This makes ZERO sense. You don't have to do whatever modeling you're talking about, you just have to look at the disclosures. They had 9.6 million shares as of 12/1/20. They sold 1.92 million shares the week of 11/26. That left them with ownership of 10.37%. If they'd sold 6 million shares on 11/27, they would've been required to disclose that, as it would've dropped them below 10% ownership. Their next filing was from 11/30. From 11/27-11/30, they sold a total of 360k shares. That dropped them to 9.99% ownership, which is now below the reporting threshold. So what is 100% verifiable, and contrary to your post, is:

1. BCP did not sell 6 million shares on Nov. 27
2. As of close of trading on 11/30, BCP still held more than 9 million shares.
3. As of 12/1, BCP no longer had 10% effective ownership, and no longer was required to report.

Just review the SEDAR early warning. 

Similarly, if Ganfeng were to be selling, which I believe is something you hypothesized, they are likewise required to file an early warning notice for any sales in excess of 2% within 2 days of the transaction. There have been ZERO early warning reports recently for any partner other than BCP.

WB DT is 100% correct here with regard to your post's Pavel. They're highly, highly, highly inaccurate and verifablly so. 

And, rather than offer some contrived means for validation, I would point folks to my source material. You can check everything I've said against publicly available records at https://sedar.com/. 

So, the good news is that we can dispense with the speculation offered by Pavel, and be comfortable knowing the facts.

As for my speculation, now that BCP is under 10%, it's not easy to know what their trades are. But, based on their likely previous patterns, I do think that they continue to sell shares. Which, likely continues to point to this being a BCP problem and nothing to do with LAC.