Boxter,

I am well aware of OSC procedures on how it would deal with a complaint. If a complaint was made quietly then it would be different story. Nobody will know until the OSC has come to its conclusion and only until it has found the company has not been complied fully with the rules and contact the company CEO for remedial actions. Most of the time, it would take some simple corrections to satisfy the OSC. In this case, it was quite different, the fellow made noises about inadequate disclosure in a BB, and our company was selected as a lucky winner. If he continues making unfounded allegations using the BB he might ended with a lawsuit in his hands (CCB suing several posters and won). Another poster on this board mentioned that it was a hit piece, for whatever purpose, but certainly not for the benefit of the shareholders of our company. This kind of action should not be left unchallenged.

BY going through the route of a formal complaint to the OSC he would have the benefit of protection under OSC provisions. The fellow has declared that he has submitted his formal complaints to the OSC. Strictly speaking we don't really know if this is true or not. But his declaration was all that all we have, and it's there on the table. If you don't believe that was true then you are entitled to your opinion. But, it would be jumping to conclusion to say that "Gold Hunter, why are you taking it as 'gospel' that a complaint has been registered???". In fact, I don't take it as gospel...the fellow could be bluffing...that's why I was suggesting about calling his bluff and asking him to show his cards (i.e. showing his formal complaint to prove that he actually did it). Putting him under the spotlight could serve as a deterrence to keep him quiet.

If you look around you will see many other people/shareholders who are quite concerned about what the fellow is doing and try to rebut the allegation, instead of rolling over and playing dead.

goldhunter