Just to focus your analysis a bit. There is no consideration for the warrant extension, so any notion of contingency related to the restricted period is not relevant in terms of value. If I gave you a car for nothing, but with the restriction you can’t drive it on rainy days over the next six months, I’m still not receiving anything of value or benefit for what amounts to a gift. There is a slight of hand going on which confuses which parties (or party) benefit from the transaction.
Cutting to the chase, this was insider dealing in my opinion. The same person “negotiating” the giving of the extension is the same person who is receiving the benefit from the extension. Yes, the Board may have approved this - but who is the Chairman of the Board?
I do suspect the reason why the other warrant holders were provided an opportunity to purchase an extension of their warrants is an attempt to lessen the backlash from what LP received. Imagine what the reaction would be if existing warrant holders had no option at all to extend? That would be beginning for a lawsuit. IMHO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
