RE: RE: can-tomorrows opening After reading the summary of the BCSC case, (thanks for the link!), one must presume they have solid evidence that these four did have knowledge of the drill results when they approved these substantial options for themselves, or they would have settled without the hearing.
The question is, not, perhaps, did they act unethically or in their own selfish interest and not in the interest of shareholders; but, did they break securities regulations or laws by granting themselves these options with their insider knowledge?
If one or all of these four purposely influenced or delayed the release of drilling results to maximize sp effect, this shows a lack of integrity on their behalf, but I can't see this as illegal.
And, the CAN case that the results are non material should be obvious: you can't file a material change each time drill results come out, especially in-fill drilling.
But, the principle is that these four may have acted in violation of BCSC regulations or laws, and not acted in good faith and for the good of the shareholders: it is irrelevant that the sp subsequently fell and the options are not in the money and were not exercised. The options may not have been exercised simply because the BCSC had the transactions on their radar, and to exercise them when the options were in the money would have attracted more swift and immediate action by BCSC.
Any legal opinions, off the record, of course, out there?
In any case, these four have more than mud on their faces, and shareholder faith is, at least, faltering and trust in CAN leadership is eroding faster than the excellent drill results, potential, and cash on hand can repair it. IMHO.
WKH