In what circumstances will the CP18 defendants be successful in their anti-SLAPP claim?

We therefore conclude that the CP18 defendants' receipt of CP18's assets was not an act in furtherance of the CP18 defendants' right of petition or free speech. (Navellier v. Sletten, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 92 ["The anti-SLAPP statute's definitional focus is not the form of the plaintiff's cause of action but, rather, the defendant's activity that gives rise to his or her asserted liabilityand whether that activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning" (italics omitted)].) We agree with the trial court that the CP18 defendants have not met their initial burden of showing the complaint arose from protected activity.