I have been telling myself and perhaps a very few others that it was unfortunate that Lar somehow got caught in this kerfuffle.

But as I understand it, anybody is given an opportunity to "blow the whistle" by running to the OSC with an allegation that a company has not complied with OSC rules with respect to its transparency. However, it would be up to the OSC to determine if the allegation has some merit and to decide if it wants to conduct a review. If the review shows that infact the company has operated outside the rules then that will trigger the non-compliant procedures. Contact would be made with the CEO of the company to inform the company with the findings and to give the company a chance to choose its options for responding to OSC request. The event will unfold itself according to OSC procedures.

If the OSC review of the allegation indicated that the company has not violated the rules then the case is closed and no further action is required. The OSC does not even need to inform the company about the allegation and reveal the identity of the complainant. Not sure if the OSC could be forced by the court to reveal the identity of the complainant in the case the company is found "guilty" by the OSC and the company did not agree with OSC findings. For this situation, the case would end up in court and it would be expected that the id of the complainant would be revealed, especially if requested by the company (please correct if my guess is way off here).

Also, as I understand it the OSC is up to its eyebrows in violation allegations, so it has to be selective in its screening for review. The OSC would know, hopefully, how to deal with chronic complaints from non-shareholders who may have ulterior motive to hurt the company for their own gains.

Nobody is 100% perfect. Perfection should be not be expected from companies, the majority of the companies would try their best to comply with OSC guidelines, but sometimes it would be impossible to achieve a perfect 100% score, and it would not be a surprise to see a lot of minor "infractions". I would bet that if the OSC looked hard enough it woud find something, some violations, but the real question for the OSC to decide would be if the "violations" is "federal" or "provincial". Seek and for sure you will find".

Enough for OSC discussion. I would leave the question on a potential court case for taking posters to court (as in CCB cases) for future discussions, if the current kerfuffle continue to surface.

Personally, I don't think that a non-shareholder should be given a carte blanche to drag a company to the OSC to put it under the microscope with allegation that the company has a transparency issue (unless the issue is causing harm to that person personally). If the reason is for the protection of the shareholders of the company then I would say "that's is a noble gesture - thanks, but no thanks, since we don't not need your help". As shareholders, we can deal with our company ourselves, without any help from an outsider (who may have some ulterior motive). Besides, why would the person spend the time worrying about something that is none of his/her business?

Other posters, Hoov included, please weigh in with your considered opinions.

Let's hope that we don't need to go through this again, and the kerfuffle will be blown away.

goldhunter