Not given enough consideration is just how accommodating Noront BOD was in their 'offer' to peacefully make changes to Noront's BOD.

RiskMetrics notes that the compromise solution proposed by Noront, which would have seen Rosseau nominate two directors and have the right to approve three more independent directors of a seven-member board was "disproportionately generous compared to Rosseau's less than 10% stake."

Noront offered extremely generous participation on their BOD based not on Rosseau's 10% share ownership but fact they represented disidents likely holding just over 30% of shares. In normal times 30% ownership equals pretty much rubber stamp control.

Noront's offer would still have protected we 'long' retail investors and yet control of the board could be had as long as the 3 'independent' directors alined with any other two directors. So why would Rosseau go to the expense and risk of fighting for all 7 seats?

This whole Proxy fight comes down to not being willing to allow existing Directors and Management to nominate 2 out of 7 Directors? That, to me, makes this a totally ridiculous exercise and 'shame on Rosseau'.

We 'retail' investors can beat 'Rosseau' if we band together AND if we 'whip their zzz' just watch the business press pay attention.