Next Move, page-35

Hmm a few interesting angles within this report. Actually, it's the most accurate reporting of the situation I have seen. So we'll done on that front Fraser Beattie. Clearly not paid for or contributed comment that we are used to seeing.
Also implies that he has spoken with LPD (I wonder who initiated that) and some hard questions were put to AG on the spot.

Points of interest -
1. Stated no HF is used and LPD should know this, despite LIT never expressly stating that in return to LPDs enquiries.

2. A target board should be fully informed to be able to make an informed recommendation to the market regarding the bid. So why haven't LIT been fully responding to LPD enquiries?
Commercial in confidence would protect their IP. They had access to our IP during patent application. Why not fully disclose in an attempt to seek a favourable recommendation from our board?

3. PWN holders will emerge with a greater return, even at the below value offer...how?

4. Refer to 2chance's point about different acids than HF being "used" but when combined can actually make HF during the process. AG's wording of his answer, doesn't categorically deny that this couldn't be the case and if it's not HF, than what is it? His response is public record now, a direct quote, this may have been what our board was seeking. Let's face it, if the answer to that question was yes, the consequences would be detrimental for LIT, motive to skirt the answer.

But if it's not HF, Where is the study giving us the environmental assessments, cost estimates etc for Sileach? We should be fully informed if they are asking for our votes.

5. As they haven't replied to LPDs enquiries, and this lad seems to have the scoop, I'm sensing the start of the LPD PR counteroffensive.

Some food for thought,