“I love this banter about HER education..... let's talk about the knuckleheads that shorted $DBMM and wanted it revoked, shall we? “
Ridiculous.
Let’s look at it realistically, shall we?
NO ONE even knows if these “naked shorts’” even EXIST! Any way to verify any short position fails, using all the normal methods of identification! But it sure does fit desperate longs needs. So it’ll have to do just to pretend they exist and shout it to the moon.
But we KNOW Linda exists and we have a working knowledge of her past actions. We can SEE how ABSOLUTELY STUPID her actions have been in the past.
She not only once but TWICE accepted death spiral financing from a lender that was known to be a bad actor! THAT’S what REALLY started this whole fiasco.
Then there’s the delinquent filing record.
There is NO EXCUSE for not filing. That’s well known. The SEC accepts ZERO EXCUSES for not filing required financial reports.
What does Linda do? She INTENTIONALLY becomes delinquent in filing and ADMITS DOING IT. Not for one or two quarters. For SIX quarters! REAL SMART, eh?
Then? The SEC Enforcement division contacts Linda and endeavors to ask for the reasons that DBMM is delinquent.
What SMART thing does Linda DO? She IGNORES all requests for information. For months upon months (Sec says it was over a year)!
SMART, eh?
It was only when the SEC began proceedings against DBMM that Linda deigned to grace the SEC with an answer.
As far as Linda’s little lawyer? I’ve read her brief and it’s definitely an under achievement.
The issue before the board is:
1. Did DBMM break the filing statutes?
2. Did ALJ Foelak not properly apply the regulations listed in SEC Section (j), to a company that had several back to back delinquent filings? Even after she came right out in her ID and agreed with Enforcement that DBMM was indeed guilty of breaking the filing statutes?!
3. Did ALJ incorrectly assume and call DBMM current in filing, based upon information forwarded to her from Fritz?
4. Was that information shown to Foelak true? Did ANYONE tell DBMM (Fritz) that ALL the insufficiencies pointed by Corp Fin’s were cured?
Fritz’s brief is mostly a giant excuse as to why DBMM had delinquent filings. It doesn’t deny that they happened and the filing statutes were broken. It simply pleads that DBMM had every right to not file, because of extenuating circumstances.
Sorry. There’s NO EXCUSES accepted by the SEC for delinquent filings.
The last thing is this - Fritz’s filing pleads for a non-revocation ruling. But the statutes say that TWO sanctions are acceptable to be used to punish delinquent filers - Suspension OR Revocation.
I have often said that if Linda had signaled to the Board that she would accept a suspension in lieu of revocation , and that she would agree to amend the “super 10K” to include the missing numbers from previously delinquent 10Q’s?
I think Corp Fin’s would probably call them compliant and after serving their suspension, they could immediately go back to royally screwing their shareholders with approving the increase of shares.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
