Replies to post #188096 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[janice shell]

I personally don't believe it was due to a "technicality", but rather because of mitigating circumstances. (something we're not privy too)

But they did. If it hadn't been for the mess surrounding Lucia, which held up final decisions in a lot of admin proceedings until as late as this summer, DBMM's registration would likely have been revoked some time ago. Instead, the case was sent to Foelak for review, and DBMM saw its chance.

[Jetmek_03052]

Definitely a “technicality”.

If not for SEC Vs Lucia, DBMM would already be a nightmare forgotten.

The order to revoke DBMM’s stock WAS ISSUED. The ONLY reason revocation didn’t actually take place was because of the Lucia decision. The revocation order was remanded BECAUSE of Lucia (before the revocation order could take effect).

I think Foelack did a disservice to all investors. She actually came out and said that the allegations against DBMM WERE PROVEN by the enforcement division. Then she let them get away with not filing in accordance with SEC regulations, because there was no sanction that was “appropriate”.

If revocation for OTHER companies not filing was justified, then that sanction certainly should have been appropriate for DBMM.

I feel quite sure that the SEC will continue to pursue this until all options have been exhausted.