RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Path forwardAgree with you Maxmoe but still think, hope, sense there is more. Given his regulatory history did he agree with the massive unnecessary 60M share dilution? If it is all about the money why would he want that kind of dilution? Then there is his reputation.
I see this massive egregious unnecessary dilution as another way around the Scozinc/EDM plan of arrangement tried and stopped by centurion Smith in '21. In this last go around, only select shareholders had notice. Somehow my little legal knowledge tells me this should be challenged in some sort of class action way. Not so likely as the company has a war chest (wonder where that comes from eh?) that would be difficult to match but not out of the realm of possibilities.
Do you know if directors are liable if they voted against a resolution that puts the company in peril ? I understand there is Directors and Officers insurance but wonder how it applies to blatant and egregious decisions contrary to the best interests of the company shareholders? There are no sound business reasons given!
Onward and upward.