Thanks @rokkett, Someone has to stand up for LIT and AG. Nice to...

Thanks @rokkett,

Someone has to stand up for LIT and AG. Nice to here from you.

So are you saying that because Mexico and Alix is a Clay play, that Sileach will not be used or contemplated hence wont be in the sign off signature? If that is true, why would it be everywhere else, including the Blackearth graphite IPO for example? We read into the publicly available info (limited as it may be in this case and sometime you need to read between the lines.

For those naysayers out there , rokkett does have a point, it is important to understand that the PCT process takes time. There is a gap between when the provisional lapses and the PCT is granted. In my opinion, LIT made the same mistake last year:

That said, the lack of LIT sileach disclosure, despite patent protection, is alarming. LPD has brought this to the attention of its holders due to the "aggressive and unsolicitated" TO attempt and there must be a reason for this.

@rokkett can you offer a valid response to the questions posed by LPD in the following announcements?
http://www.lepidico.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/LPD-170220-Letter-to-Shareholders.pdf
http://www.lepidico.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/LPD-170310-Letter-to-Shareholders.pdf
Preferably without sending a letter to the lawyers...

And surely you cannot blame the LPD holders for taking an interest in its potential TO company. The LPD holders are a well researched lot and when the scrip bid is at a "significant premium" (read discount) investors want to know what they are getting. LIT have done enough to down-ramp there own stock, I dont think they need anyone here to help.