Anyone have any experience with voting rights of unvested option holders?  

 

Maybe I am reading this wrong but is ARMZ applying to the Courts to have option-holders declared eligible to vote even if they don't actually own the security (see page 22 of the Jan 17, 2013 (filed) document on SEDAR)?  

 

And then the move is to lock all of those options into "yes" votes under voting agreements (the contents of which are private) as was disclosed in the Early Warning Report filed on January 15?

 

How can an option to purchase a share become a voting share unless the option is exercised (creating a voting share) first?  This seems like nothing more than another way to unfairly stack the deck.   

 

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?