Very nice legal look by Crazydik, Esq., and we should be grateful for such contributors with such varied areas of expertise that make valuable contributions such as this to our board. I am not familiar with Canadian law, but do know that it flows out of the same English Common Law tradition as what we have here in the U.S.

One other act of which Rosseau may be potentially liable, at least under law here in the U.S. (and probably Canada as well, and Crazydik can certainly speak to this better than myself) is something called "Tortious Interference with a Business Contract". That is, by the false representations that Rosseau has made, as pointed out so well by Crazydik, they may have harmed relations that Noront has with their shareholders, who could be considered their business partners, since they've purchased stock in Noront and, thus, invested in the company based on their trust in Richard Nemis and his board of directors and the strategies and plans that Nemis and company have set forth to us investors, thus inducing us to enter into this business relationship (i.e., investing in the company by buying shares of stock).

A law suit brought against Rosseau in court, should Rosseau be successful in their proxy fight, under this cause of action, if successful, would typically give the court authority to "undo" the results of the election, and order a new election. This may be something for management to consider should we end up on the losing side of this proxy fight. Again, Crazydik is Canadian and knows Canadian law and can better comment on the likelihood of such a suit succeeding under Canadian law. Just something else I thought of that might be worth keeping as a "spare arrow in our quiver".