Replies to post #330385 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[overachiever]

It is not necessary to hit the tape...ex-clearing trades are not reported.

That is total nonsense. I executed a lot of ex-clearing trades during my career and they were all reported to the tape. Who teaches you this crap?

[loanranger]

"Well..there is a huge overhang of 50 Billion shares"

Not only is there no proof of that, there's no evidence of it. No evidence that ANY shares exist other than the 3,000,000,000 shares issued by the company itself, which provided more than adequate downward pressure on the price, especially when coupled with the litany of real world problems that management itself created....failure to file, investigation, suspension, Wells, Complaint, arrests, voluntary bankruptcy (sorry, I know some people are sick of hearing about them but others apparently need to be reminded of the REAL issues).

"Do a search on REFCO and you'll find why it went bankrupt....a huge NSS position was hidden!!!"

I actually enjoy looking into these references that are provided as examples...I learn a lot of stuff from them.
REFCO's bankruptcy wasn't precipitated by a NSS position. There is no reference to the naked shorting of REFCO shares in any of the half dozen or so articles that I read about their bankruptcy. Here's the alert from Greenberg Traurig (heard of them?) reporting the REFCO bankruptcy filing:
http://www2.gtlaw.com/pub/Alerts/2005/1008.asp
Take special note that the word "short", naked or otherwise, does not appear in its 8-9 paragraphs.

The only issue related to short selling that I found attached to the name REFCO was done BY REFCO affiliates, not TO REFCO, and it turned up in an SEC complaint which notes "Refco is currently winding down its operations in
connection with Refco Inc.'s bankruptcy pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (In re: Refco Inc., Case No. 05-60006).
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2006/comp19639.pdf
REFCO reportedly had $48Billion in assets when it filed Chapter 11......I believe it set aside $5Million (.01%) of that for the potential settlement of that complaint, which did not charge them with NAKED short selling.


The one thing that Spongetech and REFCO had in common, and it is the cause of their bankruptcy and all bankruptcies, was a lack of liquidity due to inadequate cash flows from their operations. Sorry...make that two things......they both LIED about those operations in such an exaggerated way that there was no likelihood that they would be provided the necessary outside capital to continue.
By the way, Trustee Silverman makes the following assertion in his Objections to the sale filing:
"43. During the past two months, the SpongeTech Trustee has been approached by numerous SpongeTech public shareholders who have expressed a strong interest in submitting a bid for the consolidated assets of Dicon/SpongeTech. See Separate letters from SpongeTech
shareholders, filed with the Court as Docket Nos. 133-135, 139-141, 144-145 and 147-149. The shareholders have indicated to the SpongeTech Trustee a strong interest, subject to due diligence, to consider a significant purchase price for the consolidated assets of Dicon and SpongeTech."

In the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY event that the cases and hence the assets of Dicon and Spongetech are combined and offered for sale, I'm itching to see how those "significant purchase price" bids stack up. However they do stack up, it's funny to think that the prospective bidders have an interest "subject to due diligence"...as if there hasn't been enough of THAT.






Perhaps you have another example. Just fill in the blank:
Do a search on ______ and you'll find why it went bankrupt....a huge NSS position was hidden!!!