"what part of this mess don't you understand?"
Now that sounds like manipulative statement patch, considering it's obvious that I "understand" a lot more of the FACTS of this "mess" than you either grasp, or you're willing to acknowledge.
I'll go with the former since confusion (grasping concepts) seems apparent in your post:
For example:
"Regarding the lawsuits...it is not a matter of a lawsuit..."
What?
If a lawsuit is not a matter of a lawsuit then why is it being called a lawsuit? Perhaps you can explain that bit of twisted logic?
And:
"Regarding the lawsuits, they involved unpaid debts so its not a matter of a lawsuit,"
Whoa - Ok.
Also:
"Regarding the lawsuits, they involved unpaid debts so it's not a matter of a lawsuit, it is a matter of relating to the invoices that were not paid."
Ok, what a statement. A lawsuit is not a lawsuit but an invoice not paid. That about sum up your thought on that matter?
Patch, a lawsuit is a lawsuit period. And until a judgment has been rendered or an award made, there is no liability owed by the company. And in fact, this isn't a matter of an unpaid invoice, but rather a contractual dispute. Since these suits involve contractual obligations, it will be up to a judge, jury or arbitration panel to decide the outcome. And with all legal disputes, the outcome remains undecided until it has been legally decided. And that could take years and end up being decided in SPNG's favor. You're making nothing but assumptions in this matter.
And whoa:
"Dicon is the sole producer of products..."
Ok, no argument but so what, since SPNG owns Dicon?
Yes, the judge can in fact grant the plaintiff's motion and freeze the assets or grant their new motion and appoint a receiver. Thanks for stating the obvious.
And I'm just curious: why are you so eager to see this company destroyed. Personally I don't care what happens to Michael Metter or Steven Moskowitz, Halperin, or et al for that matter, but I would like to see the underlying business survive and those jobs remain in tact. Why would you or anybody for that matter want this company to have assets frozen or for that matter, go into receivership, since that would amount to a complete destruction of this business? The only viable reason anyone would want to see the company destroyed and the jobs lost would be to benefit from a short position, or from a similar concern.
Can you explain why you're so eager to see the company destroyed, especially after you've acknowledge a business selling millions of dollars worth or product?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
