Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[Jetmek_03052]

As to any filing that many believe Ms. Fritz made in opposition to the filing of Petition for Review?:

SEC General Rule 410, Comment (d) states:

“Comment (d): The Commission has rarely found grounds for denial of a petition for review under its long-standing standards for determining whether to grant review, now set forth in Rule 411(b). Therefore, routine opposition to a petition for review serves little purpose.”

So I doubt Miranda Fritz filed an opposition. This is probably the reason that these mysterious filings aren’t being posted on the litigation board. There AREN’T any!



Also, much has been posted here that make it seem like the ALJ’s opinions in the Initial Decision are the “be all -end all”.

Nothing could be further from the TRUTH. The TRUTH is, the SEC Board of Commissioners have the actual final say!

Rule 411. Commission Consideration of Initial Decisions by Hearing Officers.

(a) Scope of Review. The Commission may affirm, reverse, modify, set aside or remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part, an initial decision by a hearing officer and may make any findings or conclusions that in its judgment are proper and on the basis of the record.

Foelak can say as many things as she wants regarding any beliefs she has about how Digital Brand’s case “differs” from other cases in which she set a legal precedent of companies being revoked after long stretches of filing delinquencies.

The fact of the matter is that if the Commission disagrees with her, they have the FINAL SAY.