Nondisclosure agreements don't have to be in any sort of rigid format. Like any other agreement, they simply require consensus ad idem between the parties (a "meeting of the minds", i.e., an agreement between the parties). The parties can negotiate and agree upon whatever they want to agree upon.

So, hypothetically, if our company [yes, it is in fact our company] was asked to enter into a NDA with Teck or anybody else, it would have been open to our company to negotiate terms to acknowledge the need to provide some level of information to its loyal shareholders.

What sort of terms? For one, the term [duration] of the NDA. The parties could provide that the nondisclosure continue until the happening of a fixed event [like a deal] or a fixed date [like 60 days hence], whichever first occurs.

Another term might be permitting our company to make limited news releases [not to hype the market but for the benefit of its shareholders], provided those releases are not unduly revealing of information. As one hypothetical example only:

Copper Fox (the "Company") is pleased to announce the substantial completion of a positive BFS (the "BFS"). Further, that the Company is engaged in negotiations with one or more third parties. The particulars of the BFS and the subject matter of those negotiations are subject to the terms of a nondisclosure agreement entered into on September 30, 2012 (the "NDA") which also provides that neither the identities of the third parties nor the specific subject matter of the negotiations may be disclosed without the consent of the parties or until expiration of the NDA on December 31, 2012, whichever first occurs. The company's position is that it is in the best interests of all shareholders to maintain confidentiality over the content of the BFS during the course of the negotiations and the term of the NDA.

In my opinion, this type of release would not spook or hype the market - because too many questions would remain unanswered - but it would certainly relieve many of the legitimate concerns raised by many of the posters on this board.

But again, depending on the terms of any NDA, this type of announcement may or may not be permitted. If this form of very general announcement isn't permitted then, in my opinion, our company failed in negotiating reasonable terms to the NDA by extension, failed in its obligation to keep shareholders informed.

Again, all of this is hypothetical and JMHO.

Another point, I don't believe it is fair to characterize some posters [I think I'm one of them] as "whining" or as being unreasonable to expect more information from our Company. Even if we assume that all of the delays to date are unavoidable and perhaps even beneficial, the fact is that our Company has consistently failed to meet shareholder expectations by consistently missing deadline dates. Given that history, isn't it all the more important that the company now bend over backwards to to keep us informed to the extent I have described? All of which could be done without upsetting anything beneficial that might be going on, provided they negotiated an appropriate NDA.

And one final point, with all due respect to my fellow posters who suggest along the lines that "if you don't like it you should just sell" that is a simplistic and unacceptable response to the expression of legitimate concerns about a company's legal obligations to keep its shareholders informed.

Again, all JMHO. Apologies to all those I am offending.