if the first "shares issued" on 3 feb was genuine then they...

if the first "shares issued" on 3 feb was genuine then they should have showed up on the substantial holders list by now...but , lol, dont expect them to ever show.
either...
(a), the shares were sold before we even knew anything about lda's modus operandi, i suspect that the increase in share sales in the few weeks after 3 feb when they were sold down from 0.7c to 0.3c, included the 140,000,000 lda shares (ave 0.0038c)
or...
(b), they could nominate any number of other entities to hold up to 4.99%

either way it's still deceptive, so what's new with this mob, they dont give a stuff as long as it's "legal".

(all in my opinion only... dyor)