Court Update November 28th 2022 Medcan v CGB, page-69

@workingdog The projects themselves aren't an issue imo - it is the fact that an undisclosed director interests have been created in direct conflict to the activities carried out by CGB.

If it is the subject of the acquisition some explaining needs to be done to every single shareholder of CGB. The only way it could legitimately be accepted by shareholders as an acquisition is if it was acquired for cost without pricing uplift.

To be fair, this may not even be related to the acquisition. But shareholders still need an explanation for it now because in the absence of a previous disclosure it appears that there has been an attempt to omit it.

If I worked for BHP as a geologist, came across some sites with great potential, didn't tell BHP & then took up a tenement registration in my own company name for those sites i'd be out on my a** & taken to court for the rights to those tenements.