Retired
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Sooooo, the SEC counsel is a "liar" and the SEC itself is "misusing their powers"? The conspiracy theory gets thickerer and thickerer.
You figure she agreed acuz she's "scared"?
Obviously inconsequential.
OMFW! Now the SEC is "scared"? Just another dbmm conspiracy theory.
Atty Williams being quoted now? If memory serves, wasn't someone here adamant about her being a "liar"?
Had dbmm adopted a less belligerent stance with the deficiencies identified, perhaps the result might have been more favorable?
Someone yesterday was looking to buy an 8m share block at 0.0008. No doubt a short looking to end the madness.
That (vacating a decision) would certainly be one answer but I simply cannot see how it is that for Atty. Williams following the letter of the SEC law is anything but simply doing her job.
One hundred sixteen (116) pages outlining what dbmm could maybe do if they only followed the rules to begin with. AKA, the Maranda Gambit.
Lest we forget:
Digital Brand has now filed the required information on its reporting controls for the 2018 annual report, but not for the four deficient quarterly reports.
CONCLUSION
Digital Brand has not cured the filing failures that led to the institution of these proceedings; nor has Digital Brand cured the deficiencies found by the Division of Corporation Finance in its more recent filings. Revocation is mandated here.
October 23, 2019
Samantha M. Williams
Securites and Exchange Commission
Division of Enforcement
100 F Street, N .E.
Washington, DC 20549
T: 202.551.4061
F: 202. 772.9292
williamssam@sec.gov
Counsel for the Division of Enforcement
Prolly because that's what she's being paid to do? Just spitballing here. You think King Reggie is telling her to agree with Atty. Williams?
Gotta go -- last word is yours. Go!
Why? (chuckle) -- dbmm desperation. Trying to buy their way out of a serious situation brought upon by none other than themselves would be a pretty fair reason. Whattayathink?
I dunno -- just to get that crap off their desks? The floor is yours. Why would Atty. Williams vehemently recommend revocation?
SEC Counsel Atty. Samantha recommending immediate revocation. Why?
No answer, eh? Shocking.
"Future potentials"? (chuckle) Have you READ the financials? READ!
Assumptions made predicated upon incomplete DD can be injurious to one's financial health.
Nothing. Happens. Until. The. Judge. Says. So.
The dump this time around was/is, IMO, those who jumped on the bandwagon thinking that something positive was taking place getting back out again. In fact, it was the "upgrade" to 'Expert' that was the catalyst for all the excitement which, as we all now know, has run its course. So it's back to the nuts and bolts of the thing -- ain't nothin' happening until the judge says so.
14 century spam. IMO.
Doing her job not based on laws and fact but on personal ill will.
What possible circumstance would cause a professional SEC counsel to have "personal ill will"?
Allegations of that nature without proof could land the accuser in serious legal difficulties, IMO.
Samantha needs to understand the company has made serious efforts and it is not easy to do below.
Atty Samantha simply following the rules; I.E., If you do this, this happens. If you don't file your mandated reports, revocation takes place. Please forgive me if I paraphrase. Further, if you wish to contest the rules, you do so at your own risk.
I believe SEC counsel has a firm grasp of the situation.
Link to proof, please.
Asher again?? Are they the "Investment Bankers" champing at the bit to go for another ride? Sounds suspiciously like another conspiracy theory.
Investment Bankers!! LOL. Sounds like the old days when Lady Linda allowed as how there was a "cadre" of buyers looking to arrange "mezzanine financing". NOT
You could be totally correct. Not saying anything but. The "Expert" upgrade (call it what you will) created the only uptick opportunity available short of a positive decision by the judge. And IF that decision does manage to come down in our lifetime, the bounce will be instant all by itself. LOL
Abject bullshit! She's doing her job! Nothing more nor less. IMO
Nor has reinstatement.
Have read -- not germane to the situation but thanks for the uninvited info.
Yes, the past has one very large obstacle to overcome -- that being fact, not wishful thinking. Based on their latest Q's, there is no evidence of business being anything but 'same-old, same-old'. Any glimmer of improvement in that arena and I would be pleased as punch to join in on your decennal (?) run up. Don't see it, however. Once bit, twice shy.
Truth be known, this used to be a $2.00+ stock. Then it dropped to triple-ott. Then the 100/1 rs that brought it back up to respectability -- then back down to triple-ott due to busted promises and poor performance. Then, the 1000/1 rs that brought it out of the ditch (PPS-wise, not investor-wise) once more. Then --- guess what --- back to triple-ott for all the same reasons. The only thing that's brought them up for air has been a very well planned and executed pump and the 'upgrade' to Expert category that resulted in yet another pump that might have worked out well had it not been for the judge's lack of cooperation. Nope, they've spent a huge portion of their business career in a trough so deep they've got to be fed with a slingshot.
NOT IMO -- FACT
Rare?! Hardly. dbmm is extremely familiar with triple-ott territory. Further, no amount of dreaming or info-spamming is going to have any affect on the judge's decision.
In a nutshell, as I recall, the company was forced to produce a Super 10k covering their 2-1/2 years of non-filing or get themselves punted. They did put together what they thought was a sufficient document. The sec disagreed and pointed to several inadequacies in need of remedy. DBMM, instead of saying; "Yes sir. Right away sir." came off as a trifle belligerent in their compliance which certainly did not endear them with the powers that be. There will be, I'm sure, more points to the story but this is what I remember from this exciting period of dbmm's existence.
All IMO, of course.
If I am reading right, it would be unwise to infer that dbmm can NEVER be revoked.
But ... but ... what if the judge says "no"?
Actually, maybe they're selling in order to not LOSE that $40 bucks. Just sayin'.