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.
OTC Markets is the “ Affirmer” as delegated by the SEC as to which companies are Current under the new revised amendments to the 15c2-11.
That is affirmation .
The Company always spoke of a broker being identified.
Wrong again
The broker fills this out not the Company. Thousands of pages are back up as the Update states, not the submission.
Think of it like a lawyer’s brief. The brief can be 10 pgs , after reviewing all documents and appropriate law books whic
Note when filing 15c2-11
The thousands of pages of A-Z documentation must be provided by the Company to the broker. Putting the Dropbox together is interactive as the material is being aggregated, and organized for ready reference.
The broker actually prepares the application but after having all
Details verified . “…a labor intensive process.”
Announced on Sept 28 2021 by OTC Markets, when swaths of companies were removed for lack of public information. So stated on OTC Markets company site for DBMM.
Coincident with revised amendments to 15c2-11 and instruction to prepare company material. The choice is working application through OTC Markets or a broker sponsor.
The acquisition of an award winning UK digital marketing consultancy was to concentrate growth in the US, particularly NY and LA. The triangle of global digital marketing is London, New York and LA. The growth plan was only put in neutral because of the external circumstances like reaudits, litigation and delayed filings—all acknowledged by the Judge in her dismissal of the action.
Look at 10-Ks , there has been some business in the US noted in the financial statement notes as they are segmented. A large construction company just this last year as a matter of fact.
Pre-pandemic in 2018, revenues were $536,501, and there was US business of $3,627 in 2018 and $40,627 US business in 2017.
But in a global economy revenues will be generated during a growth plan which finally will be capitalized.
Chasing ridiculous distractions has stopped and funding will be applied to both organic and acquisition growth as stated in the Update.
Very few brokers are sponsoring 15c2-11. It is simply too much work and the SEC does NOT allow brokers to charge for what is sponsorship.
Therefore, the broker is taking responsibility and acts as an interface with FINRA. As such, the broker requires extensive due diligence have full documentation for all company organization and actions. As an example of detail, to regress the source and current status of each share issued in the outstanding. As stated, it is a labor intensive process.
IMO, DBMM is crafting a failsafe path to removing the CE as instructed by OTC Trading.
Well done and stay tuned...
Yes. A Shareholders Update is a PR . They are interchangeable. See link.
In 2008, the SEC allowed social media sites to be used for disseminating PRs and info in general.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-2013-51htm
Short sellers are up $114 billion this year with winning bets against Tesla and Netflix
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/24/short-sellers-are-up-114-billion-this-year-with-winning-bets-against-tesla-and-netflix.html
LIVE MARKETS Short-selling 2021 highlights | Reuters
This is a great find in conjunction with the last CNBC article.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/stocks/live-markets-short-selling-2021-highlights-2022-01-21/
Very little selling. In order to buy, someone has to sell.
Most Staying Tuned…
Another misstatement.
The Company was in no way precluded from share issuances or restructure. It has stated, however:
-Last convertible debentures issued 2015
-And convertible debentures will not be a financing vehicle after that time, last conversion was May , 2016.
- As consideration 12,000,000 restricted common shares issued on Jan 14,2019 .
On May 5, 2017 the Unauthorized PR from Asher was published, Asher PR raised red flag at SEC, May 17th OIP issued on delayed filing. Asher on bad actor , red flag list with regulators.
There were many companies which had longer delays, but all those remaining have been removed from trading, while DBMM is acknowledged Pink Current.
DBMM had mitigating circumstances to its delayed filings, and Judge Foelak acknowledged that fact, as did OTC Markets calling it Pink Current.
Cherry-picking by SEC one of reasons why OTC trading delegated to OTC Markets. Now 15c2-11 checks the last box for resumption of normal business and trading.
Stay tuned, next step removal of CE. Then onward and upward to growth model.
It was put on because filings were late, filings have been current since July, 2018 when 2 Q’s filed for 2018 after Super 10-K.
The CE was directly tied into delayed filings and lack of financial information. Once the filings were current and particularly being acknowledged as Pink Current, the public has access to all necessary information.
The CE is not required nor even referenced by the SEC, so it is totally within OTC Markets to remove it. The new amendments to the 15c2-11 require new application to resume trading.
A public Company is securities , not ‘a Company.” Being precluded from seeking securities kept Asher out of business. That was the SEC’s intent, all unbeknownst to the Civil Court because CK did not disclose it as was required. Another violation of Section 5 in the face of a Consent Decree.
The fraud was blatant on the part of Kramer. He signed the Motion to Turnover against DBMM on Oct 28, 2016 and the Cease &Desist Consent Decree on Oct 27, 2016.
Asher group of companies and CK thought they could do an end run and steal the company. Given the Consent Decree, a company operating outside the US would be a perfect foil. DBMM found out, game over.
Here you go! Please see Link below
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10239-s.pdf
Old, false as usual. See 10k 2018
Unauthorized PR , this is not court order cancelled later. This is what crooks do .
Asher wanted to end-run steal the company, and it didn’t work
Old, old old. Note summary makes no reference even in old document of a court order, because the judge cancelled it.
Let’s sum it up:
-Asher sued for $337k 2014 on $75 K principal debt
-Default dismissed and thrown out 2015, judgment $123k
-$25 k paid by DBMM on settlement of $85k
-$65k closed case 6/18/18
E xtract legal proceedings. 10k 2018, for details of closure.
Click on Order , go to Undertakings where it states CK , cannot take shares in public companies or its subsidiaries .
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2016/33-10239-s.pdf
The extract from 2018 10-k Legal Proceedings for the $65k , pls keep these docs after posting for future to shut down the disinformation. I have provided this before and it is public info.
DBMM did not pay Asher, $85k in 2016 $25k only paid. And at a deep discount, DBMM paid $ 65k on 6/18/18 to close the debt.
$35k below 2015 judgment.
You have posted an earlier 10-K, after The Super 10-k was filed on 5/31/18, DBMM would have taken them into Federal (not Civil) Court.
In 10/k following for 8/31/18 states case closed on 6/18/18 for $65k.
$75k principal notes from 2012-13 totally settled.
Asher went out of business
Asher didn’t disclose to civil court , SEC Consent Decree with Hope Capital and Curt Kramer a Federal Action. The Civil Court simply didn’t know.
Federal always with supersede civil.
Try to follow the bouncing ball, all documented.
Company paid $65 K in June 2018, to conclude litigation of $75K of Debt in2013. Nothing to do with Turning over company .
Settlement DBMM terms- and Asher out of business .
It never happened. A court order which was not enforceable, was withdrawn for 2 reasons: 1) the Judge ordered no PR’s from the beginning of the litigation, but more importantly, Asher was ordered by the SEC not to seek shares in public companies or their subsidiaries via consent decree signed by CK. Federal Court trumps Civil Court. It’s fraud when Asher did not disclose.
Stop quoting crap which never happened , and was not allowed by Federal Law in the first instance.
But it didn’t and it never happened. If so ordered in early 2017, why didn’t it happen??
Why SEC charged Asher and its CRIMINAL gang of NAKED SHORTS ? Need link of SEC charging Asher and its CRIMINAL GANG ?
Already have a zillion times. as your quotes are from out-dated, eg superseded by later document, or out of context.
How absurd to suggest the Commission does not care about a highly credentialed, well regarded, longest tenured ALJ thinks, over a couple suits in Enforcement.
Check again, the Commissioners are appointed . The Chair is new and appointed, as is the Director of Enforcement,neither of whom was in place when PFR was issued, or granted 13 months later.
Getting the picture? No one was in a position to know the case and then the pandemic hit.
Flat out wrong again.
Enforcement’s citations were not on point and Maranda Fritz has made law on numerous occasions. Her citations were on point. Full stop. Enforcement did PFR as a nasty tactic because they could.
Regulations do not require anything when there is due process, otherwise it would be a law.
The OTC is full of crooks who get Wells Notices and cease and desist orders for fraudulent activity. That is what Enforcement should be focused on . In all of this back and forth and Enforcement’s rantings, not one error in financial statements or operations.
Enforcement Spending taxpayer money on cured delayed filings whose extenuating circumstances were acknowledged and agreed, is questionable judgment. Especially when Corp Fin closed its review.
The Commissioners were all new, and the pandemic ensued and the Chairman already bailed back to NYC.
Simply was easier to delay
Another one of the unverifiable sources, because the gov’t data is too complicated? HUH?
Programmed trading and many other algorithmic trading has caused lots of new mathematically-embedded trading nuances.
Let’s see the (perhaps) new regulations to put a stop to NSS. Making them illegal was supposed to stop them years ago. It didn’t they are worse now, which is the reason the DOJ has opened the initiative to ferret them out .
Stay tuned....
If the SEC said so, and they didn’t anywhere. They simply state FTD statistics at a point in time—or not.
If they were the last word, asking my previous question again, why is the DOJ driving the investigation at the AG’s direction?
No, there is not an equivalency between FTD and NSS only.
Hedge funds among others are far more sophisticated than that. The algorithm options alone can provide NSS.
Do reading on the DOJ investigation on NSS.
If it was as easy as swooping down on FTD there wouldn’t need to be a full -on DOJ investigation led by the US Attorney General.
There are many nefarious way to engage in the fraudulent, illegal activity of NSS, with synthetic and phantom shares and shorts for extended periods.
As usual, misinformation to say that FTD is only indication. If it was that easy, there wouldn’t be a full DOJ investigation on NSS. Rather easy to sweep up flagrant illegal activity, IF that was the case. It isn’t.
Let the DOJ do its work . The intricacies, nuances and embedded variations of NSS will surface with bright lights as the perpetrators have to cover.
If there were outstanding Corp Fin comments they would have to be included in subsequent 10-Ks under the category entitled: “Item 1B Unresolved Staff Comments.”
That category says NONE.
The Oct 19 review closure is just that. It closed the Corp Fin review and was filed in EDGAR.
Your opinions are just that, and not based on fact. Enforcement in one of five divisions in the SEC, and certainly not the Commission or the ALJ. The hierarchy is not collaborative.
You are only reading from an enforcement premise which is totally inaccurate. Corp Fin review closed as not enforcement’s call.
Read MF brief —all laid out. MF is an iconic SEC litigator , pay attention. She wins. Her facts and the intent of the law are always compelling
The Oct 2019 Corp Fin letter did supersede any opinions corp fin provided to enforcement . It was filed in EdGAR and it was the basis for Judge Foelak decision to dismiss.
Corp Fin final review superseded all previous. Enforcement doesn’t get to cherry-pick!
The SEC DOES NOT CALL DBMM materially deficient.
Corp Fin posted a review on Oct 2019 that does not supersede a June 2018 opinion TO ENFORCEMENT, not in Edgar, not formal Letter, is just selective misinformation.
The Judge made the point that Enforcement’s points had all been considered in her decision for dismissal.
Stop using the SEC and Enforcement interchangeably. They are NOT. There are 5 divisions in the SEC, enforcement is one. Corp Fin is the policy and practices guru, and they have reviewed and filed their review closure.
The SEC doesn’t opine on whether a company should exist when they are operating and current. Not their role. No case law to support that! NONE!
WOW! Shareholders suing SEC for $3.87 trillion in damages
T FOR TRILLION DOLLARS..
PLUS DBMM has AVOIDED all the 3 conditions.
The victim company's objective is to avoid the three primary goals of the naked short-sellers: bankruptcy, a reverse split, or being compelled to issue death-spiral convertible debt out of desperation.