Has anyone question why on the 6th August SKI decides and agrees to sign the Long Form off-take agreement subject to their DD being completed ( Obviously their dictated term ) , and of course full financing being in place by September 30th ( pretty much in line with previous agreed extended timeline ) . So , then on the 1st of October they further agree on their own to further DD and agree to as per this statement :-
" SK Innovation and Australian Mines have agreed to extend theend date for satisfaction of the conditions precedent to 31 October 2019 solely for thepurposes of progressing discussions regarding financial support for the Sconi Project from SKInnovation, as follows: "
Now surely these ' Dog's ' know how the game is played. Namely that most projects of this nature , particularly when it is YOU ( SKI ) seeking to secure under your own specified requirements of 7 years supply of EV material , and to which had also been stated on numerous occasion's in your own press releases. Surely you ( SKI ) must realize that you don't get near these sorts of requirements ( ie 100% off takes ) , without some sort of production 'agreed Streaming ' and / or pre-payments schedule , or even a direct equity stake.
So with only 1 month to go ....which you ( SKI ) in fact agreed upon to finalize these proposed and I assume agreed upon terms - You then do a ' back flip ' and accuse AUZ that it is because they hadn't had financing in place by I assume the previous September deadline. I say previous because SKI agreed to both extension's including the most recent which was also agreed for the purposes of formulating a ' pre-payment ' schedule.
So folk's clearly they are simply displaying more of the same level of arrogance , defiance , and lies that seem to be apparent in the current lawsuit which has been filed against them by LG Chem in the US at the moment.
And folk's , I'm going to go out on a limb here is suggesting right now that LGC is going to absolutely DESTROY them given the full extent of the filing.
If you haven't had a chance to read the Court Filing by LGC , I strongly encourage ALL of you to do so. I've attached a snippet of some of the points and claims , however a FULL read is certainly worthwhile.
Bottom line is , I stand by my claims that this company will not be around in the same format within 6 - 12 months , and on Top of that , It would be my opinion that Volkswagen will at some point significantly distance themselves from this company as well.
Good Luck SKI - I'm going to enjoy your slow demise over the next 12 months......
Bottom line here people is we definitely dodged a significant bullet in these ' Dog's ' back flipping on their ' agreed ' understandings of the requirements of this project. To suggest it was AUZ's fault is not only very unprofessional and unscrupulous but also somewhat slanderous. But why I am I not surprised - it's you SKI who we had been dealing with.
INTRODUCTION
1. Defendants have systematically stolen LGC’s intellectual property andtechnology concerning LGC’s lithium-ion batteries, battery cells, battery modules, and battery packs,including components thereof and related production and testing systems and processes therefor.These products, systems, and processes are used in the rapidly-growing and highly-competitiveElectric Vehicle (“EV”) industry. Through diligent work and heavy investment over the course ofmany years, LGC became a leading developer of EV batteries and related technologies. Defendants, on the other hand, have avoided the arduous, time-consuming, and expensive process of developingtheir own EV battery technologies. Instead, Defendants have resorted to stealing LGC’s tradesecrets to overcome their lack of investment in cutting-edge technologies. Defendants accomplishedthis scheme by inducing scores of LGC’s employees to leave LGC with the intent that they wouldbring LGC’s most valuable trade secrets and confidential information to Defendants. Indeed, that isexactly what has transpired and, almost overnight, Defendants have gone from a non-player in theEV battery industry to securing contracts to supply billions of dollars’ worth of EV batteries toautomobile manufacturers. Defendants are unfairly and unlawfully exploiting LGC’s valuable tradesecrets, and this action seeks redress for Defendants’ theft and misconduct
6.LGC expended billions of dollars to develop the LGC Trade Secrets andconfidential information over the course of about 30 years. The significant investments of time andmoney resulted in LGC’s development of batteries that (a) are stable, strong and versatile, (b) can beproduced efficiently and at a substantially lower cost than other products in the market, and (c) haveevolved through vigorous testing and optimization with custom machinery and proprietaryprocesses. As a result, LGC’s Trade Secrets and other confidential information have substantialindependent economic value. By stealing LGC’s Trade Secrets and other confidential information,and by engaging in the unlawful conduct described below, Defendants have, at minimum, avoidedyears of their own research and development time and hundreds of millions of dollars of investmentexpense, causing damages to LGC in amounts that exceed billions of dollars.
20. Upon information and belief, during the time when Defendants were raidingthe Former LGC Employees, Defendants advanced their discussions with Volkswagen and obtaineda multi-billion dollar contract with Volkswagen, under which Defendants would supply batteryproducts for Volkswagen electric vehicles to be sold in the U.S., using Volkswagen’s MEBplatform. See Mike Pare, “Chattanooga VW Will Source EV Batteries from New Georgia Factory,”Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times / Free Press (Mar. 20, 2019) (reporting that a Volkswagen representativeconfirmed that “SK Innovation will supply lithium-ion battery cells for our planned electric vehicleproduction in 2022.”).
21. Upon information and belief, Defendants misappropriated LGC’s TradeSecrets to unfairly compete with LGC for the Volkswagen U.S. supply contract, thus injuring and/orthreatening to injure LGC and its business in the battery industry in the U.S. at an amount to beproven at trial.
22. The multi-billion dollar amount of the contract between Volkswagen andDefendants in and of itself shows the immense commercial value of LGC’s Trade Secrets, as well asthe harm LGC has suffered and will continue to suffer if Defendants are allowed to continue usingthe misappropriated LGC Trade Secrets and confidential information.
(20min delay)