The position of issuing warrants that he might not have been able to fulfill
I thought that might be what you were talking about, but I just wanted to be sure before investing time in an answer.
Lets look at it without the emotion.
First of all, the buyers were told what was happening, and a remedy was included in the agreement. The remedy did not allow the buyers to take advantage of the situation by voting no.
So if he didn't pull a fast one on the buyers, then the second question is, did he act in the best interests of the company? He saved the 10% cost associated with a private placement and they only sold one share with a 1/2 warrant instead of the customary one share/one warrant. That saved the company money and warrants.
So if he acted in the best interests of the company and didn't take advantage of the other party, then yes, the short answer is that his actions were ethical.
(Edit) I still don't understand the reference to a "position", it was simply a business dealing. If he hired a key employee that you didn't like, would you refer to that as putting the company in a "position"?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
