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.
Nice find! I couldn't find a case where the reply brief was no uploaded besides ours. So let's see.
Exactly my question yesterday we had $100,000 shares traded. Today's price went up a bit who is buying.?
Woohooo!!! Early too Happy Friday to us $DBMM to pluto!!!!!
I'm going to look at other cases and see if the reply brief was posted for some let's see. Vanessa is lazy AF and didn't upload brief I'll report back later today after some digging $DBMM to Pluto
Yesss then $DBMM to Pluto
We know what we own $DBMM to the moon let's gooooo!!
Haha love it! Happy 4th
Is that what our little birdie said?
I called Charles Schwab they aren't allowing anyone to purchase CE stocks so who is buying? TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab were the only two allowing the purchase of CE stock I have TD Ameritrade so I called Charles Schwab and nope can't buy so who has been buying?
Excellent post! Thank you sir
SEC closed meeting canceled today. Must be nice to have a 5 day holiday weekend. Eye roll
Someones making a ton of money today lololol ;)
Go read our brief page 20.
punish a small reporting company so harshly but let asher go with a fine right and he continues to still naked short other companies. The law is not as harsh as you may think $DBMM will go pink soon.
Per corpfins manual what we submitted is sufficient enough to become compliant. No chance of revocation
Thank you! And why would a company spend $150k to re-audit filings and still be deficient while having guidance from an attorney? No one would spend money like this and not do it correctly.
Where is the comment letter from corp fin stating $DBMM is still not compliant? How are they suppose to know? Shouldn't that have been communicated to $DBMM if the filings was missing quarterly reports?
BLAME CORP FIN THEN they're responsible of notifying the company but no comment letters were issued
How does SEC revoke a security which has been current for 3+ years? Show me proof we've showed you a few securities where SEC remanded case to judge to reconsider her decision since company became current. NO CHANCE OF REVOCATION
JMO I feel like these new rules are useless look at AMC FTD no covering yet like how long before the covering SEC is a joke. Looking forward to pink
Yes agree! SEC is a joke
#CEtoPINKtoDBOOM!!! LOVE IT!
Yep! 100% agree no chance of revocation
Do you know where I can find information regarding this case on the SEC website trying to compare with our $DBMM case :) thanks
Btw your post this morning was excellent:)
I THINK we'll have an answer from the SEC in August I found a pattern from 2020. check out these companies SEC reviewed in Jan and again in August so sad we have to do this
Jan. 29, 2020Rolling Pin Kitchen Emporium, Inc. and Speed of Thought, Inc. (Order to Show Cause)
Aug. 19, 2020Rolling Pin Kitchen Emporium, Inc. and Speed of Thought, Inc. (Opinion of the Commission)
Jan. 24, 2020Consolidated Arbitration Applications (Order Severing Proceedings)34-89495
Aug. 6, 2020The Consolidated Arbitration Applications for Review of Action Taken By FINRA (Order Finding Jurisdiction)
Jan. 29, 2020Ceetop Inc. n/k/a S.Q. Hydrogen Power, Inc., China Internet Café Holdings Group, Inc. and Starlight Supply Chain Management Company (Order to Show Cause)
Aug. 20, 2020Ceetop Inc. n/k/a S.Q. Hydrogen Power, Inc., China Internet Café Holdings Group, Inc. and Starlight Supply Chain Management Company (Opinion of the Commission)34-88087
Jan. 29, 2020Sweetwater Investing, Inc. and Thunor International, Inc. (Order to Show Cause)34-89628
Aug. 20, 2020Sweetwater Investing, Inc. and Thunor International, Inc. (Opinion of the Commission)34-88086
Jan. 29, 2020BCI Holding Inc., Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. and Omni Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Order to Show Cause)34-89606
Aug. 18, 2020BCI Holding Inc., Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. and Omni Bio Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Opinion of the Commission)
Sooo punish a company sooo harshly by revoking them even if they became current and continue to keep filing but, let Kurt Kramer go with a fine and he keeps coming back that's okay right ? Other companies who have scammed investors SEC clears with a fine but punish $DBMM soo harshly for something minor yeah not gonna happen buddy
Again how is it $DBMMs fault when the judge didn't see that a sanction fit this case? Both sanctions presented to her made absolutely no sense. Also how can $DBMM decide a sanction for themselves? She is a judge with 25 years of experience let's not disrespect her if SEC wants to sanction they'll remand case to judge Foelak and she'll say the same thing this proceeding IS DISMISSED now even with 2 more years of current filings YES GOOO $DBMM if anything Samantha should be fired.
Soo if SEC suspends $DBMM we don't have to file quarterly filings soo that would make no sense as this whole case was based of delinquency per SEC even though it all started from them disqualifying our auditor.
Revocation - we've been current for 3 years now so how can you revoke a company that's current with filings?
They could possibly suspend for 10 days since suspensions are 12 months of less so $DBMM can continue filings
Look SEC is not as harsh as you or DOE. Fine maybe SEC might have $DBMM refile the re-audits again as part of their sanction who knows. BUT REVOCATION IS OUT OF THE QUESTION for sure.
That was from Judge Patil in 2017 $DBMM needed time to re-audit filings which was completed in 2018. If Judge Patil was handling this case today he would've also dismissed case.
Find me a stock where the SEC revoked the security even when the company filed all past reports became current and continue to file oh and company has to have an adequate explanation for the delinquency.
$DBMM referring to the gateway factors
Our auditor was disqualified by SEC. - (persuasive explanation) gateway factor 1 and 3 checked this was outside the company's control
Current for the past 3 years gateway factor 5 checked.
Re-audited filings for past 3 years due to disqualification of our auditor gateway factor 4 checked
Oh and those little deficiencies of quarterly reports not being included in the consolidated 10k that we keep bringing up is minor what we filed was sufficient enough to become current per Corp-Fin. THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION. That decision has been consistent with other cases
we provided a link to E-Smart where SEC sent the case back to the judge to reconsider and dismiss the case.
No chance of revocation period WE WIN!
You want proof of naked shorts here you go
Busted!
CNBC mentions naked shorts tonight.
@TradesTrey @AMCTheatres $amc #AMCSqueeze #amcstock #AMCARMY #AMC500k #amc she’s getting in trouble pic.twitter.com/jIgGwuRh9G
— SatHeadz🟧🦋 (@SatHeadz) June 4, 2021
Good to see you here Jimmy Joe! Let's make some money gooooo $AMC
Hiiiiii awww thank you sir :)
Commissioners will NOT go against a judges ID. This is copied right from E-Smart technology where the judge revoked E-smart but then they became current sooo SEC commissioners sent case back to judge for reconsider her decision.
Under the circumstances, therefore, we believe it is appropriate to provide the law judge an opportunity to assess her sanctioning .determination in light of e-Smart's subsequent reporting18 record.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to the administrative law judge for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.19 The law judge is ordered to file the decision on remand
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/34-50514.htm
Asher sued $DBMM because of the delinquency which was caused by the SEC. So it is the SEC's fault.
Also the deficiencies in our filings do not warrant revocation per ALJ Carol Foelak that would provide limited benefits to investors but doesn't call for revocation its sufficient enough to become current per Corp Fin
If Corp Fin had any issues they would've issues a comment letter. They did not instead DOE used someone else to use against us in the case. If anything Shame on DOE for wanting to punish a company so harshly.
Why would there be a sanction when the reason for delinquency started from the SEC disqualifying our auditor? $DBMM was compliant before the disqualification of our auditor we complied and re-auditied filings which kind of held us back from keeping up with current filings. Asking to re-audit 3 years of filing for any small reporting company is financially impossible lot of money involved however $DBMM got it done. We re-auditied filings became current and continue to file on time.
Yep! Checking SEC website daily anyday now
Point is they became current and did not get revoked if they violated something else that's on them. Just to prove if $DBMM is doing what PHLO did to become current SEC will dismiss proceeding.
PHLO was NOT revoked! this is the correct SEC case.
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2007/34-55562.pdf
case number copied right from our brief same case number Frtiz used in our brief matches the one SEC DID NOT REVOKE! Link above. Phlo Corp, Exchange Act Release No. 55562, 2007 WL 137145 (Jan. 21, 2009) .NO.55562
However, Phlo has now devoted significant resources to satisfying its reporting obligations and has become current with87/ We deny Phlo's motion to strike the portion of Enforcement's brief urging revocation. Ina previous order, we determined to review sanctions in this proceeding on our own initiative pursuant to Rule of Practice 411(c), 17 C.F.R. § 201.411(c). Order GrantingPetition for Review (Mar. 17, 2006). Thus, Enforcement's briefing of this issue was notimproper.88/ 15 U.S.C. § 78l(j).89/ Gateway Int'l Holdings, Inc., 88 SEC Docket at 438-39.90/ Id. at 439. 28respect to its periodic filing obligations. Moreover, Phlo has retained a consultant recommended by its current auditor to improve its internal accounting function. We have imposed a cease-anddesist order against future violations. Thus, we decline to revoke the registration of Phlo'scommon stock. 91