Random Thoughts"This was in the best interest of the company" - According to whom and ultimately it may have been however, I don't recall getting an opportunity to vote on that.
"Debt holders always have first right over the company considering debts" - Agreed BUT what they did was like a bank holding the mortgage on your house and then telling you hey we can't sell your house because their is no buyer (partner) but we have decided to take out a second mortgage (issue more shares/rights offering to Consanance) and foreclose on your ownership of the house and oh by the way you get no say in this and it is all legal and above board. Don't worry for a small fee we will allow you to own the carport a 15% stake (rights offering).
"Lawsuit is just impossible" - Difficult to win yes, impossible no. Did Thomvest act within the legal framework of the TSX? Yes As a result it was obvious that the AMF's cursory review would give them a pass. However, if the lawsuit can prove that there were any other viable options to include a direct and open offering to shareholders then that represents a foot in the door.
An honest company would have taken this directly to the shareholders explained the options to include a direct offering and allowed for a vote. If things truly deteriorated they could still have applied for a hardship following a full disclosure to shareholders. Instead Thomvest decided on their own to submit a strategically timed TSX hardship over a 3 day weekend to get a rubber stamp approval and effectively burn 98% shareholder value while taking over 85% ownership. And what has changed in reality for Thomvest nothing as they still hold the mortgage just like they did before. Investors got absolutely reamed and then to add insult to injury had to pony up more cash for a rights offering to try and salvage their depleted investment.