Replies to post #278184 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[otterman]

Thats another good point. 9-0 only brings the company back to where they were in 2013 when this all started.
And getting on the QB only gets them back to what, 2008?

You know, if we're basing things on reality.

[Jetmek_03052]

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.

The commission has not YET found a legal mis-step by the ALJ. But one of the "ISSUES" to be reviewed is exactly that - did the ALJ find that DBMM was current - IN SPITE OF Corp FIn's continued belief to the opposite?

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.

The Commssion has NOTHING TO DO with the decision of the OTCM to remove the CE and allow DBMM to trade. It is COMPLETELY on the OTCM's shoulders!

However.

I will say that the IF the commission does NOT prove the ALJ was remiss in saying that DBMM was current...If the Commission does NOT find that the ALJ was remiss in not sanctioning DBMM IAW the regulations regarding the sanctioning of chronically delinquent filers?

Then ONE of the D.O.E.'s points have been disproven. Since the filing of the "Super 10K", DBMM has filed pretty much on time. Which the D.O.E. said they thought would not happen and was a prime reason why DBMM should be revoked.

Companies MUST file on time when the microscope of the SEC is upon them. IF they get by THIS TIME? Let's see how long it lasts!

[Renee]

Much thanks, Gotham Bay Group, for your well-reasoned, plausible, and likely developments for DBMM. IMO your post should be stickied.

Your subsequent post is also a crystal clear synopsis of the state of affairs for DBMM.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170910028

To paraphrase the immortal words of James T. Kirk, DBMM will "go where no OTC stock has gone before", so it will be a learning curve for everyone.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comprehensive and articulate reasoning.

So much better than all of the 'ya but' replies I get, so THANK YOU again!!!!!!!!!!

Only if you have the time and inclination would you be interested in commenting on the 90 day extensions that may continue beyond March 5th? I surmise you've read my suggestions that DBMM could end the quagmire they're in by making a deal with the D.O.E. to accept revocation and the SEC expediting a FORM 10 approval for DBMM to reregister. IMO, the D.O.E. keeps their coveted precedents for revoking the registrations of delinquent filers, and A.L.J. Foelak's Initial Decision would no longer be challenged, with no more 90 day extensions that bear risk that the D.O.E. could be successful at having DBMM's SEC stock registration(s) revoked, and all DBMM shareholders would be made whole in approximately 90 days whereby the stock could trade unencumbered thereafter. I certainly have no issue if you disagree with me as I could gain more perspective on the matter.

[Stock_Barber]

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.

Here is a reason...

NOTE 8 – ACCRUED COMPENSATION

As of November 30, 2022, and August 31, 2022, the Company owes $1,362,136 and $1,377,136, respectively, in accrued compensation and expenses to certain directors and consultants. The amounts are non-interest bearing.