Digital Brand Media & Marketing Group, Inc. (DBMM) has repeatedly updated its shareholders with factual information regarding the unauthorized and inaccurate Press Release on May 4, 2017 and the temporary trading suspension following thereafter.

From the onset, DBMM Management has reassured its shareholders that it was business as usual, while cautioning them to ignore the false information being generated by a group of non-shareholders. The usual bashers are now augmented by people who claim to be “subject matter experts” and provide selective, anecdotal examples of what are nothing more than their opinions and speculation, now focused on the trading suspension.

Conversely, DBMM through its SEC Counsel, has responded to the SEC on May 26th via certified mail, beginning the process to defend itself with documented evidence of mitigating circumstances.

It is very important for shareholders to understand – DBMM counsel has provided the “Answer” with an in-depth knowledge of securities law, including case law and litigation expertise. The situation is being handled professionally, and not in an ad hoc manner. The dialogue must begin and the rationale for the delays acknowledged. It is Counsel’s opinion that DBMM’s circumstances are compelling and have been stated in the 8 page “Answer” to the SEC which includes documented evidence and citations.


Normally, the Company would not react to the flow of bad information, except to dismiss it, but we have been asked by many investors to address the intensity.

The Company Management has consistently asked why the self-avowed non-shareholders post panic statements of Armageddon on a certain investment board 24/7? What is their agenda? Who pays them? What is their stake? Why are they sending PM’s telling shareholders to sell now as there is no time?

These people state outlandish legal speculation with no gravitas, nor any actual litigation experience as attorneys. Yet they claim to absolutely know. Perhaps it would be appropriate for shareholders to ask each one for their credentials? These dilettantes have never been to law school, nor have the academic grounding, let alone experience in the nuances of case law, to lecture others.

These amateurs are misleading and bearing in mind do not own shares, are possibly the most dangerous types of individuals who spend their entire waking hours, invoking fear in those who want success for the company.

Let’s use a real example from iHub. Start with Post 140443 on May 17th which includes a reference to “For your education”—Mobile Area Networks which was supposed to prove that revocation was inevitable. Read the full case and decision. It bears no relationship to DBMM other than a filing delinquency, albeit for Mobile Area Networks, a longer period. Look for yourself:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029454/999999999715009351/Filename1.pdf 1,

  1. Mobile Area Networks failed to file an Answer to OIP of September 14, 2014 and was revoked on May 8, 2015.
  2. Mobile Area Networks neither showed cause for failure in #1, nor appeared in pre-hearing conference.
  3. Mobile Area Networks failed to maintain a valid address.
  4. Mobile Area Networks filed delinquent reports which were deficient, both unaudited K’s and unreviewed Q’s without any discussion with SEC. SEC wants explanation for delays, then Financials after acknowledgment.
  5. Mobile Area Networks “failed to rebut” in any way.
  6. Mobile Area Networks never filed Form 12b-25/NT’s each quarter as required to indicate delay in filings.
  7. “Mobile Area Networks has not participated in the proceeding in any manner and has not addressed its purported efforts to remedy its past violations or to make assurances against further violations.”
  8. Once revoked, “Pursuant to Rule 360, party may file a petition for review of this Initial Decision within 21 days after service of the Initial decision”.
  9. Mobile Area Networks never filed petition for Review, nor Motion to correct manifest error of fact, nor did the Commission chose to review, so Initial Decision became Final May 8, 2015.
  10. In a case begun Sept 14, 2014, during which no answers, nor pleadings were provided to the Commission by Mobile Area Networks, nor discussions with the SEC, Final Revocation decision was recorded on May 8, 2015.

Why was this case cited as “education”? DBMM is suggesting that citing cases where there is no similarity except for the filing delays, where there is no knowledge of DBMM’s mitigating circumstances, and where the majority of these companies never provided an Answer to the Commission, default to revocation is logical, for the cited company, but bears no relationship to the process being followed by DBMM.

The Mobile Area Networks case above which was to provide “education” has no correlation to DBMM and the provider of the flawed information was inaccurate in the extreme to suggest it was without any extenuating information about DBMM. It is disingenuous to ignore mitigating circumstances and the fact that DBMM is represented and advised by SEC Counsel.

Then on June 3, 2017, Post 142488, had yet more absurd speculation, starting with the assertion that the “Answer” was received on June 2nd. That was patently false, as that date was outside the prescribed date of May 31st, and the Order would not have been rescinded, had that been the case. https://www.sec.gov/alj/aljorders/2017/ap-4850.pdf

Then another example in the Commentary, III-3,”Whether it is necessary and appropriate…to suspend for a period not to exceed 12 months or revoke”…but that is only if the defenses are not acceptable to the SEC.

Please take note in the strongest way, DBMM Management has taken the time to refute the naysayers/bashers, the non-shareholders and their pretentious, undocumented statements without fact. Sources are tainted, just like Mobile Area Networks above–be aware.

DBMM has professional advisors, a.k.a. experts, organizing the information flow to the SEC, one step at a time, following legal protocol.

Finally, DBMM Management suggests shareholders put up a Chinese wall against false information. Ask for credentials of the self-avowed experts, their sources and citations–all in full detail. Check on your own and read the documents in full. Then make your own decisions.

DBMM is acting in the best interests of the shareholders and despite the attempt of certain people to damage the Company, it is business as usual. DBMM is not going away and investors who see the value in the digital marketing sector and the increasing marketshare of all consumer-facing businesses, are strong stakeholders.

The Process Timetable is determined by the SEC, and DBMM will adhere to it every step of the way until DBMM is back trading on the proper platform. Please be patient, and do not be distracted by the false timetables of others. Their comments are not facts, they are merely distractions to force certain outcomes for themselves. Be assured, as we have said before, shareholders own DBMM: The Management and their Professional Advisors, are representing all of them accordingly.

Push back, DBMM will continue to update with facts.

Safe Harbor:

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.