The Management of Digital Brand Media & Marketing Group, Inc. (DBMM) filed its second quarter 10-Q for the fiscal year 2019 on April 9, 2019, following the first quarter 10-Q filing on January 14, 2019. DBMM became current in its required SEC filings in mid-July, 2018, following the Consolidated 10-K filing for 2015-2016-2017 on May 31, 2018, and three Quarters for the 2018 fiscal year.. All of these filings followed through with the promises made at the initial hearing on this matter on August 9, 2017 to become and remain current with its requisite SEC obligations summarily interrupted by the “mitigating circumstances” which occurred by the re-audit requirement , a demand through no fault of DBMM several years ago..

The Company is tenaciously and diligently taking the steps to put this matter behind us. Many shareholders have suggested the management put out an Update, since our last Update was on December 17, 2018, which awaited the hearing of January 15, 2019, then delayed because of the Government Shutdown. Today, having been current for 9 months, yet remaining in neutral, has been frustrating for shareholders, as well as ourselves. We have been unable to initiate our growth plan, nor return to normal trading status until the SEC Matter has been settled.

At the March 21, 2019 hearing, Maranda Fritz, a Partner at Thompson Hine LLP in New York City, retained by the company, appeared with Linda Perry (LP) on behalf of DBMM. Ms. Fritz, a renowned SEC defense litigator, submitted a Motion for Summary Disposition seeking a Dismissal. Attached to her Motion were Exhibits of all the filings beginning with the Super 10-K for 2015-2016-2017 through the first Quarter 2019, two Affidavits dated June 1 and June 20, 2018 from LP, to make certain all evidence was included in “the existing record.” Following legal precedent, all public 10-K’s and 10-Q’s are considered part of judicial review. The Division had appointed a new Lead Counsel in Samantha Williams, its third in this case.


At the close of the Hearing, Judge Carol Fox Foelak ratified the Protective Order of Judge Jason Patil ordered in January, 2018 at DBMM’s request, to provide Supplemental Evidence and Briefing under the SCOTUS/Lucia case.  DBMM requested the Protective Order to provide financial evidence for the costs of re-audit and the funding and use of proceeds received to eliminate the delinquent filings and working capital. As DBMM Management shared with its shareholders, capital raising was virtually precluded because of the costs of re-audit and coincident litigation. All of those mitigating circumstances are behind us and the remaining hurdle is the resolution of the SEC delayed filings which occurred during the period in question.


DBMM purposely remained silent under the Protective Order, however, yesterday the Division’s response to DBMM’s second brief, was published dated April 10, 2019. That was a surprise. In order to provide the public with its two Motions from Attorney Fritz of March 19, 2019 and April 5, 2019, DBMM through Attorney Fritz, queried the process. The ALJ office responded,  as follows; “…DBMM filings are awaiting review prior to posting.”


The Company appreciates the Shareholder and investor support received and looks forward to delivering its Business Plan for growth to all its stakeholders after the serious distractions and disruptions of the past.


DBMM Management



The foregoing contains certain predictive statements that relate to future events or future business and financial performance. Such statements can only be predictions, and the actual events or results may differ from those discussed due to, among other things, those risks described in DBMM’s reports filed with the SEC. Opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice. This document is published solely for information purposes, and is not to be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities in any state. Past performance does not guarantee future performance. Additional information is available upon request.