Replies to post #188961 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[uscrph1]

Fantastic, logical post!!

[AKsquared]

Excellent explanation!!

[Fai 2]

Excellent posts!

The judge's summary states: "Digital Brand’s securities are registered with the Securities and Commission pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, and it failed to file required periodic reports with the Commission between 2015 and 2018. It has since filed overdue reports and remained current. No sanction is imposed since neither of the available sanctions – revocation or suspension of the registration of Digital Brand’s securities – is appropriate for the facts in this case."

In addition: "All arguments and proposed findings and conclusions that are inconsistent with this decision were considered and rejected."

SEC demonstrated DBMM WAS not compliant in the past and argued their recommended sanctions should therefore be adopted. The judge is saying DBMM IS compliant now so sanctions for BEING non-compliant are not appropriate.

How is that not logical?

It would be illogical to impose either non-compliance sanction now that DBMM is compliant.

[alexjames81]

Great post!

[Jetmek_03052]

“It has since filed overdue reports and remained current. “

Apparently Foelak didn’t comprehend that the Enforcement Division didn’t find DBMM’s filings sufficient. In fact, to this DAY, the Enforcement Division CONTINUES to call the DBMM’s filings insufficient!

By dismissing the case, Foelak is saying she doesn’t care that Enforcement still finds DBMM’s filings insufficient!

You guys are thinking like stock owners, not looking at the facts!

The commission will allow the review and Foelak’s decision will be overruled by the court system.

To NOT overrule her decision will not only give other companies the “green light” to file whenever the hell they want, it will give rise to law suits from other past respondents whose companies had stock revocations from doing the EXACT SAME THINGS that DBMM has done.

Foelak was out of her mind to dismiss. There was NO justification for doing it, and every reason to revoke - because THOUSANDS of companies had THEIR stock revoked for doing the SAME THINGS DBMM DID.

[FosterK]

how could they have given the extenuating circumstances? that's why the judge gave them the win. Ones need to really look at all the docs.