Replies to post #301177 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[dalessan]

If D&D didn't find out they were revoked until June, why would they not conduct business as usual in May? and if they found out in June, who knows what date they informed Mosky that they had to resign? and how would Mosky have known about it in May?

This part of your post makes no sense to me. We don't know when Mosky was informed of the revocation...it may have been at the time of D&D's resignation,which was in July. If this was the case, I think he does have legs to stand on in court.

[loanranger]

Christy,
The declarative sentence continues to come between us.
"D&D had to observe inventory at the Dicon plants on May 31st." (Do you think the staff [:o)] of Drakeford had to observe the taking of inventory in China in the prior year in accordance with GAAS?)
"The SEC knows this to be a fact, based on depositions with D&D, R&H and review of PCAOB evidence files."
These are reasonable conclusions in ordinary circumstances, but you cannot know them to be facts. Can you?

But I'd rather you help me with:
"Mosky knew in May about D&D." and "Why do the audit work, if he knew about the PCAOB issues".
Are you saying that the Drakeford accountant new in advance of the order that he would be revoked? Is that typical? Otherwise, no one has an obligation to file on mere "issues", regardless of their potential impact. Right?

"He lied about this information 8 weeks later (50 days late), and corrected himself on Sept 16th (105 days Late). This admission of his lie, is based on advice from the much heralded SEC attorney Siegal IMO."
For this to be true, I believe it would mean that Siegel provided that advice 6 weeks before his first "notice of appearance" in the class action. Is it reasonable to think that he was on board prior to the trading suspension?


I KNOW that I could learn a lot from you......if I could only keep the facts separate from the assumptions based on experience.