Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder require public corporations to file annual and quarterly reports with the Commission. Compliance with those requirements is mandatory and may not be subject to conditions from the registrant.
Did DBMM INTENTIONALLY not file 10Q's and 10K's when they were REQUIRED to be filed?
YES!
Does it matter that they thought of the decision to not file as "easy", because they considered getting out of a toxic loan with Asher more important?
NO!
All we have to do is substitue Absolutes name with Digital Brands and the transgression PERFECTLY FITS:
"It is undisputed that Digital Brand failed to timely file its required periodic reports for any period after the quarter ended May 31, 2015, and remained delinquent until it started filing past-due reports in November 2017.
Accordingly, Digital Brand violated Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Exchange Act Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13.
Sanction:
The only remedies available in this proceeding, pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act, to address the company’s reporting violations are revocation or suspension of registration of its securities.
The SAME SANCTION should apply to DBMM!
Foelak was erroneous in her decision and she was EQUALLY as erroneous when she said that Absolute and DBMM "DIFFER".
The Board of Commissioners will also see it that way. The review is going to be granted. Count on it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
