Hello Mark,

I am not sure if I interpreted your post correctly. Clarification of the following items would be appreciated.

1. BG's posts were sent to ZEN by yourself (?) for ZEN review and comments, with a request for ZEN to issue a PR to clarify the situation.

2. Their reply (from AE?) with a confirmation that ZEN has been operating within the laws (but not answering your enquiry directly and not planning to do what you suggested). But included this warning: "Parties who seek to harm the interests of Zenyatta Ventures Ltd. are hereby notified to govern themselves accordingly".

The warning is interesting, but if it's buried in a private reply, then it would not be effectively disseminated in the public domain (putting a PR on their website would be more effective).

The key issue: BG has filed his official complaints to the OSC. Does anyone know the contents of those submissions? Also, whatt would be the procedures for this kind of complaint?

a. OSC informs the company;

b. Company is provided with the submissions for its responses as part of the OSC review;

c. OSC reviews and sends back a reply to the complainer (and informs the company and the public).

If the OSC found that the company/ZEN was operating within the rules, hence in the clear. A potential follow-on action from the company and/or shareholders that have lost a significant amount of money due to the complaint to the OSC from a non-shareholder could be to take the complainer to court for the damages (reputation, investment loss,...).

This is formal complaint to the OSC, hence would be looked at as a serious charge which implies fraudulent behaviour of the company. Even posts on the BB causing potential harm to the company's interests could result in posters to be found legally liable, as in the case of CCB suing several posters.

Legal beagles: Please feel free to jump in with your opinions/speculations.

goldhunter