Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-90

"What right would Yibin have to enforce a “request return” ? I suggest None! but even if they could it would exclude any analysis already undertaken and in the possession of the 3rd party.

Perhaps AVZ could enforce terms ... but the process would take significant time ..."

I think the more practical way to think of it is that the 1.2(c) provisions operate as a set. The are an agreement between AVZ and Yibin which AVZ has already agreed to.. AVZ is already recommending this deal to shareholders.

If you what to imagine that a better deal than Yibin can get up then you have to be able to imagine a way for it to get past the lock out devices (the clauses in 1.2(c)) operating together as a set given that Yibin can treat them as terms of a contract.

So say company XYZ somehow makes a better Competitive Transaction (perhaps offering 15million at 4.5 cents a share) - Yibin could ask to see evidence of AVZ that they had requested of XYZ that their information about AVZ provided under due diligence or confidentiality agreements be returned. If AVZ couldn't show it asked for the info back with an audit trial (request communications etc) it would be a pretty good indication of a breach.