You have to read the context TenKay. Ignoring the word "however" for the moment, it says that LLEG is a stakeholder
If you ignore the "however", you get a little closer to it being a possibility. But the "however" IS THERE and it contrasts the "stakeholder" characterization to the "equity holder"...therefore the equity was sold. That "however" is there for a reason.
A plain reading of the website text (which I assume was agonized over by there lawyers...since this was one of the post-suspension additions) is that they sold their equity completely for the initial payment. There is a second payment due based on Cate achieving a milestone that represents an enhanced value of the asset. It appears that they were willing to reward LLEG for that if it happened. This does not mean they retained equity...or it reverts back to them. If it does, why not just say that?
IMO the "stakeholder" means additional payment, which most here seem to agree with. These types of "additional" payments are included all the time in sale/purchase agreements when there is an uncertainty over the value of a component of the asset that will be fixed at a later date. That additional payment amount is predicated on achieving something later on. It rarely means that the asset transfer does/did not happen.
I think the words on the website were choosed VERY CAREFULLY, including the "stakeholder" and "however" to keep some mystery and allow people to see what they want to see based on their interest.
AI
