24th October is very close, page-47

Hi PF, you have just raised a point, maybe accidentally, that I hadn't thought of before, firstly assume the contract is legal. MIN take up the contract and say  YES we can and are going to meet all those terms.

They therefore get the contract. There is nothing written that I've seen that states they have to prove they can, they just have to equal those conditions over time.
Apart from buying equity at 50c/sh, they don't have to do anything for over a year, ie get their plant ready.

Then in the following year they work with PLS on a feasibility study of a conversion facility in "Asia". How can anyone tell that their feasibility is any more or less profitable than doing one with GLC when we wont have the numbers for doing one with GLC??

So it all comes back to the pricing model that we have for the first 6 years of the contract.
Transport of concentrate to Wodgina is going to be cheaper than transport to China, so we are no worse off there, and if prices remain high, then they possibly don't have a problem, as it all comes back to the interpretation of the "formula" to work out the actual price paid.

I'm willing to bet they have already worked out their interpretation of the formula so they don't have to pay a lot for the spodumene concentrate, that will be entirely different to our interpretation of the formula. Where will that dispute go to?? Back to the court IMO. What happens to us?? We get nothing until the 'dispute' is resolved.

Chris Ellison might be playing a long game here!! The other BOAs had better be water tight, with plenty of cash up front!! We might just need it.

Thoughts anyone? Or am I jumping at shadows?? @brisen after reading the contract that was in the judgement is this possible??

Of course I think PF is correct, we will be testing their actual right to have bought the ROFR in the first place without our permission.