IMO...When one says "We have all intentions of looking out for our shareholders best interests" and then allows what would have been an attainable retention election percentage of 10% to be upped to 20% really begs the question, " Which very expense consultancy firm or financial institution suggested this to you?"....And how is that they did not suggest that your company not list under the CSE, whose public threshold is only 10%, if you truly meant what you said about once again " Looking after your shareholders best interests". Why were all avenues not exhausted before accepting this?  Please make note, when I say shareholders I do mean ALL SHAREHOLDERS. NOT JUST THE RICH ONES. Something that IMO has not been adhered to by our BOD.

NO...You said 10% at the start, so you should have been made to keep to that Andrew, because, again, to utter such values meant you checked with your legal people first. Words of this sort coming from a multi billion dollar company are scrutinized very carefully by their very expensive legal firms before being said openly...So I call BS. IMO...The percentage was changed on purpose to drive a privatization agenda.....Something that is obviously not  in the best interests of Noront shareholders. YES...Everything I am saying is supposition...BUT why is this being allowed?...It defies all historic Canadian National Security logic. How is it that you are now being allowed to get away with this?

If Canada does not stand up to this then they are just as equally to blame because this will set a precedence for all foreign companies to follow...."Take what you want..We Canadians don't mind. Our country is yours..And it's cheap".