Did Lori mislead shareholders in this news release?

"Mr. Rainbird and Mr. Defreitas are not eligible for election under the Company’s articles because they failed to provide their consent to act as directors of the Company within the specified time frame."

http://steliasmines.com/?p=1879

If this statement is refering to the Advance Notice Policy, a policy not in force because it required shareholder approval to impliment it into the companies articles of incorporation, then the decision by the Supreme Court below, is invalid. If this is the case, Lori could be in serious trouble for misleading a court? It would be no excuse for ignorance in this case, it is part of Corporate Goverance to know the ins and outs of a companies Articles and By- Laws, it is competence and experience. I would also question the non interference by the BCSC in this manner, it may suggest non confidence on their part to leave such things be decided on by a court that may not know securities law and may be not in a position to pass judgement on such things.

"The Court dismissed the dissidents’ application to have article 14.10 of the Company’s articles found to be inoperative or of no effect for the upcoming AGM. As a result, any election of two of the Hastmans’ nominees for director, James E. Rainbird and Richard Alexander Defreitas, would not be valid. The ineligibility results from the failure of the Hastmans to deposit Mr. Rainbird’s and Mr. Defreitas’ consents to act as director within the time frame established by the Articles of St. Elias."

http://steliasmines.com/?p=1890