If you say I/we "are not privy to ownership of entities on our...

If you say I/we "are not privy to ownership of entities on our register" and you know the ownership of the entities on the register, then in my view you are not telling the truth. It might be different to say "entities are not required to disclose their ownership" but that is not what is quoted.

It beggars belief that
1. JK did not know his brother was involved.
2. That the ownership of shares concentrated into the family was not a matter shareholders/investor would find important
3. that once it came out, everyone would just accept that maybe, on a technicality, it was not a misstatement of the ceo's actual position.

There seem to be a lot of bush lawyers thinking there is a meaningful difference between "we are not privvy to" and "we don't know". I don't see a difference.