If indeed that is the only conclusion that can be drawn, or only possibility, based on that info....
...then on further consideration, is that actually a meaningful problem...? imo one might argue that if we had demanded/requested formal escrow arrangement to restrict their holding, it may have negatively impacted the relationship with ATL, considering that we:
"We have already established a strong and mutual relationship"
and
"The Company has conducted product testing with ATL and next step qualification process
analysis works are being conducted in preparation for arranging the offtake agreement"
and
"The Companies have also discussed future strategic cooperation opportunities and synergies,
including access to ATL networks"
One also might argue that considering the nature and size of ATL, an informal agreement for a 12-month standstill period might be far more meaningful "commitment" than it may appear to be at first glance. Mutual trust is of paramount importance in these types of engagements, in my experience.
Would we sue them if they breached a formal agreement? lol!
Would we dig our heels in and demand a formal agreement if they informally agreed to the standstill period but said there was no need to build that into a contract? Doubt it, things can get very delicate in these types of negotiations, especially if one party feels offended or not trusted in some way..... and especially if said party is about to hand over significant funds to support your project.
Before the haters pile in, these are just some thoughts to ponder, based on my experience. DYOR.
In any case, the key point imo wrt ATL remains that alongside the 3 items above, they actually put US$5M on the table to help capitalise our future development.
Notably, that was at a time when the plant issues were readily apparent, and after there had clearly been extensive engagement with them; therefore it is absolutely reasonable imo that they would have asked plenty of tough questions about the plant issues and rectification requirements, expansion design etc etc, and yet were still willing to commit that level of strategic investment. This speaks volumes imo, regardless of the subsequent suspension of the Rincon plant works.
Bottom line then, imo, if the 12-month standstill agreement wasn't formal and they have sold, then the reasons for that could be varied, and may be cause for concern/indicate a change in their interest for offtake - and that might explain some of the downward sp pressure; if they haven't sold, then what's to be concerned about?
Let's wait til something is confirmed either way before whipping up another FUD storm in a teacup yeah..?
imo
dyor
