Thank you for your in depth research, but wanted to clarify a key point:
- DBMM was never revoked in fact. The Initial Decision on Nov 16, 2017 was for revocation, because at that time the Company has not cured any of delinquent filings.
- Intervening was the Lucia case being heard by the Supreme Court /SCOTUS regarding the legitimacy of the appointment process for the ALJ’s. That case impacted on over 100 Administrative Proceedings in process, all of which were placed on remand and companies/Respondents were allowed additional time and were allowed to go “back to the beginning,” of the AP’s.
- In Jan 2018 DBMM was finally in a position to cure delinquencies and requested Protective Order from the Court to prove the mitigating circumstances which caused the late filings, e.g. the cost of reaudit of 2011-2013 because Auditor sanctions through no fault of DBMM as stated by SEC at the time. It cost well over $100k to reaudit and a litigation from a toxic lender because Company was not compliant while reaudit Taking place. Under the Protective Order the Company provided bank statements/cashed checks for all reaudit costs and the funding provided by new long term investors which allowed filings to become current and remain current. The mitigating circumstances with the SEC being the genesis for the reaudit and resultant non-compliance and late filings.Those specific facts included in Judge’s Decision on Nov 12,2019.
- SCOTUS case continued until Sept 2018–DBMM filed Super 10-k and 3 Q ‘s and became current in July 2018. The SCOTUS Lucia Decision resulted in new Judges being assigned to each case, and while DBMM already went back to the beginning as allowed, at this point the Initial Decision was legally vacated as if it had never been filed.
- DBM filed a Motion to Dismiss the action preceding a Hearing in Washington DC with the new Judge, Judge Fox Foelak, on March 19 2019, through Maranda Fritz it’s new litigation counsel.
- Enforcement opposed the Motion and filed for Revocation and the case went back and forth, until Judge’s Decision on Nov 12 2019.
- During the intervening period the Company filed in a timely manner for the last 1 1/2 years.
- It is an important point that the Company was never revoked in this matter.
- As a matter of law, the last Initial Decision was also its first Decision. Enforcement’s Petition to Review is to change the Judge’s Decision, and you were quite right to indicate that would require a legal error of which there was none by the sitting Chief Justice Fox-Foelak.
$DBMM
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
