The ILCA/ISAF were not a part of the contracts between Kirby and the builders and probably don't have access to those documents. I would imagine there was a separate legal agreement covering the conditions for the ILCA/ISAF to supply plaques to builders.
Then we can only hope they have complied with those conditions (given BK notifying them of builder contract terminations). If they complied with their obligations then they should be in the clear. But, that BK has included them in the legal case suggests that they may easily not have complied (obviously though we have and I suspect will not see their defence).
I suspect that the court action is a means to clear LP out of the frame so BK can appoint a new builder without arguments about who is "the real builder" and which boat is a "Laser" (even if known under a different name). Any new builder may have reservations about starting to build when LP are still "playing the game" and presumably maintaining they are the legal builder (as I suspect starting to build Lasers is a fair amount of work). The Complaint document suggests that the moulds, plugs, etc. are owned by BK; or at least near the end of the document he is asking the Court for their "return" (page 21). Which suggests that they would be passed to a new builder and that would certainly stop LP from continuing to build and would ensure we don't have the "two classes" I was hypothesising about earlier.
I think the "Torch" thing might be indirectly confirming where this is heading. I would assume the Class Rules for a "Torch" would state that Lasers built before xxxx (or sail numbers prior to xxxxxxx) are considered class legal Torches (giving the new class an immediate massive number of boats/fleets/events/etc.). That is assuming the relevant authorities accept it all (if they have any say). And maybe the Torch will have an improved sail (from day one) ?
Ian