Replies to post #288029 on Digital Brand Media and Marketing Group Inc (DBMM)

[Jetmek_03052]

My hypothesis is the SEC enters the "Order of Finality" 03/06/2023 thus removing the debilitating FUD overhang and the stock explodes.

Geez. That’s funny….I remember reading right here on this thread about how the SEC case against DBMM was ineffectual and now that the 211 was accepted and the CE was dropped…that the SEC case “meant nothing”!!

Now it’s different??!

How AMUSING!

[jaiguruji7]

I agree with what you stated: "There is NO LOGICAL REASON that the SEC needs to continue this punishing charade!" . But will they do it or extend again, like they have done 4 - 5 times without providing a reason.

If they extend, IMHO we touch sub-penny, which could put the OTCQB uplist in jeopardy.

IMHO DBMM management has no control over the final decision, so it has to wait for SEC for the final decision by March 6, 2023.

Also DBMM management has no control over the uplist, so they have to wait for OTCMarkets to update the company about that as well.

I am assuming IMHO there have been no issues about the OTCQB uplist and It has been about 5 weeks, since the company said they would work with OTCMarkets early in New year (2023) for uplist, as per their Dec 28, 2022 update.

We are already seeing the huge desperation by the shorts based on the DBMM pps today, that they are manipulating on low volume and no buying interest today. So maybe they know something about uplist etc that we don't IMHO.

Hoping for the best.

JMHO

[MU_Redskin1]

Expecting the 'Order of Finality' Monday 03/06/2023

https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljdec/2019/id1389cff.pdf

While revocation is not “necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors,” neither is suspension. Digital Brand’s reporting is now current, but suspension would relieve it of the requirement of filing periodic reports for the period of the suspension. Depriving investors of current financial information would be an undesirable consequence of a suspension and, contrary to the primary purpose of the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, antithetical to “the protection of investors.” Even so, Digital Brand should be aware that further violations of its periodic reporting timeliness and completeness obligations may mark it as a recidivist and invite further scrutiny from Commission staff.
In conclusion, the violations alleged in the OIP are proven, but no available sanction is
appropriate. Thus, this proceeding will be dismissed.
V. ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this administrative proceeding IS DISMISSED.
This Initial Decision shall become effective in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of Rule 360 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 17 C.F.R. § 201.360.
_____________________________
Carol Fox Foelak
Administrative Law Judge

GLTA DBMM 2.0!

Cheers, Red