SK Innovation, page-1555

I feel you are on the right track and that what happened last Friday is very likely the fallout from the litigation in question. Wretched timing and can’t help but surmise that it’s a deliberate tactical move on behalf of the plaintiffs.

After all what financiers in their right mind would loan a project squillions when the off takers have a critical IP case hanging over them and it has been well documented that a possible outcome of this litigation at the US ITC between LG and SKI is the complete banning of the importing of SKI’s battery making equipment and technology. Should this be the ruling who knows how it would flow onto their European and Asian operations?

Therefore no lender can responsibly release funds when this sort of risk is still ‘live’.

The prepayment option looks like it was a way of assuring financiers but SKI appears to have balked at taking on this further legal risk of project responsibility and have instead for the time being reverted to other supply options. SKI have stated that due to AUZ “failing to secure finance the agreement is terminating” but they haven’t mentioned the background of their very serious legal matters.

A real kick in the teeth and balls concurrently for holders here...