You see, that's what I mean, we mention transparency and...

You see, that's what I mean, we mention transparency and straight away the mind goes to only one of the reasons for transparency or a lack of it (and to only one of the set of consequences).

Have you considered that transparency may have been held back for another reason, and maybe it was allowable. And on that note, it doesn't by default mean that a lack of transparency means some shareholders got the good oil and others didn't. Not holding a bigger picture around the principle of transparency and how it relates to the overall, is just a consequence of poor critical thinking in my mind. Our psychological attachment to positive outcomes for ourself (maybe in this case a shareholder selling and then good news coming out after they sell) tends to obscure our capacity of critical thinking, instead finding oneself choosing self serving hypotheses.

Sometimes it's not strategically wise to be transparent, in a negotiation let's say, and it's not illegal or immoral to hold certain cards close to your chest, the top price you're willing to pay for example.i'm pretty sure that Bruce would walk that line carefully and in a considered manner and would have had advice regarding his legal obligations.