I wouldn't think it has anything to do with David Shearwood -...

I wouldn't think it has anything to do with David Shearwood - the statement from LCK seems to imply that they want to check the validity of the notice.

The Company is seeking legal advice regarding the validity of the Section 249D Notice. If the Section 249D Notice is valid, the meeting will be called within 21 days

The link that was provided about Section 249D responses says this:​

Requisitioning the meeting under section 249D

The shareholder or shareholders requisitioning the Board to call a meeting of members under section 249D must hold at least 5 per cent of the votes that may be cast at a meeting of members.¹ The requisition must be in writing, state the resolutions to be proposed, be signed by the shareholders and be given to the company.
A requisition under s 249D must be responded to by calling a meeting within 21 days and convening the meeting within 2 months. The company’s initial response will be to confirm the validity of the notice. From observed practice, the company will announce the receipt of the notice to the market before this task is completed. That announcement may name the shareholder/requisitioner – making it important to get the procedural aspects right if you are a requisitioner.

In other words - whether the requisitioner's notification is determined to be valid or invalid - after the initial confirmation notice then the identity of the requisitiner will become public ? Even if they don't hold 5% of the shares? I wonder why LCK chose not to disclose the identity of the requisitioner?


​