Pretium planned to test the accuracy of the estimate by
excavating and testing a 10,000-tonne sample, but while that test
was pending, Pretium retained another consultant. The second
consultant, based on a smaller test sample, opined that Pretium
ought to report that there was reason to doubt the first consultant’s resource estimate. Pretium disagreed with that opinion, and
the second consultant resigned. Pretium then disclosed to the
market its disagreement with the second consultant and its reason
for not disclosing the pessimistic opinion, which after an investigation Pretium felt was based on an unreliably small sample. The
disclosure of the disagreement with the second consultant, however,
led to a precipitous decline in the value of Pretium’s shares. Mr.
Wong brought a statutory action for misrepresentation for Pretium’s
omission to disclose its disagreement with the second consultant. Mr.
Wong sought leave to assert his statutory cause of action.
 In the Wong case, although by the time of the leave
motion, it had been determined that the original resource esti-
mate had indeed been accurate and that the mining project was
on schedule, Justice Belobaba granted Mr. Wong leave to proceed
with his statutory claim. Justice Belobaba concluded that Mr.
Wong had met the test of showing a reasonable possibility of suc-
cess of his statutory claim at trial. At paras. 36-37 of his reasons
for decision, Justice Belobaba stated:
As already noted, the debate between [first consultant] on the one side and
[second consultant] on the other was a debate that would eventually be won
by Pretium when the bulk sample was fully milled and tested. However, dur-
ing the time period in question, it cannot be said, in all the circumstances,
that the unreliability of the sample tower date was so obvious and self-
evident and [second consultant’s] concerns so wrong-headed that [its] find-
ings and views were not material and that no reasonable investor would want
to know what [second consultant] was saying.
In my view, by any objective measure, reasonable investors would have considered it material that two respected mining consultancies retained by
Pretium . . . fundamentally disagreed as to whether there were valid mineral
resources in the VOK zone of the Brucejack mine, a question that went to the
very heart of Pretium’s entire business model.
 I do regard the Wong v. Pretium Resources Inc. case as
helpful to Mr. Paniccia. SEC’s service of a subpoena and commencement of an investigation is not comparable to a second consultant conducting an independent investigation and wishing to
report his conclusions about a resource estimate. An investigation
is not a conclusion about a fact. An investigation may be short or
it may be long, but whether its conclusions amount to anything
material is an unknown at the point of commencement.
 A reasonable investor would not expect a company to
immediately report the service of subpoena. What a reasonable