Replies to post #193718 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[AKsquared]

Yea, the acting Chief ALJ is shaking in her boots.

[Westcoastplaya]

“I question the judges motives”

I don’t. I read her decision. Below are areas where DBMMs case differs from those cited in the SECs attorneys’ arguments. Acting Chief ALJ Carol Fox Foelak is quite clear.

There’s no way the commission will review this. Case dismissed!

“Digital Brand’s filing of past due reports and its continuing to file current reports are mitigating factors as is its response to CorpFin’s identification of deficiencies, which it corrected by filing amended Forms 10-K. Thus the company’s situation differs from cases in which the Commission determined that revocation was necessary or appropriate. See Calais Res., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 67312, 2012 SEC LEXIS 2023, at *23 (June 22, 2012) (frowning on the issuer’s “troubling willingness . . . to ignore clear staff directives regarding reporting obligations”); Absolute Potential, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 71866, 2014 SEC LEXIS 1193 (Apr. 4, 2014) (shell company with total assets of $27, accumulated deficit of $1,972,404; filings made during administrative proceeding, but unpersuasive explanations for protracted delinquencies and absence of concrete changes to ensure compliance as of date of Commission opinion); Nature’s Sunshine Prods., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 59268, 2009 SEC LEXIS 81 (Jan. 21, 2009) (filings just before oral argument on petition for review of Initial Decision; filings were materially deficient); Am.’s Sports Voice, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 55511, 2007 SEC LEXIS 1241 (Mar. 22, 2007) (no filings), recon. denied, Exchange Act Release No. 55867, 2007 SEC LEXIS 1239 (June 6, 2017).”

“The Division cites American Steller Energy, Inc. (n/k/a Tara Gold Res. Corp.), Exchange Act Release No. 64897, 2011 SEC LEXIS 2455 (July 18, 2011) (Tara Gold), to support its argument that Digital Brand’s comprehensive filings do not shield it from revocation. However, Digital Brand’s reporting is distinguishable from Tara Gold’s. Tara Gold had a nine-year period of delinquencies, promised to make various overdue filings by dates that it did not meet, and failed to include various material information in the filings it did make.”