Replies to post #328423 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[patchman]

Like I said, demand all you want. They could do it and find nothing wrong and they have no obligation to respond to you. If they find anything they will bring civil action against violators.

3-Billion shares.

Did you read the criminal indictment against the Mutt Brothers?

[patchman]

Shaggy, did Jay's memo to the court impress you?

Funny thing about that letter.

1. Never addresses the fact that SPNG does not make a profit and never has.
2. Never addresses the fact that there is a reported $11 Million in Accounts Payable to deal with.
3. Never addresses the fact that there are significant open legal matters to deal with.
4. Fails to recognize that to re-start this pig it will require capital (better than $10 Million) to get this losing company back up and running.

So lets say the courts recover $38 Million from the Mutts (which I sincerely doubt they will). They pay out the lawsuits, pay out the AP, and pay off the DIP financing and Trustee. Lets say that leaves you with $10 Million (big bonus to you here). Now divide $10 Million by 3 Billion shares. That's $0.0033/share. Nobody here is clean at $0.0033 and in fact, none deserve the re-start of a pig company for that price considering all had since October to sell out their position higher but refused.

[cowtown jay]

Hello, Shaggybob

Patch isn't going to like this, but the truth is, I actually wished he would have endorsed my letter to Judge Bernstein.

And some time ago, I had written a letter to the SEC and OIG, in which I likewise hoped that Patch would have evaluated differently than he did.

But Patch is under no obligation other than to react in whatever way he chooses, as he has every right to do.

But to the point. The issue of a share reconciliation may be one Judge Bernstein doesn't recognize prior to granting a conversion to Chapter 7. Creditors and shareholders get wiped out, and the company is effectively killed.

What, then, if the issue is brought up again in the criminal case? And a share reconciliation is ordered at that time, revealing a huge phantom float? And further, if it is subsequently discovered that certain of the offenses charged to M&M were, in fact, perpetrated by others? What then?

In asking questions for which objectivity is sought, I will be jumped on for defending M&M, etc., which is not my intent. Just as it is not my intent to hold them guilty.

I just don't see how a favorable decision in the criminal case can be reconciled to an unfavorable action in the bankruptcy case.