Ann: Update on Legal Proceedings and BARD1 Autoantibody Program, page-22

The contract says that she is entitled to certain performance shares. Without going into contractual details, she is relying on 'implied terms' in the contract, so your point about the contract being signed being cut and dried is simply not the case. She is relying on what her lawyers say are 'implied terms' of the contract and good luck with that!!! One of the implied terms she is relying on is that the company will make best efforts to maximize the profits she'll get for her shares.
I am happy the company is challenging that. The company has a duty to ALL its shareholders to maximize returns. It has to focus on what it thinks are its best products at any particular time in the cycle of approvals. She will have to prove the value of what could've been the profits of her contribution to the product without the sale to Inoviq.
The herd is running today 'cos any whiff of court action frightens them.. this will pass. It's a great company and has great products and already has the runs on the board in obtaining approvals. IMO a buying opportunity. and can see on Bell Potter a fair number of buyers snatching this from weak hands.