With all due respect your idea of the court case is quite confused.
The current civil case demanding payment of bills, and replacement of the Nio Star board the judge will ask to see the invoices, that they were approved by the BOD,or the shareholders as needs be, see that the match up with the audited financial records. Then he will decide, separately, whether the current board is competent or are not;that's about it.
If the bills are not done properly or for other reasons the judge may set some of them aside. If the bills are correct he will decide for the plaintiffs. If he thinks they were not done in proper fashion he will decide for the defendant, Nio Star. If he thinks Mr. Pichler and Mr. Byrnes are competent they will remain, if he finds them incompetent they will be replaced.
As for Mr. Byrnes hocus pocus counter suit listing security violations, Ontario Superior Court does not have the jurisdiction to try security violations; the spurious accusations of Mr. Byrnes would be referred to the OSC and it would be the OSC's decision to charge Currah et al.
The OSC, I am quite confident , by Mr. Byrnes urging last year here on the board that they go and 'tell' about Currah et al, that they have reviewed the matter already and are not bothering as there is no fire, only Dan's self made smoke.
And, in the unlikely chance that the OSC did decide to proceed against Currah et al it would be a separate matter entirely than the civil case for the debt to be paid and the concurrent pleading of the plaintiffs that the current board of Nio Star is incompetent and needs to be removed and replaced by competent directors.
Hope that helps.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
