laws with SPNG in mind. But I believe they wrote the law requiring common shareholder class approval of any increase or decrease of authorized shares OF ITS CLASS to deal with a situation like SPNG's. They did not want a class of stock created that could dictate the authorized number of common shares without allowing the common shareholders to have a clear say in that decision. So SPNG's Articles are written to voluntarily comply with the law, but they really have no choice.

Please keep in mind that this is just my opinion from my reading of Delaware law and SPNG's Articles of Incorporation. So far no one agrees with it and I have no special skills in this area, so I can't say as I blames 'em.

Good Luck.

[puppydotcom]

Great Post, and this argues strongly in favor of no further dilution without the consent of a majority of common shareholders.

not so .. spongy does not need common shares holders consent to impose a R/S or raise the A/S or dilute the share holders .. I don't know where you got this information from .. but its 100% incorrect as in " wrong "

[MacFly]

Per the Edgar Form 4 it looks as though Pike Capital sopped up 100 million+ shares in the .032 area. Its my guess that they're unloading these in the .04-.05 range we're seeing now. Until these shares re-bought by retail, this might stay rangebound.