Classic example of two nations separated by a common language!
In the US LSA as a category sells a few hundred aircraft per year. Being tied to the manufacturer even for the experimental versions means the only real advantage is the medical.
Given that the requirements for certified aircraft are quite sensible, with numerous parts supplies, other than the manufacturer (PMA's parts) and Avgas cheap, then better fuel economy but a frail-er airframe does not make a paticularly attractive option.
Interestingly I was reading (albeit badly), a french flying mag, where they argued than the EASA LSA category was effectively dead - killed by dis-proporationate EASA regulation in comparison to most of the European microlight or ultralight regulations. Certainly in France why would you fly a slightly heavier aircraft, with the same engine and a surfit of rules and restrictions compared to a ULM?
The majority of LSA type aircraft in the UK are actually microlights or permit types enjoying very different rules - naturally.
But petrol here is massively more expensive than the US and that alone is enough to drive people to efficient airframes, allowing that they are more frail.
But back to the 'Ground Catcher' - too frail and tied to the manufacturer in the US - which makes it more expensive, too heavy and thirsty (and expensive) in the UK and the rest of Europe. Then you have the 'choice' of building it in China, which by itself would alienate many of the medically challenged US LSA buying public. It would not take much analysis to see its potential market as limited.