Replies to post #273835 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[puppydotcom]

if there is NO FILING from a market maker .. they can't hold anything up .. thats the point I'm trying to make!

no market maker has filed ...

if they did try to hold it up it would be additional questions to the market maker about the requirements just like they would ask any other company. FINRA or the SEC has no reason to hold anything up for spongy and in order for spongy to get the 211 all filings must be filed .. your argument just makes no sense - because spongy does not qualify for a 211 filing

plus the broker would be talking with spongy over the additional question information asked by FINRA if there were any .. and it would be transparent to all of them

and

all spongy has to do is file all current reports and all of spongys problems would be over unless the SEC decides to file civil actions on them or DOJ criminal actions. usually a settlement comes into play long before that happens if there are no major violations

[puppydotcom]

Everything in this world, including the SEC/FINRA doesn't go exactly how YOU or many think, or by the book. Thats been proven over and over again.

again, the facts are the facts

there is no 211 fling .. there is no Market Maker sponsoring spongy for the 211 ..

The main requirements are:

current 10K
or
current 10Q
AND
the 8k

the flings must be submitted through Edgar to be effective

FINRA nor the SEC is NOT holding up anything to do with spongy

The SEC investigation is investigation the company for securities violations and have suspended them to the grey market. The company last filed periodic reports on Feb 2009 (10 months ago) the next 10K is coming due Plus - and the company must also redo 2008 filings. Spongy is still a fully reporting company and is required to file periodic reports through Edgar. Failure to maintain the current reporting status if not it will and can lead to the revoking of the securities reregistration

------------------------------------------------
prime example ...

SEC News Digest

Issue 2009-204
October 23, 2009
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
Securities and Exchange Commission Orders Hearing on Registration Revocation Against Eight Public Companies for Failure to Make Required Periodic Filings

On Oct. 22, 2009, the Commission instituted public administrative proceedings to determine whether to revoke or suspend for a period not exceeding twelve months the registrations of each class of the securities of eight companies for failure to make required periodic filings with the Commission:

* Redtop Mountain Corp. (n/k/a Weblogix, Inc.)
* Reliable Power Systems, Inc.
* Renaissance Acceptance Group, Inc.
* Republic Goldfields, Inc.
* Rexon, Inc. (n/k/a Tecmar Technologies, Inc.)
* River Oaks Furniture, Inc.
* Roberds, Inc.
* Rochem Environmental, Inc.

In this Order, the Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that the eight issuers are delinquent in their required periodic filings with the Commission.

In this proceeding, instituted pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j), a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge will hear evidence from the Division and the Respondents to determine whether the allegations of the Division contained in the Order, which the Division alleges constitute failures to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 or 13a-16 thereunder, are true. The Administrative Law Judge in the proceeding will then determine whether the registrations pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 of each class of the securities of these Respondents should be revoked or suspended for a period not exceeding twelve months. The Commission ordered that the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding issue an initial decision not later than 120 days from the date of service of the order instituting proceedings. (Rel. 34-60867; File No. 3-13662)


http://edgar.sec.gov/news/digest/2009/dig102309.htm