They started it on i crud, I dd and finish them off! DUNG they are , junk companies and a few posters on i crud!

INFORMATION FOR CMKM DIAMONDS INVESTORS

CIVIL ACTION AGAINST CMKM DIAMONDS, INC., URBAN CASAVANT, et al.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

This alert provides information relating to the SEC’s civil injunctive action against CMKM Diamonds, Urban Casavant et al. The complaint, filed in April 2008, seeks various remedies, including civil penalties and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. In cases where the SEC obtains a judgment to recover money from the defendants, and the defendants do not comply with the judgment by paying the money, the SEC will seek to enforce the judgment.

It is not yet known how much money will be recovered in this case. If the assets ultimately collected are sufficient for a practical and economically feasible distribution of funds to investors, the SEC may by motion to the court propose a plan to distribute the funds. No funds can be distributed to investors unless and until the court approves a distribution plan. We will post information about any proposed or final distribution plan on this page when it becomes available. We also post information about distribution plans on the Investor Claims Fund section of our website.

The judgments entered in this case direct that disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalty amounts be paid to the Clerk of the Court for the District of Nevada for deposit into an interest bearing account with the Court Registry Investment System. For information about any payments that may be made to the Clerk, please access the Court’s  website .

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On August 1, 2011, the federal district court in the District of Nevada entered a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Against Defendants 1st Global Stock Transfer, LLC, Helen Bagley, Sergey Rumyantsev, and Brian Dvorak. The court ordered:

• Dvorak to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $409,638.11;
• Bagley and 1st Global, jointly and severally, to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $448,047.87; and
• Rumyantsev to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $48,254.63.

In addition, the court ordered that Dvorak, Bagley and Rumyantsev be permanently barred from participating in any offering of penny stock. Dvorak, Bagley and 1st Global have filed notices of appeal from the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

• Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Against Defendants 1st Global Stock Transfer, LLC, Helen Bagley, Sergey Rumyantsev, and Brian Dvorak

On October 18, 2011, the SEC instituted administrative proceedings against Rumyantsev, and based on the permanent injunction entered by the court, ordered that Rumyantsev be barred from association with any broker or dealer, with the right to reapply after five years to the appropriate self-regulatory organization, or if there is none, to the Commission.

• Administrative Proceedings against Rumyantsev (October 18, 2011)

On February 9, 2010, the federal district court in the District of Nevada entered a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Against Defendant Anthony Santos. The court ordered Santos to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $5,356.35 and a civil penalty of $45,000. In addition, the court ordered that Santos be barred from participating in any offering of penny stock for five years from the date of the judgment.

• Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Against Defendant Anthony Santos (February 9, 2010)

On February 25, 2010, the SEC instituted administrative proceedings against Santos and, based on the permanent injunction entered by the court, ordered that Santos be barred from association with any broker or dealer, with the right to reapply for association after five years to the appropriate self-regulatory organization, or if there is none, to the Commission.

• Administrative Proceedings against Santos (February 25, 2010)

On December 4, 2009, the federal district court in the District of Nevada granted the SEC’s motions for default judgment against defendants NevWest Securities Corporation, Ginger Gutierrez, and James Kinney. The court ordered:

• NevWest to pay $299,459.70 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $275,000;
• Gutierrez individually to pay $2,177,888.67 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and a $2,000,000 civil penalty;
• Kinney individually to pay $3,593,516.32 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and a $3,300,000 civil penalty; and
• Gutierrez and Kinney jointly and severally to pay $762,261.02 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest.

The court ordered the defendants to pay these amounts to the Clerk of the Court for the District of Nevada within ten business days. Any amounts paid to the Clerk will be deposited into an interest-bearing account with the Court Registry Investment System.

• Order Granting Default Judgment Against Defendant Nev West Securities Corporation (December 4, 2009);
• Order Granting Default Judgment Against Defendants Ginger Gutierrez and James Kinney (December 4, 2009).

On September 17, 2009, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas, Nevada unsealed a criminal indictment charging six defendants – John Edwards, Urban Casavant, Helen Bagley, Brian Dvorak, James Kinney, and Ginger Gutierrez – with securities fraud and related charges for their conduct in the CMKM Diamonds matter. For more information, please see the press release dated  September 21, 2009 . On April 28, 2010, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas unsealed a superseding indictment that named additional defendants. For more information, please see the  indictment .

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2008, the SEC filed a civil injunctive action against CMKM Diamonds, Inc., its former Chairman and CEO, Urban Casavant, and 12 other defendants involved in the alleged illegal issuance and sale of unregistered stock of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., purportedly a diamond and gold mining company located in Las Vegas, Nevada. The SEC charged all of the defendants with violating the registration provisions of the federal securities laws. In addition, the Commission charged CMKM and Casavant with violating the antifraud and various reporting, record keeping, and internal controls provisions.

• Litigation Release No. 20519 :  Securities and Exchange Commission v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., et al , United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Civil Action No. 08- CV 0437 (April 7, 2008)
• Complaint

SELECTED COURT ORDERS

• Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction Against Defendant CMKM Diamonds, Inc. (April 21, 2008)
  
  On April 21, 2008, the court entered a final judgment against CMKM Diamonds, Inc. enjoining it from future violations of the federal securities laws.

• Order Granting SEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants John Edwards, Daryl Anderson, and Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso (June 23, 2009)

• Final Judgment of Permanent Junction and Other Relief Against Defendant Urban Casavant (September 2, 2009)

OTHER SEC ACTIONS CONCERNING CMKM DIAMONDS

• Litigation Release No. 20855 : Securities and Exchange Commission v. Marco Glisson, Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-00104 (D. Nevada) (January 15, 2009)
  • Complaint
  • Litigation Release No. 22340 :  Securities and Exchange Commission v. Marco Glisson, Civil Action No. 2:09-cv (SEC Obtains $4.8 Million Judgment against Marco Glisson who was Charged with Making a Market in Deregistered Securities of CMKM Diamonds, Inc.) (April 23, 2012)
• In the Matter of Daryl Anderson , Admin. Proc. File No. 3-13156 (September 2, 2008) (Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Notice of Hearing)
  • Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58958 (November 14, 2008) (Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
• In the Matter of CMKM Diamonds, Inc, Initial Decision Release No. 291, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-11858 (July 12, 2005)
  • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 52694 (October 28, 2005) (Order Dismissing Review Proceedings and Notice of Finality)
• Release No. 34-51305 (March 3, 2005) (Trading Suspension: CMKM Diamonds, Inc., aka Casavant Mining Kimberlite International, Inc.)

http://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/claims/c...062309.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In late 2009,  Madison Square Garden executives were getting fed up with one of the most prominent sponsors at  New York Knicks and Rangers games. Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc., a small, publicly traded company that had emerged from nowhere months earlier, was chronically late paying for the ads it bought near the arena's basketball hoop and other key locations.

One exasperated MSG sales manager showed up at Spongetech's offices on West 33rd Street on the morning of Dec. 4 to collect in person after his repeated messages went unreturned. Spongetech's chief operating officer, Steven Moskowitz, gave him a check for $360,000 and then quickly left the office, saying he had another obligation.

The MSG executive noticed the check wasn't written from Spongetech's account. He raced to a garage where Mr. Moskowitz was waiting for his car and demanded he pay up, pronto, according to an affidavit filed in New York state court. Mr. Moskowitz told him to come back to the office in a while. A few hours later, the MSG representative watched as the COO wrote another $360,000 check.

In a response filed in court, Mr. Moskowitz acknowledged that his first check contained a "typographical error." But he insisted the check was never intended to pay Spongetech's bill. Rather, it was for an amount owed to MSG by another company he helped run.

Whatever the case, the check failed to clear. The following week, the president of MSG Sports, who was more accustomed to working with blue-chip sponsors like JPMorgan Chase and Coca-Cola, got an apologetic email from Spongetech Chief Executive Michael Metter. The CEO explained that cash flow was "tight" because Spongetech wouldn't get paid by retailers who sold its SpongeBob SquarePants line of sponges until after Christmas.

"We are unlike most of your advertisers," Mr. Metter wrote.

Truer words were never written. MSG executives didn't know it at the time, but theirs was the latest sports operation about to get soaked by a sponge company.

Six months after the email, Mr. Metter and Mr. Moskowitz were arrested and charged by federal prosecutors with faking 99% of Spongetech's sales. Seven people were indicted, and all but Mr. Metter have pleaded guilty to a variety of crimes, from securities fraud to slicing large payments into small amounts to avoid government detection. Mr. Moskowitz and his lawyer wouldn't comment for this article.

Mr. Metter's attorney, Maranda Fritz, said her client "has consistently maintained that he didn't know about or participate in the fraud at Spongetech, which Steve Moskowitz concealed from him and others."

Spongetech was liquidated after filing for bankruptcy, and while collection efforts are ongoing, MSG is unlikely to ever recover the $512,000 it is owed. "They may get a little," said bankruptcy trustee Brett Silverman, "but probably they'll get nothing."

MSG has company. The  New York Mets got stiffed out of nearly $3 million by Spongetech. The  New York Yankees ,  New York Giants , Boston Red Sox, Chicago Bears and Chicago Blackhawks also were left in the lurch after carrying ads in their stadiums that were vital in granting an aura of legitimacy to one of the more audacious penny-stock scams to emerge in years.

Ill-gotten gains

The ads, which usually contained Spongetech's stock-ticker symbol and were typically placed to maximize visibility on television, helped Messrs. Metter and Moskowitz lure new investors to a scheme in which they pocketed $52 million in illegal gains from selling Spongetech shares at inflated prices, according to the feds.

"Either they believed the product was a real product because it was some sort of real product," said Hartley Bernstein, a New York lawyer who used to help unscrupulous market operators cook up penny-stock frauds and now runs a blog explaining how to identify fraudulent companies. "Or they knew they had a phony product and wanted to make it seem real, in which case then you do things that make it look real."

Spongetech marketed itself as "America's cleaning company" and in infomercials touted its unique "high-tech cleaning system." In reality, it was in the humdrum business of selling soap-filled sponges to help clean kitchens, cars or pets. It also sold a SpongeBob SquarePants sponge filled with baby soap. As for the sponges' "tech properties," Mr. Metter explained in TV appearances that the sponges contained a patented polymer "activated by water and mechanical squeezing."

Before getting into the sponge business, Mr. Metter worked for about 20 years as a stockbroker at a number of obscure brokerages with impressive-sounding names that sounded good to people who didn't know any better. One firm, J.J. Morgan, changed its name to First Cambridge Securities after JPMorgan sued.

Along the way, Mr. Metter accumulated a long history of customer complaints, according to records with securities industry regulators. One client who was awarded a $457,000 settlement after suing for fraud told  Crain's he considered Mr. Metter to be a "mini-Madoff" at the time of his arrest. Ms. Fritz, Mr. Metter's attorney, said her client has never been personally sued by a client, though he was named in several investor complaints in his capacity as principal at First Cambridge. She added that Mr. Metter filed for bankruptcy because of the numerous legal claims he faced

Mr. Moskowitz is a resident of  Flushing , Queens, who grew up in  Forest Hills and, after graduating from Touro College followed his father into the garment business. He started his own apparel companies, including a maker of women's loungewear and robes called Romantic Moments, but none seem to have taken off. He met Mr. Metter through a headhunter, according to Ms. Fritz, and hired him to develop Spongetech's marketing and relationships with manufacturers.

For several years, Spongetech was little more than a dormant shell company. But in early 2007, its stock suddenly came to life, rising from pennies to 25 cents a share before retreating by year's end to less than a nickel. The launchpad for the action was Congregation Ohel Yitzchok, an orthodox synagogue in  Kew Gardens Hills, Queens, attended by Mr. Moskowitz along with about 30 of Spongetech's 40 employees. The synagogue wouldn't comment.

"He never told people, 'Buy the stock,' " recalled a former employee and congregant. "It was always, 'Take a look at this and see what you think.' "

What people at the synagogue and elsewhere thought they saw was a company growing like crazy. Mr. Metter forecast that Spongetech would generate $7 million in profits and sales of $40 million in 2009. Even better, Spongetech executives offered stock to friends at a discount—a virtual guarantee that lucky early investors would make money.

A sale involving a Spongetech investor named Myron Weiner illustrates how things worked. Mr. Weiner, who once worked with Mr. Metter on Wall Street and owns the Italian restaurant John's of 12th Street in Manhattan, in 2009 acquired 10 million Spongetech shares at a nickel each when the stock was quoted at 17 cents a share, according to a lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Weiner reaped a $1.2 million profit when he sold but had to return his windfall to settle with the SEC for violating rules governing restricted stock sales. He didn't return calls seeking comment.

After selling Spongetech stock to friends, the company hired four penny-stock brokers to drum up new audiences overseas for Spongetech and began issuing press releases touting new customers that prosecutors say didn't exist. The hype worked, and the shares started to rally again in the summer of 2009, enabling existing holders to cash out at a big profit. Spongetech even found a one-man accounting firm called Drakeford & Drakeford to sign off on its financial statements so everything looked legit.

The sports ads, a key part of the 2009 hype campaign for the stock, were the brainchild of Mr. Moskowitz, according to former employees and a New York sports executive. They describe Mr. Moskowitz as a big Mets fan who kept a couple of old Shea Stadium seats in his office.

The Mets were the first team to carry Spongetech ads, and the company signed a three-year advertising deal shortly before the team moved into Citi Field in 2009. Spongetech agreed to pay a bit more than $1 million a year for a large sign along the right field wall and ads elsewhere in the ballpark, according to state court documents. The company also rented a luxury suite behind third base for five seasons, starting at $250,000 per year. Because Spongetech was selling so much stock to gullible investors during the summer of 2009, it could afford to pay its bills to the Mets, at least at first.

The ads with the Mets caught the attention of MSG officials, who were impressed that the little-known company had secured a licensing agreement for SpongeBob with the cartoon character's owner, the entertainment giant Viacom. For its part, Viacom's Nickelodeon division terminated its licensing agreement after Mr. Metter and Moskowitz were arrested in 2010 and Nickelodeon was never paid past-due royalties, according to a Spongetech bankruptcy trustee's report. Viacom declined to comment.

At the time MSG was courting Spongetech, a credit check showed it was paying the Mets, according to a person close to the matter, and its product could be found in stores. Yet had MSG executives looked a little deeper they might have found red flags—such as seven letters from the Securities and Exchange Commission over a 13-month stretch, starting in March 2005, demanding that Spongetech provide more information in its financial statements.

Mr. Moskowitz signed a three-year contract with MSG on June 15, 2009, agreeing that Spongetech would pay $3.2 million a year to advertise during Knicks, Rangers and Liberty games, including a prime spot on the Rangers' Zamboni machine that cleans the ice between periods. Included in the sponsorship fee, Spongetech got a suite for six Knicks and Rangers games, two concerts and two other events. Mr. Moskowitz bragged to one employee that Spongetech got its ad space at a 67% discount because other sponsors, such as Lehman Brothers or Citigroup, were going bust or scaling back dramatically.

Beginning of the end

A person familiar with MSG's business denies Spongetech got a discount, and an MSG spokeswoman declined to comment.

Things started to come apart a day after Spongetech signed the deal with MSG. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board revoked the registration of Spongetech's auditor, effectively shutting down the accounting firm. The SEC subpoenaed Spongetech in early September, and weeks later the  New York Post ran a series of damaging articles. The stock price sank, and share sales dried up. Sensing the walls closing in, Mr. Metter and Mr. Moskowitz twice visited Sponge-tech's office to look for wiretaps at the end of the workday, climbing into ceilings and searching crevices, according to a former employee. Ms. Fritz denied the searches took place.

The game came to an end on the morning of May 5, 2010, when FBI agents arrested Mr. Metter and Mr. Moskowitz.

Mr. Moskowitz turned government witness and started wearing a wire to record conversations with Mr. Metter and others, according to a letter to the judge presiding over the case filed by Mr. Metter's lawyer. She argues that the evidence shouldn't be heard in court.

Mr. Moskowitz is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to securities fraud. According to his LinkedIn page, he has launched a new business: selling tickets to sporting events.

A version of this article appeared in the  August 6, 2012, print issue of Crain's New York Business as "Rise and fall of the Spongetech scam".

Read more:  http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120805...z2D4CTRU4Q

---

Home |  Previous Page ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes those companies are dungs! Like a few on i crud! Definition below! dung [d??] n 1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) a. excrement, esp of animals; manure b. ( as modifier )  dung cart 2. something filthy vb ICPA is full reporting! Real and True! This is in rebuttal to a public post! Not selling mine!, they only want to make a buck or two with thier slanders and load up with shares, but they don't know me and a few others have been buying! LoL! Prove any convictions by sec! They never can! Always trash talk! Go ICPA!