Well as you say that is just your intepretation ... not mine or others.
The basis of your interpretation is yet ...
you have been told, (numerous times) that there is a Shareholder Agreement that governs the JV's decision making at Sayona Quebec (as distinct from the BoD which takes care of the operational aspects of those decisions ... for example the decision to "go downstream" is a JV decision and once taken implementing that decision would be the SYQ BoD).
If you don't think that putting the JV into C&M, voiding OTA and a whole host of potential issues isn't a JV decision (but you have indicated it is a JV decision) then that's your perogative - but then you would have to believe there is no governing Shareholder Agreement then. Simple really,
If on the other hand one believes - as I do - that placing a JV owned asset into C&M (and voiding an OTA and exposing the JV to litigation, all because of a temporary low pricing scenario (and why into C&M ... is it because the JV doesn't have sufficient working capital to survive current pricing without further equity capital contribution??)) is a JV decision requiring approval by the JV's governing Shareholders Agreement, (and you already have been told numerous times that these special effectively unanimous approval - both JV partners agree not the 75%/25% vote).
And likewise SYA - "can't cry foul play as they were part of democratic vote on the Shareholder Agreement - any decisions to cease operations will be a joint decision as it's a joint venture", and SYA "will have to suck it up as they will be part of that decision" - swapping SYA for PLL in your words.
So DYOR. I believe what I believe for the reasons outlined.
Oh and surely your "Buy" sentiment and "Held" cannot be right ... you would buy into a company you agree is bound for administration due the senior JV partner putting asset into C&M?
(20min delay)