In response to your first supposition, it,would have been wise to have consulted expert outside counsel especially since LP at this stage should have been careful to avoid even the appearance of self dealing. I don't know if LG as GC actually did consult outside counsel or counseled himself. Sometimes lawyers, like physicians, delve into areas in which they are not expert and misstep. So I don't know the answer to your supposition.
What I do know is that the value of the restriction was not explained except by conjecture that, to wit, there are ways these restrictions can be valued. Well, I suppose there are, so, in this case, what are they? The statement itself is not very helpful and is an unacceptable response to an accredited investor(s). What is troubling, at least to me, is that the value, if any, is ill-defined and contingent upon events that reasonably could be manipulated/controlled by the person so restricted,I.e., the timing of TLD. Or there could be unforeseen events, like previous COVID-19, that intervene and are beyond the control of the restricted party, in this case, the CEO.
When I brought this up, the response I got was that TLD will definitely be announced during the restrictive period. Hence, implicit is that TLD is not a contingent event. Do you believe that? Especially considering their track record of meeting guideline deadlines? Or how about the supposition that upon release of TLD there will be a rise in the SP? A short squeeze? How does he know? He is supposedly blinded and in any event, market reaction is anyone's guess. It is all contingent and may or may not have value.
As an aside, I was involved in a case in Japan before the Tokyo District court. I was handling a case in partnership with a Japanese lawyer who had retired from the Japan Supreme Court and was a professor of law at Keio University and had an LLM from Harvard. He and his partner told me we could never prevail and to advise the client accordingly to withdraw. I advised them that we could win and I knew the facts better than anyone and was rather creative. We were up against a very well known Tokyo law firm. Every thing looked against us. I told them that I would write all,the court briefs, they would review and check relevant legal cites and if they felt during the course of the trial I was off base, we would withdraw. We explained all this to the client and they wished to go forward. We won the case and even made law. The former Supreme Court justice congratulated me and said he learned a lot from me, a relative non-expert. So, I was not and am not impressed by fancy expert outside counsel. They take a dump the same way I do.
You have your own opinion. To me, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck..... just maybe it could be LP. Anyway, the cavalier attempt at explanation was unpersuasive. All in my opinion of course.
