Patent update!! Innovation Certification Final Report, page-296

My opinion on the possibility of a takeover, is it won't happen anytime soon.
The LPD board have solid grounds to seek an injunction on the TO proceedings until either the pending court case is finalised, OR an agreement is reached between the two parties and announced to the market (2nd option unlikely IMO).
Until the claim and subsequent counterclaim is addressed in full. Shareholders are ill informed to make a valuation on both companies and make an educated decision in relation to the offer - ie:
LITs claim successfull - LPD has a market competitor, valuation decreases.
LPDs counterclaim successfull - LPD has eliminated competitor. Valuation increases. It's very simple.

Until these factors have been decided upon. We do not, as shareholders, have access to all the information required to make an educated assesment as to where  to allocate our votes/shares.

The lack of market transparency represents obvious grounds in which to successfully seek a temporary injunction. Pending the outcome of legal proceedings.

Also of note, the T20 list has been updated on the LPD site and there are indeed discrepancies from that of LITs TO announcement. As supported by LPDs subsequent Ann.

What this tells me is that LIT have not actually accessed the shareholder registry, to confirm the accurate details of the registered names of the holders of the shares, they have acquired by conditional agreement.

Therefore, if they haven't accessed the register, how serious are they? Has anyone received correspondence from LIT?, a well plotted TO attempt, would have had offers in the mail a day or two before the public announcement.

Could all this just be a hardball tactic to place additional pressure on the LPD board to negotiate a favourable settlement, prior to proceedings?

Let's face it, if this case is unsuccessful for LIT and the counterclaims are proven, serious ramifications regarding the inaccuracies of their reporting comes into question, therefore, wilfully and knowingly misleading the market. Criminal proceedings would not be unjustified.

The stakes are high no doubt. AIMO