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.
Should I sticky that post? I want to make sure that the SEC doesn't miss such a flagrantly FALSE PR!
Should I put it in the Intro under the picture of Linda and Reggie?
A CLASSIC example of a VERY MISLEADING release by an OTC stinky pinky in violation of SEC rules!
"Company is pleased to announce the acquisition of a major software client headquartered in Austin Texas."
Classic documented BULLSHIT...
💩
The Growing Risk of Securities Fraud Litigation Under Section 17(a)
by: Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.
Understanding the Risks of Litigation Under Section 17(a)
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 is one of a handful of federal laws and regulations that make it unlawful for companies and their executives to mislead investors. While lawsuits, administrative enforcement actions, and criminal prosecutions under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 have traditionally been more common than proceedings under Section 17(a), this is beginning to change, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has shown an increased willingness to pursue cases under Section 17(a) in recent years.
Importantly, Section 17(a) also provides a private cause of action in civil securities fraud litigation in some jurisdictions. As the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute (LII) explains, “Some courts have found an implied right of private action under this provision, though this is becoming a less favored position.
However, some courts continue to accept private suits under this provision.” Unlike Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, Section 17(a) does not require proof of scienter (i.e. knowingness, willfulness, or intent). As a result, it allows plaintiffs to pursue claims in many cases in which Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 do not apply. This is a critical difference, and it is one that requires particular attention in Section 17(a) litigation.
Are you trying to get the company in trouble with the SEC for that VERY FALSE headline?
Remember this classic company headline clearly meant to mislead?
Do the Kramers pay rent to live in your head all these years?
They are long long gone from DBMM! Linda paid them off, and they parted ways. But the lies never will die because the pumpers need boogeymen to support the BS NSS fable to draw in noobs!
Did you forget about the poster here who knew Linda and Kurt and stated that they were actually sort of friends back in the day? I guess that doesn't fit the narrative?
Asked and answered...
Need an optometrist?
👓️
Yup DBMM was on its deathbed in 2017!
We all know that!
🤡
You can claim this baseless crap every day... but that doesn't make it true!
The pumpers have to try to discredit the critics themselves because they can't refute the facts!
If you think that stating FACTS is deception... you are in the WRONG stock!
All this pumping just prior to the next filing should be a red flag!
🤡
Really... yet you don't try to explain where my numbers are wrong? Please do!
Oh, did you find where (as you claimed) the company denied having any employees posting here? ROFL! 🤣
💩
.0051 x .0062 with a painted close... still RED
6:1 Sells to Buys!
Some of those items are historical facts.
Some of them are baseless opinions.
Some are false.
As far as the "last question"... as always... I have no idea what you are babbling about!
Try and understand why your arrogance and condescending attitude coupled with your word salads and outright lies has your posts effectively ignored by the board readers!
You can come on here insulting others and howling for the zillionth time about something irrelevant... but no one cares!
100% of your 3300 iHub posts in the last 2 years being on this board is all anyone needs to know!
💩
More word salad! 🥗
When the numbers come out next week... we'll all see the reality! Sure looks like some serious pumping prior to another major disappointment!
If you were running the company properly, you wouldn't need to be here attacking shareholders for their valid criticisms...
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!
💩
Fake news tends to do that...
As always... I haven't a clue what nonsense you are babbling about...
🤡
Corrects me about what? Imaginary stuff doesn't count!
🤡
In yesterday's PR they said:
"Both companies are announcing their new partnership today"
Did I miss it where 1ovmany announced it? All I saw was a fluffy PR from DBMM...
💩
Corrected by WHOM?
Are you stating that YOU are a designated spokesman for the company?
Wow... hell of a confession there!
FACTS/TRUTH are NEVER defamation... by definition!
You talk out your ass endlessly! And when you get caught lying, you just disappear or change the topic!
You ignored me when I called BULLSHIT when you claimed that the company has publicly stated that no one from the company posts on internet stock sites promoting DBMM! Why? BECAUSE YOU LIED AND GOT BUSTED!
Now go back to stirring your cauldron and stop polluting the board with you Poo!
I know your brain, or what is left of it, is a little slow...
But I OBVIOUSLY was making a point! Glad to see that you didn't try to deny my point!
Duh!
💩
Wow! did the Friday morning meeting break up already?
What is the "Home Team's" stock promotion theme for today?
Touting yesterday's fluff piece?
Attacking critics?
Playing down the coming earnings flop?
All of the above?
🦨
Good Morning in the UK to you as well!
🦨
I don't have to do ALL your DD for you, do I?
Where can I sign up to get paid to post? I've been doing it all these years for free!
LInk?
🤡
I asked you!
I find it difficult to believe that a Reverse Split is not in the plans here...
I would suggest that you review the definition of defamation as well as something known as "the statute of limitations"...
And the TRUTH is always a successful defense against any defamation claim!
I mean... DUH!
Why are you WRONG about EVERYTHING?
🤡
Posting a factual historical DBMM court document is NOT spreading false or deceptive information! Obviously you aren't a lawyer!
If you want to add context, feel free! But if you don't want to see it... DON"T ASK FOR IT! Duh!
🤡
How many times have you posted the worthless Barchart's "strong buy"? Dozens...
How many times has it been accurate? ZERO!
So why do it?
💩
Huge job?
There are no bashers here! Just experienced OTC "Realists"!
Deal with it!
VWAP - $ 0.006002
Clearly the update was a snoozefest... at least for those that can read AND comprehend it!
💤
Closed .0052 x .0062 with a .0064 "last"...
🤣