LETTERS TO THE EDITOR — Seabright coverage incomplete

We are writing in connection with the article “Judge finds in Seabright’s favor” (T.N.M., Apr. 5/93). We represented Terence Coughlan and Jack Garnett at the trial of their action against Westminer Canada and others.

The most important findings of the court were not mentioned in the article. The central conclusion reached by Justice Nunn was that Coughlan, Garnett and the other former directors of Seabright acted throughout honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of Seabright Resources. Equally important was the finding that there was no undisclosed material fact, material change, or material information with respect to Seabright’s Beaver Dam property. Neither of these fundamental findings was mentioned by your writer.

The observation in the article that Justice Nunn cited “the controversial British Columbia Supreme Court decision of Judge Lambert, with its somewhat narrow definition of material change,” ignores the fact that the Pezim decision was referred to in passing by Justice Nunn solely for the uncontroversial proposition that “material change” and “material fact” bear different definitions and different consequences under the Securities Act. Unlike the Pezim decision, Justice Nunn proceeded to consider whether Seabright has complied with National Policy 40 and concluded that there had been no breach of the disclosure requirements of the policy. After hearing 83 days of evidence and reviewing more than 1,600 exhibits, the court has delivered a considered decision which exonerates the former Seabright directors from any wrongdoing. There can be no justification for your writer’s gratuitous comment that “some local observers were expecting a closer decision.” These people, whoever they are, did not hear the evidence. Uninformed comment is precisely what damages a reputation.

Jonathan Stobie

Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales

Halifax, N.S.