Replies to post #330429 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[loanranger]

So cynical.
I think the reference was to doo diligence. There was plenty of that.

BTW, The as-yet-to-be appointed Dicon Trustee's attorney just filed an 84 page Supplement to Sale Motion that responds to a number of the points made in the SPNG Trustee's Objections to the Sale.
As usual I am unable to link or otherwise reproduce it. The thing that makes me feel REALLY badly about my inability to do that is that there a couple of people on the SPNG LONG BOARD that seem to get it done with ease. I keep blaming it on my Apple stuff, but I think I'm just fooling myself.

[loanranger]

Just to make sure this thing isn't broken (no posts all day), I'm gonna type something and see if anything happens.

Yesterday I posted the following passage from Silverman's Objections to the sale of Dicon's assets:
"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."

We had a little chuckle about the due diligence thing.

Then I read it again. I'll summarize it...and I'd like to hear from anyone, absolutely anyone, that feels that this misrepresents what it says:
Silverman has received a bunch of letters, recorded in the case under certain specific docket numbers, from shareholders who have expressed a strong interest in submitting a bid at a significant price for the consolidated assets of Dicon and Spongetech.

It does say that, doesn't it?

Well, somehow I found myself able to simultaneously read those letters and watch a thrice(?) retired old man with an M on his hat perform more like a bunny than a viking for the second week in a row. And guess what. NOT ONE of those letters from shareholders "expressed a strong interest in submitting a bid at a significant price for the consolidated assets of Dicon and Spongetech". Docket 149 isn't even a letter from a shareholder. In fact, it isn't a letter.

I can think of a half dozen people that could be expected to have this kind of "accident", none of whom has the word Trustee ahead of his name.


I hope that at least one person will take the time to read the letters and prove me wrong. I'd almost rather be proven wrong and have to apologize than think that the Trustee and his partner/attorney intentionally deceived the court on an issue that the court is sure to question. The import is that there are known bidders and the court will read those letters to see who they are. The urge to consolidate must be very strong....it seems to be affecting some people's judgment.