The reported insider ownership of 25% on the Zacks report, still has me thinking. Looking back on the report from November 2023 the quoted insider ownership was only 0.6%. 

We know there has been very little insider activities from the officers of the company, who have reporting requirements. 

An insider can be defined as below (s.143 40 v. of Securities Act)

 a person or company that is in a class of persons or companies designated under subparagraph 40 v of subsection 143 (1); (“initié”)

 v.  designating classes of persons or companies for the purpose of clause (f) of the definition of “insider” in subsection 1 (1), if the persons or companies would reasonably be expected to have, in the ordinary course, access to material information about the business, operations, assets or revenue of the issuer, to be insiders, and

So what has changed since Nov/23? All of the capital raises below. 

• Sept 25th - 4M shares
• July 19th - 3.3M shares
• May 10th - 3.5M shares
• May 3rd - 3.2M shares
• Jan 16th - 3.6M shares

17.6 / 69.6 ~ 25%

My conclusion some of those who participated in the recent PPs over the last year have had access to material undisclosed information as defined above, which then the company deems them as insiders. Additionally, it appears those parties do not have reporting requirements either by threshold ownership (less than 10%) or are exempt from reporting requirements.

The recent spikes in volume are interesting to say the least, I do wonder if those parties who participated in the PP acted as a intermediary to disburse shares to those who want to remain anonymous. (strategic investors from its partners)

Again have more questions than answers on this one, but that's par for the course !