SN

I to have no legal background, but I would add to your list: legal status/composition (Cdn content) of the BODs at the time the poison pill was agreed is challengable, and; that agreeing to such an arrangement is counter productive and against BOD primary fiduciary responsibilities to work in best interst of its shareholders, both majority and minority holders.

IMO, minority rights maybe an issue as even 19.9% can be considered to represent significant influence over a company and its Board if that holder demonstrates in substance and in action that he does exert significant influence. This is Canada. substance over form still comes into paly here. Finsky has demonstrated substantial influence and these are cumulative strikes to suggest excess influence has been applied.