I think the variation in actual announcements is the key...

I think the variation in actual announcements is the key difference here, SCU released a price sensitive post stating:

Stemcell United Limited (“SCU” “the Company”) is pleased to announce the appointment of Medicinal Cannabis expert Mr. Nevil Schoenmakers as a Strategic Advisor to the Board to assist the Company assess opportunities in the medicinal cannabis sector.

SCU believes the sector is complementary to its existing operations and the Company can leverage its extensive experience, technologies and operational synergies from its existing Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) plant extract business.

Mr. Schoenmakers was referenced in the industry magazine High Times as the "King of Cannabis", and he brings a wealth of sector experience to SCU. He was the first cannabis cultivator to export cannabis seeds from the Netherlands to global markets, and he is credited with creating many of the most popular award winning strains. The Company’s Non-Executive Chairman Ms. Jamie Khoo said: “We are pleased to welcome Mr. Schoenmakers’ as a Strategic Advisor as we assess opportunities in the medicinal cannabis sector. SCU’s ability to attract experts the stature of Mr. Schoenmakers demonstrates tremendous confidence in our prospects in this market.”

To me that just reads as our company has hired or contractually signed an agreement with an adviser, referring in no way to products or future intentions, only to opportunities (pure hype on a name alone).

In contrast BDA announcement reads (edited parts):

Sydney, Australia – 3 April 2017 – Developer and distributor of natural, evidence-based skin care and health products, Bod Australia Limited (“Bod” or the “Company”) (ASX: BDA) has signed a letter of intent (LOI) with Linnea Natural Pharma Solutions (Linnea) to develop products using the Swiss company’s cannabis extracts.

Under the agreement, the Bod and Linnea will work together on the development, manufacture and commercialisation of two product ranges utilising Linnea’s unique & standardised cannabis extracts: one for a unique over-the-counter derma-cosmetic skincare range and secondly, the development of therapeutic product(s) targeting areas such as but not limited to nausea and vomiting, antiinflammation, neuroprotection and anxiety disorders.

Bod intends to import raw materials from Switzerland, manufacture and package finished dosage forms in Australia as well as co-ordinate relevant clinical trials as it establishes registerable indications with Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Bod will also manage full formulation and analytics of the product development, production of lab samples, pilot batches and valuation batches for stability testing.

To me this announcement outlines the two parties involved including obligations of each party, products, and a glimpse of their plan going forward.

In analyzing a loi I found the following in relation to the legality of the document:

Interpretations of Letters of Intent
A court relies on two factors when determining if a letter of intent is binding: written expressions of intent present in the letter and demonstrative actions taken by both parties after the letter of intent is signed. If it is treated like a contract, it could be ruled binding.
It is also important to understand the relationship between the two parties. If two parties draft and sign an ambiguous letter of intent but have a history of nonbinding agreements together, it is likely the court will rule the most recent letter as also nonbinding.

Recourse for Nonbinding Letter of Intent Breach
Suppose a letter of intent is nonbinding, but one company incurs costs or devotes resources only to have the deal fall through. In many cases, there is no recourse for losses incurred. However, it is possible the breaching party could be found to have failed to negotiate in good faith. These laws are ambiguous and likely depend on jurisdiction and type of letter of intent.

In other words, a letter of intent is a binding agreement but can hit a lot of grey areas along the way if either party fails to adhere to the terms.

IMO this is probably a cheap way for Scwhabe Group to get a foot in the door of the Australian market, with an Australian brand that already has a reputation for skin care products. I doubt most people jumping on the band wagon bothered to read through all the previous posts or information about BDA.

Will be interesting to see further announcements and where this one goes, but it might actually have some decent potential to expand on their already current business

9c (37.78%) up from previous close is not a massive stretch considering all the various companies that got into mm market and rose dramatically, many of which are sitting above the first days price rise still.

BOT 15.9%
QBL 33.33%
CMY 83.3%
SCU 2861%

Others took longer to gain % over time and not worth mentioning in this context.