For me the two main issues that Glaucus was relying on with...

For me the two main issues that Glaucus was relying on with their short campaign were; a) the AUM and how fees are generated and b) the valuations of assets/funds. BLA answered both those critical questions very well.
Their reiterated their AUM, which is calculated the same as all the major realestate managers on the ASX (i.e inc debt) and how they generate fees which whilst different to some asset managers would be well known by their investors. Fees/Performance fees are generally one of the first things checked when making an investment, especially if you are an institution. If their investors (which include Goldmans Sachs etc) are happy with the fee structure and the corresponding performance, then who cares what Glaucus think?!!

Secondly, the most glaring of the cherry picked assets that Glaucus allege were overvalued have been shown not to be overvalued. The Beach Burrito tweet by Glaucus was a tactic and should have been given the same attention that tweets deserve, esp considering how off they were on the valuation. Yes, some people will want the valuation of every asset triple audited but that would mean staying in halt for over a month.

Lastly, you don't think Fidelity, Goldmans or any of the investing institutions would have sent a team of analysts/actuaries down to BLA before the last placement?

There will be volume tomorrow, no doubt about it, but there will also be a massive short squeeze as well and if I had to pick sides I'd rather be on Fidelity's than Glaucus's - simple - inside or outside the tent?!