Ann: Director Resignations, page-48

I agree that it largely came down to management decisions and very different strategies.
I think there were two key differences.
Firstly, A40 had higher costs and only one offtaker while aiming for a much higher quality of product. When Burwill was showing signs of distress alarm bells rang.
Secondly, A40 debt was not quite large enough. Tribeca was confident of a full return if they called in the breach - which they were able to get quite swiftly.
That's not to say Tribeca weren't tough and shifting up minimum cash requirements removed critical time to look for more options, but I believe with the offtaker gone they were insolvent without taking into consideration the Tribeca debt and as such were advised to call in VA rather than extend negotiations.
A40 did not move to reduce costs of production fast enough - on two separate occasions they raised funds specifically to pay for a cost reducing fines circuit but used those funds elsewhere & were not willing or perhaps able to accept lower pricing to gain new offtakers.
As it happens AJMs senior secured debt was actually US$143m (including the capitalized interest) at the time, so their note holders would not have been assured of a full return in the event of receivership.
The Ganfeng US$11m prepayment also was critical in keeping shipments flowing.
Finally, AJM are not out of the woods yet.
US$143m debt matures in August and there are two more interest payments totalling US$21.5m to be made by the time it matures. In the meantime Ganfeng is still recouping a percentage of shipping payments to clear that prepayment.