I’ll take my information about what the SEC thinks from legally filed documents, not the opinion of some attorney, based on correspondence from some minor employee at the SEC.
The SENIOR ACCOUNTANT from the SEC stated DBMM needed to file the missing 10Q numbers to become compliant. Because we’ve NEVER SEEN such numbers, that material deficiency STILL EXISTS.
As far as Foelak goes? Ha! The opinion of Foelak no longer matters. That opinion was called into question by the filing of the Petition for Review. It stopped the Initial Decision DEAD IN ITS TRACKS.
The FACT of the matter is that the opinion of the SEC board of commissioners is THE ONLY ONE THAT MATTERS.
Foelak can go play tiddlywinks somewhere. Her opinion no longer matters. It’s completely out of her hands.
I’m quite sure that the SEC Commissioners are wondering how Foelak could POSSIBLY have decided to not sanction DBMM for doing the EXACT same things that thousands of companies before it were REVOKED for.
They surely are wondering how they can let DBMM off the hook, because if they do? MANY companies will try not filing when they’re supposed to, because they see DBMM getting away with it.
DBMM will be revoked.
I keep telling myself....deep breath....count to ten....try to answer without personal attack...if available, always try to present fact to back up your opinion.
AI
