Replies to post #278035 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[Fai 2]

DBMM won and continues to WIN. As it stands CE is off and the judge ORDER in favor of DBMM still stands!

100 percent correct so far DBMM longs!

"the dismissal on November 12, 2019, by ALJ Carol Fox Foelak, the Dismissal remains the Standing Order.  The credentialed experts agreed along the way that the removal of the Caveat Emptor from DBMM’s stock ticker on"

[noradio]

I have no vested interest in DBMM losing the P.F.R

You had a post telling shareholders to email management to accept revocation...

[Fai 2]

"I do hope you're right, JMMatthews." He/we longs been 100 percent right about DBMM!

[Harley16]

Naked shorts don’t really count as shareholders. They
Sold their shares already

[OTCNewbie]

Yeah....or they just keep passing the buck to "save face".

Hell maybe it IS some big conspiracy, where they "create" an opportunity for their hedgie wedgie friends to cover all their shares then slam the company with a revocation out of the blue.

[JMMatthews]

Thank you, Renee. Best of luck to you as well :)

DBOOMM $$$

[johnydollar]

Do you have a list of successful companies that took the latter.

Did the shareholders get 100% shares of the new company? What kind of deal where they given?

[Gotham Bay Group]

While an unpopular discussion, you are 100% correct in the fact the commission could decide against the ALJ. Although it's unlikely and there is a process to appeal an event such as that. Within the rule regarding the review process, they cover going against any internal decision within a review. The commissions number one position is not to harm investors. But they do obviously have to preform triage in many cases by harming existing investors to prevent damages to future investors. In this case, especially after the resumption of trading, it is going to be difficult for the review board to do anything but uphold the ALJ decision.

I believe this true for two reasons. First, any decision by the commission will be open to appeal. Once it gets to real courts, they will have access to the ALJ information to review why this decision was made. Considering the commission has not found a legal misstep by the ALJ, it is more than likely a district court would side with the ALJ.
Secondly, in the event they side with the DOE, they would have to explain why the commission allowed trading to resume if DBMM was a threat to investors. I don't think they could give an adequate explanation. In light of at least one current case I am familiar with, I doubt the SEC will tempt fate on little old DBMM again.

https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2022/05/federal-appeals-court-holds-sec-administrative-proceedings-are-unconstitutional


Regardless of anyone's position on DBMM, what has occurred here is exactly how the system was designed to work. DBMM was found in violation. DOE requested the revocation. The ALJ reviewed the case and found extenuating circumstances. ALJ decided revocation was not in the best interest of shareholders. Of course, what happens afterwards is the governmental equivalent of a temper tantrum.
Anyone that believes this case is special to DBMM would be foolish in my opinion. Several times in multiple colors, it has been referred too here how many tickers were revoked without so much as a whimper. I am sure many had exactly the same story as DBMM. Only real difference is the others didn't fight. Most of those revoked were either absolute scams, poor management or toxic financing, many likely all three. I am positive there were several that had a DBMM story but never fought to stay alive.

Whatever the reason for DBMM holding on is, it's nothing to do with what OnlyFans post. DBMM has a reason, hopefully a worthy one and will be interesting to see the endgame play out.

[G420]

If they had accepted revocation shareholders would have lost everything.. and the shorts,( the ones responsible for this mess) wouldn’t have to cover anything. This looks like the course Linda took was the only option too me!!