Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-100

"
"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."

An audit trail does not force the third party in possession of AVZ provided information to give it up.
"
The audit trail is only important for the question of breach of contract. Yibin wouldn't be suing the XYZ for holding AVZ's confidential material, they'd be suing AVZ for not requesting the material back (if they didn't and for other breaches of contract if there were - and the emergence of Competing Transaction through the lock-out clauses to beat Yibin out would sugges that) and for not going ahead with the deal and honoring its representations and warranties.

@Scarpa - I'm coming to your post next. I note you ask questions like you are asking questions for a response but also that you say at the end that that is your final response suggesting that your questions are rhetorical.

Rhetorical or not I'm intending to answer. My short answer to what is the alternative - shareholders vote no. And shareholders insist on more transparency so that there is less fog and uncertainty about the circumstances in which deals are done. Shareholders stop accepting being treated like mushrooms. That's the answer. That's the alternative - and it starts with voting no.

The reply interface seems to make it hard to post sometimes. You were saying recently you had to link Deboss post into yours another way because the interface seemed broken. I am getting those sorts of difficulties a lot.