General Discussion Topics, page-75403

I'm not quite sure you appreciate this issue in its entirety Loui.

You've just stated "Dare I say, there is NOT a judiciary in commercial arbitration anywhere in the world, that would look at this PLL offtake objectively, and come to the conclusion that it DOESNT need to be renegotiated...it is just so blatantly obvious....".

Let me ask you this. SYA should still be reasonably profitable on the PLL offtake volumes at $900/tonne alone. SYA will be very profitable when considering the broader picture of the PLL $900/tonne volumes + their 75% share in the remaining volume to be sold at market value. Not to mention that the offtake agreement has a shelf-life, given the commitments entered into through the Quebec Content Undertakings, which I'm adamant PLL will abide by.

On what planet, does a company who is very profitable with what they have, successfully go to arbitration to change their status from "very profitable" to "ludicrously profitable", based on a commercial agreement that they negotiated and signed 18 months ago, which was needed to secure the asset that they've acquired. Noting that whatever SYA gain, PLL (who very astutely entered into this agreement) lose. What would be the justification for going to arbitration?:

"Your honour, in hindsight, we made a mistake. PLL, who we needed to acquire NAL, negotiated very well - and they've outsmarted us. Please intervene. Our hundreds of millions of dollars of profit aren't enough. We want more please". Lol... I think you need to take off those rose tinted glasses .

I'm putting this in the same bucket of theories as SB's claim that ASIC would get involved given in hindsight, SYA's shareholders apparently weren't being looked after correctly when the agreement was signed. Again, the agreement that helped SYA actually acquire the asset to begin with. Imagine SYA without NAL - sheeeesh.