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.
So what in your mind should investors who currently hold shares do? What about people who might be interested in investing who have some speculative capital?
I wouldn't necessarily see it as a stupid bet, I bet it seemed like easy money at the time.
You said no excuses but here is a line from a document you posted: "Where the violations are serious and recurrent, only a "strongly compelling" showing on the remaining
factors "would justify a lesser sanction than revocation."
So where violations are serious and recurrent there is in fact an "excuse" as you put it to justify a lesser sanction. As it states a strongly compelling showing on the remaining factors, those factors being:
(2) whether
the violations were recurrent or isolated, (3) the degree of culpability, (4) the efforts to remedy
past violations and ensure future compliance, and ( 5) the credibility of assurances against further
violations.
"More importantly, the Law Judge was correct: the law is not as harsh and inflexible as DOE
is, and this particular case presented circumstances that more than supported the Decision to deny
revocation. The result sought by DOE, on the other hand, does not serve to protect existing or
prospective investors of the Company; in fact, DOE admits as much in its assertion that the Law
Judge should have ordered revocation as a “deterrence,” using DBMM as some kind of example
and publicly penalizing it. DOE Br. at 32. But no aspect of DBMM’s conduct justifies such a
punitive result. To the contrary, DBMM has taken the steps that are appropriate, has succeeded in
remedying its failures even as it also had to grapple with this proceeding, and no constructive
message would be communicated to start-up and emerging companies and their investors from
revocation of its registration."
"Where the violations are serious and recurrent, only a "strongly compelling" showing on the remaining
factors "would justify a lesser sanction than revocation."
"DBMM had filed its reports in a timely fashion until November 2013, just weeks prior to
the submission of its Form 10-K. While DOE fails even to acknowledge the reason for the
delinquency, it stemmed from action taken by the SEC in relation to the Company’s auditor. For
reasons having nothing to do with the company, and just weeks prior to the filing of the Company’s
2013 Form 10-K, the SEC barred its auditor from appearing before the Commission and advised
the Company that its financial statements for years 2011, 2012 and 2013 would have to be
reaudited."
(4) the efforts to remedy
past violations and ensure future compliance, and ( 5) the credibility of assurances against further
violations.
Seems like DBMM met those standards.
And what is their argument that suspension or revocation would be in investors best interest at this stage?
"The Law Judge also fully considered all of DOE’s arguments concerning deficiencies in
the Company’s filings. Dec. at 2 (DOE relied on “the period of delinquency,” asserted deficiencies
in the filed reports, and the Company’s prioritization of “other matters over timely filings in using
its limited resources”). With respect to DOE’s continuing assertion that the consolidated 10-K
was deficient because it did not include quarterly reports, the Law Judge concluded that such
information, relating to quarters years earlier, would provide “limited benefit to investors and the
public” and did not “make revocation in the public interest.” Dec.at 7-8. Having received and
reviewed all of DOE’s assertions pertaining to other asserted deficiencies, the Law Judge properly
concluded that the deficiencies were “cured with the filing of amended Forms 10-K of the Super
10-K and the 2018 Form 10-K on October 1, 2019.” Dec. at 5. Under all of the specific
circumstances of this particular case, the Law Judge therefore concluded that neither revocation
nor suspension are “necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors.” Dec. at 8."
"DOE fails to acknowledge that the Company was responding
to each of the identified issues and was dealing directly with specific individuals in the Division
of Corporation Finance (“Corp Fin”) in relation to its filings at the same time that, unbeknownst
to the Company, DOE was having its “liaison” within Corp Fin identify deficiencies for use by
DOE.
It was after receipt and consideration of all of those various submissions, both DOE’s
arguments as well as the information concerning DOE’s failure to acknowledge the Company’s
responses and its ongoing interactions with Corp Fin, that the Law Judge issued the Decision
confirming that deficiencies had been addressed and the issues did not warrant revocation"
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-17990-2021-03-26-respondent-appellees-brief.pdf
How is paying an auditor 3 times while fighting litigation a dog ate my homework excuse?
"The Law Judge first confirmed that the violations were serious and recurrent. Dec.
at 6. It then turned to the issue of culpability, and properly weighed the Company’s circumstances
and decisions, finding that the Company did not fail to file reports in order to conceal its financial
condition. Rather, it “devoted its limited resources to what it regarded as more pressing
obligations” relating to the pending litigation while also moving forward to remedy the filing
violations. As confirmed by the Law Judge, the Company had obtained financing in the past from
a lender, Asher Enterprises, and “successfully repaid [its] borrowings” (Dec. at 4) until it was sued
by the lender based on the failure to timely file a 10K that resulted from the SEC’s actions against
the firm’s auditor. As confirmed by the Law Judge, because of the immediate threat posed by the
Asher litigation, management used funds to deal with that situation because she “believed that to
be in the best interests of Digital Brand’s shareholders.” Dec. at 5."
"The DBMM, despite a Deposit Chill, a cantankerous protracted litigation, and three changes
of auditors which entailed paying for the reaudits three times, has moved forward despite
the hardships befallen it. The DBMM, with its limited resources, has made best efforts in
complying with its Periodic Reporting requirements; but there is only so much a company of
DBM M's size can reasonably be expected to accomplish in such a short time."
https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/echoing-recent-sec-actions-in-similar-suits-music-tech-public-company-vnue-inc-sues-power-up-lending-group-ltd-curt-kramer-in-toxic-lender-lawsuit
"The lawsuit states Power Up Lending, from 2015 to 2021, engaged in more than 612 securities transactions and “converted and sold over 5.2 billion shares of stock, generating tens of millions of dollars in gross stock sale proceeds, with many other securities transactions through convertible notes and other market adjustable securities still outstanding” for their own accounts."
Asher Enterprises, Inc., who was not supposed to be converting during the Deposit Chill and
was delinquent at the time while waiting for RBSM, LLP to finish the a.udit so DBMM could
file, then sued the DBMM in February 2014. (See Asher Enterprises. Inc. v. Digital Brand
Media and Marketing Group. Inc., Supreme Court of New York sitting in Nassau County,
Index N2 600717 /2014) DBMM then waited three months for RBSM, LLP, the DBM M's
certifying accountant, to finish the audit and render the litigation moot. When RBSM did not
finish the audits, DBMM submitted their answer and counterclaims against Asher
Enterprises, Inc., which included counterclaims that Asher Enterprises, Inc. had
-:unauthorized communications with the DBM M's certifying accountant in June of 2014. Said
answer and counterclaim did not include a third party complaint against RBSM, LLP because
DBMM did not want to upset the audit process by providing a conflict of interest; although
· DBMM's counterclaim for §5 violations and other claims was dismissed on motion. In June
·2014, RBSM, LLP then resigned as the DBMM's certifying accountants, and the DBMM then
retained D' Arelli Pruzansky, P.A as the DBM M's certifying accountant (See DBM M's BK filed
on July 7, 2014), and in an abundance of prudence hired Boisseau, Felicione & Associates,
Inc. as its CPS for pre-audit accounting work.
Asher Enterprises, Inc. is a toxic lender. It loans issuers money and takes convertible
instruments and then proceeds to relentlessly convert shares materially discounted below
market price to perpetually sell at a profit, and ever decrease the share price because no
matter how low the stock price goes Asher is always selling well below its cost basis. The
share price can never go up with the selling pressure, and Asher never stops.
Asher Enterprises, Inc. then recommended RBSM, LLP as the new auditor, which DBMM
accepted the recommendation of one of its lenders (See DBMM SK dated 18 April 2013).
Unbeknownst to DBMM, and under information and belief, RBSM, LLP, under information
and belief, represents or represented a significant number of issuers that are holders of
Asher Enterprises, Inc. convertible instruments.
Under information and belief, due to Asher Enterprises, Inc. aggressive conversions the
Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation ("Cede") the instituted a Deposit Chill against the
DBMM which was subsequently lifted on November 8, 2013 (See Exhibit A), to ensure that
the aggressive conversions documentation on the issuers side was in order; which it was
found to be.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-17990-event-11.pdf
"Those are not the acts of a culpable party. Then,
to make matters worse, the Asher situation arose and DBMM had no moral choice but to
engage in a protracted litigation to protect its holders. There was no culpability on DBMM's
part. If anything, DBMM should be lauded for its efforts to comply with the Commissions
directive and zealously defend its holders."
Why is free trading allowed in Canada?
https://stopnakedshortselling.org/2021/03/tip-a-naked-short-selling-death-spiral-lending-group-exposed-and-trapped-by-a-public-company-gtii-this-firm/
Was this an example of a short squeeze last spring? Is this in the cards for DBMM...
Down 45 percent on 700,000 shares traded...
Not to mention a CE being tagged for how long now?
"The Obligation Warehouse instead simply asks the buyer and seller of these ex-cleared trades if they “know” the transaction. If they both agree, the trade gets confirmed with a journal entry — and the buyer receives their stock purchase. It actually shows up in the buyer’s brokerage account.
The trades still have active IOUs, but according to DiIorio’s theory, buyers wouldn’t clamor for the trades to be closed because they would’ve already received their purchase.
If true, this would allow Knight to bury its naked short trades."
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/24/naked-shorts-cant-stay-naked-forever/
Everyone should give this a read.
You don't even agree that it's a possibility? That dosen't make sense. We know naked shorting happens in the market, DBMM was destined for oblivion so logically we can say it is possible a naked short position was taken here.
It's not Bs because it is a real possibility here.
No one answered my question, can the CE come down before the March deadline?
Aren't DBMM's filings SEC audited?
Question is can CE come down before the March deadline?
Why would it deserve either if it got its filings in order?
That's fair, but they are fishy.
All verified what he posted...
The SECs job is not to baby investors and hold their hand, people need to do their own DD and realize the risks.
DBMM is in line with filing regs...
SEC needs to get off its ass and do the job the taxpayers pay it to do!
hehehe you little scally wag.
I've seen stranger things...
For how many years did Amazon lose money?
Why does that matter? If I'm based somewhere in the Caribbean I don't have to stay on the island to avoid taxes. It could also be a Hong Kong conglomerate merging...
Lol, couldn't they just buy a citizenship somewhere in the Caribbean?