WPL indemnity and Govt position, page-23

Just thinking out loud (and purely a guess of what has occurred)

COP - we want to sell the asset to you
WPL - okay why not? Let's talk
COP/WPL - oh shit we have to give FAR the PE notice
WPL - don't worry we will speak to our lawyers.....
WPL Lawyers - why not just skip the FAR PE notice obstacle and we'll just buy the company shares and thus technically we are not required to give FAR the PE notice (why? as we haven't sold the asset). We now own the asset under the same COP owner (but we WPL are COP as we own the shares).
COP - we don't believe this is necessary WPL and we have no interest in this arrangement. We, COP say we sell you the asset and you do what you need to do
WPL - okay we say we bought your shares and you say what you want to say
FAR - hey lawyers what should we do?
FAR Lawyers - we reserve our rights and maintain our position with PE and lack of notice.

I'm probably just bored shitless so posting this.

However, surely whatever contract COP and WPL have surely they know whether it is a Transfer of Asset or Transfer of Shares.

Surely one party whether it be COP or WPL will make an announcement to clarify what is actually being bought/sold. That is:

1. COP lawyers ringing up WPL lawyers and say 'hey Buddy you need to fix your ASX announcement and confirm it was the sale of the asset'

2. WPL lawyers ringing up COP lawyers and say 'hey Budweiser, you need to fix your SEC announcement and confirm it was the sale of the shares in the company'