Ann: Update on Right of First Refusal,MIN-PLS.AX, page-238

I'm still confused, others might be to and others bored as much, only for the brave hearted - ignore otherwise:

Because we don't know the minutiae of the ROFR and the ensuing politics in and out of court, there are many edges to this still undefined. At least in my mind and I've followed this closely and that's not to say coherently as I don't understand some issues such as fixed and dynamic pricing -- how can their be misconceptions escapes me:

First I will say, PLS is right in that they decide what they want no one can define that for them.

No one should be less favoured at one sale notice event. However --

If MIN can't match the agreement PLS have with GL it's because there are characteristics to the agreement that are unique : the Malaysia Plant. How can MIN match that? -- let PLS join in on Wodgina? (Tell me if I missed something here) the agreement with GL is not just monetary it's in a joint venture.

The sale notice : to what extent does the agreement cover the sale AND joint venture-on sale to China?

This is where I don't understand what a smelter royalty is exactly compared to something else.

Does it only cover the PLS product sold to GL at the Malaysia plant and the processing at the Malaysia plant and onwards from. there not covered?

On 28th of June MIN and GAM were announced as settling on assets and resources. Prior to that I am led to understand PLS wanted GAM's stuff for sale. MIN squeezed in. McClement in multiple roles with each party and the Capital funder Pacific most likely was one of the hands behind it. When they did this, squeeze out PLS they knew about the ROFR, how they knew and understood it might be someone's job to damage-control and or enforce. Meanwhile buying time to suppress the SP as to further destabilise PLS in a t/o is not unreasonable to assume based on all the incommunicado such as no meetings no return phone calls. This is classic bullying for another purpose and if there is a China connection, no doubt, then Gangfeng are hungry for surety of supply.

If GL without the capital, is a minion and maybe just a toller for product then who is behind them and who are they in contest with, Jiangxi Ganfeng?

If GL can't or won't do their capital restructure due to prolonged ROFR issue does that make the binding agreement or binding memorandum of understanding (I think KB said this once-not sure verbatim) not really an offer and therefore not a sales notice?

There seems to be two sales; one from PLS to GL and then another JV Malaysia sale that GL can't touch I think. And hence even the royalty to calculate is arguable.