Replies to post #323211 on Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc (fka SPNGQ)

[patchman]

hoggey,

I am not sure what part of this mess you do not understand.

Dicon is the sole producer of SPNG products and had a whopping $7.7 Million in sales of which a paltry $1.7 Million involved SPNG products.

Regarding the lawsuits, they involved UNPAID debts so it is not a matter of a lawsuit, it is a matter relating to invoices that were not paid. In any receivership they will be considered a debt. M&M are stalling on all their lawsuits because they know they have no case. They have now lost control of these lawsuits by resignation and by turning over control.

As to a freeze on assets, it is completely disassociated with a receiver. The freeze is to prevent any business decisions to be made by the crooks. The judge can freeze assets until a corporate takeover is initiated.

[puppydotcom]

Of course that couldn't be further from the truth since no judgement has been rendered or any awards made against SPNG. And as you no doubt know or at least should, lawsuits can take years to resolve while their outcome is at best uncertain. Therefore, potential liabilities from lawsuits are not the same as a secured or even unsecured debenture.

If I remember correctly some judgments have been awarded by default. I very much doubt the receiver will be interesting in fighting any legitimate judgment or lawsuit after review. Settlement is the normal course of the receiver if he feels they are with merit .. so these long drawn court battle will not likely occur

and we have no idea .. what the company has been hiding from everyone as far as lawsuits and other liabilities

the receiver paying legal fees are pretty much a thing of the past.

unless the receiver assigns some collections to an attorney for collecting money owed to spongetech

[loanranger]

"Actually LR, you seem to be the one "party to some confusion" here with regards to the A&M report."

I beg to differ. For instance, I know what is in the A&M report and what isn't. And the following items aren't in the report at all:
"the report makes it clear they work for either Spongetech or Dicon, selling "either Spongetech products or Dicon products or both.""

"And the report states these reps sell these products (only) over an areas that covers 5 geographical regions for the companies."

"the report makes a very clear distinction that these reps are employed by the companies to sell Spongetech, Dicon or both's products"

"The report states clearly these 57 reps "work for the company.""

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

But I do get it.

You would like to see the company survive.

You feel that the prospects for that survival were enhanced by the A&M findings, which were that the company as it was constituted on 6/1/09 generated sales of $1.3+ million in the ensuing 11 months and that its primary supplier, which it subsequently acquired, had sales of $6.3+ in a similar period resulting in a total of approximately $7.7 million in that period. You have suggested that these totals are domestic sales and may not include foreign sales.

You don't care about what SM & MM may have done in the past and have expressed no concern about their ongoing participation or lack thereof in the company.

You discount the likelihood that the numerous lawsuits for non-payment of services rendered will have any effect in the near term.

You believe that there could be significant hidden dollar potential in actions that may be taken against naked short sellers of whose existence you are certain and cite the success of USXP's actions as an example.

See…..I think I get it!

Now, at your leisure:
Please address the fact that the founder of Dicon, the source of better than 80% of the "total net sales" as reported, is no longer with the company and how you see that impacting the company going forward.

Please give us your thoughts on how the company might deal with the fines that will likely be imposed on it…..keeping in mind that in the USXP case the total was around $22million (pretty sure they never came up with it).

What do you think the chances of the company gaining currency in their filings might be given the requirement to 1)restate 6 10Q's and a 10K and 2)file a 10K and 3 10Q's that have yet to be filed and are overdue? In time to avoid revocation of the registration of their common shares?

Do you feel that the SEC issues will be resolved in order to allow the DTC to restore clearing services? Have you ever seen a resumption of services in a comparable situation?


"You've reached a conclusion and seem desperately determined that everyone else on this board is to share your views"
I won't deny that you are correct regarding the former, but believe it or not whether my views are shared by anyone else, let alone everyone else, is of little concern to me. Present company included. I care only about being right and objective and am comfortable in the knowledge that I'll hear about it when I'm not.

[Zorax]

As an investor with a very low CB in the shares, I care about the validity and viability of the underlying business. IMO, the A&M report adequately proves this a valid enterprise.

~!~ So you're basing your proof and decisions on a report from a company that used 'facts' and 'figures' supplied by moski and metter?
That's incredibly funny. I don't share your view or alternatives because your idea of facts and verification are inadequate to say the least. If you didn't already post it, I'm sure the line "I've been reading this board forever, but I didn't want to post until now" will make a appearance in a defensive posture..