FFS, Molson you are exactly the type of complainant that we dreaded hearing from - you accept whatever someone else tells you without doing any research.

2 things:

1. The default position for any action should be the assumption of legality. If you can point to something that says an action is illegal, you have a case. If not, the presumption should be legality. I put it back to you - point out the illegality.

2. Even IF (notice it bolded and capitalized) it was illegal for Ruskowsky to not disclose the eventual purchaser, the illegal act took place between Ruskowsky and Funk, and not the company.

And Newman whether you believe me or not, I am employed by a regulator and am a completely disinterested voice in this matter. You can choose to disregard whatever I say but maybe keep an open mind that this was just a bad investment in many respects.