She never gives reasons nor complete and concise answers, it seems. Always vague, leaving many paths of interpretation of her releases. This is totally against the Corporate Governance and contradictory to how the Exchange requires issuers to act, yet she constantly gets away with it without reprimand. I say this because any reprimand is supposed to be made public by the regulators and available to shareholders. Where we never really see a reprimand against Lori or Tyna, it may suggest that the regulators are taking her side under a biased stance and neglecting shareholders interests and availability to make proper investment decisions. We did see a couple company reprimands a year or 2 ago, but we shareholders are part of the company and we were not responsible for the things she did, so it should have been made clear by the regulators who was individually responsible for the reprimands. If the reprimands would have been directly individually, Lori or Tyna may have a harder job of holding office or maybe shouldn,t even have been on the ballot because directors can,t have considerable black marks against them and even a little black mark is considered. The inaction by the regulators could also be considered anti democratic, imo.

So, we are left with this vague news release wondering if she withdrew the PP because she could not raise funds? If this is the case and the Exchange does not make her clarify the release, we can use this in our fight against the Exchange for a with holding of pertinent information to shareholders, a blatant violation on their part. If she is unable to raise cash, and that is the reason she withdrew, that goes a long way in us proving that the current BOD will surely be the demise of this company should they remain there another day.

Again, if the regulators made her withdraw the PP, this should have been put in the news release as a requirement of the Exchange and the regulators. By this not being present, and seeing no reprimand, the facts would suggest that she couldn,t get investors to participate so she had to withdraw or cancel. But here lies the problem, we all would bet that the regulators disallowed it, and that assumption is contradictory to the fact. The word withdraw does not suggest that she was instructed by the regulators, it could merely mean that she decided to withdraw it herself.

The longer the regulators allow this to continue, the more they are jeopardizing themselves along with the BOD. The regulators may also be considered as aiding and abetting the longer this goes on, which would make them just as criminal as our BOD for throwing away a democratic vote.

All in my opinion

Canada

In Canada, a person who aids or abets in the commission of a crime is treated the same as a principal offender under the criminal law. Section 21(1) of the Criminal Code provides that:

Every one is a party to an offence who(a) actually commits it;(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or(c) abets any person in committing it.

To show that an accused aided or abetted in the commission of a crime, the Crown does not need to prove the guilt of a specific principal offender.

The Crown must show something more than mere presence to prove the act of aiding or abetting. Presence in the commission of a crime might be evidence of aiding and abetting if the accused had prior knowledge of the crime, or if the accused had legal duty or control over the principal offender. For example, the owner of a car who lets another person drive dangerously without taking steps to prevent it may be guilty because of their control over the driver's use of the vehicle.[1]

Further, the Crown must show that the accused had prior knowledge that "an offence of the type committed was planned", but it is not necessary that the accused desired the result or had the motive of assisting the crime. Intention to assist the crime is sufficient. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting