Many years ago, it was recommended to the TSX Exchange to adopt the corporate Goverance provision of seperating the CEO from any Chair position of the company as a protection to investors. This provision was not implimented into policy for at least our company and could be considered as neglect, in a case where a company becomes insolvent as a result. Had this provision been adopted and implimented by the Exchange, Lori would not have been able to take chair of the AGM, warranted a much different outcome for the company at this time, and more favourable imo, I may add.

So, if our company goes bankrupt and we shareholders suffer much more loss than now, a degree of negligence may be able to be placed on the Exchange. The protection of voting shareholders was not upheld by the TSX allowing a biased position be placed in the chair at the most important time in the companies existence. This further enabled the recent process of signing an LOI to sell our Cueva Blanca for pocket change.

When a mechanism as such limits shareholders due process of democracy, you enter another realm of legalities to do with accountability and restitution to those affected. So, in essence, the TSX allowed this to happen and perhaps even condoned the biased chair by not acting and intervening, where they had the authority to do so, so a large part, if perhaps not all of the onus, can be placed on them as well. The TSX failed to mitigate the risk to investors by not recognizing and correcting a problem area that the Agency Theory clearly defined many years ago.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencytheory.asp

IMO