So you are willing to assume that RFT delivered the product to Tritium of which the deposit is for? - why?
Again, if any of this deposit is from Tritium and the product was not delivered, the liquidators may/will come for it.
Obviously, it could also be the case than none of it could be deposits from Tritium in which case it just leaves 5 million of the Tritium contract unpaid and undelivered. In this case RFT is short 5 million bucks and has 5 million bucks worth of stock it mat have to firesale or reconfig to extract value. That's a 10 million whole in the budget, regardless
As for calling it a loan, that's essentially what a deposit is. The customer pays a deposit with the understanding they will recieve product they have ordered. No product/order delivered and the customer will be asking for their deposit back.
You cant count it as cash/assets for rft as this situation is exactly why the deposit is placed in liabilities. If tritium paid a deposit, and dont take delivery of the stock from the order they are entitled to their deposit back. This is how the liquidator will view it.
The note i highlighted above seems to indicate that Tritium stopped taking delivery of goods from RFT some time ago. In other words, they know they couldnt pay for it and closed their doors to accepting it.
Again, they themselves (RFT) stated "we are ensuring that the current open orders on this product are being honoured by that customer"...?
Oviously, this can no longer be "ensured" and simply will not occur as, as we know, that significant customer of RFT's is now in liquidation.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
