Stock_Barber Tuesday, 05/19/20 06:45:46 PM Re: None Post # of 215799 FACT: They did not win... they were found Guilty, but the judge didn't feel her choices for punishment were appropriate! III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By failing to timely file required annual and quarterly reports, Digital Brand violated Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13. The violations were serious in that failure to file periodic reports violates a crucial provision of the Exchange Act. The purpose of the periodic reporting requirements is to publicly disclose current, accurate financial information about an issuer so that investors may make informed decisions: The Commission has rejected the argument that the contribution of actions of a third party to the delinquency shields an issuer from accountability. While revocation is not “necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors,” neither is suspension. Digital Brand’s reporting is now current, but suspension would relieve it of the requirement of filing periodic reports for the period of the suspension. Depriving investors of current financial information would be an undesirable consequence of a suspension and, contrary to the primary purpose of the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, antithetical to “the protection of investors.” Even so, Digital Brand should be aware that further violations of its periodic reporting timeliness and completeness obligations may mark it as a recidivist and invite further scrutiny from Commission staff. In conclusion, the violations alleged in the OIP are proven, but no available sanction is appropriate. Thus, this proceeding will be dismissed.