Once again. I will repeat. MNS directors or nominees have to be...

First 30 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Cosmoterios

18,249 Posts.

2603

15/02/24

12:50

Post #: 72422456
Share

Originally posted by jdpc35: ↑

One thing missing in your note, which I think is relevant.

Chupapi (on another thread), has suggested that they are taking out C4V from their shareholding in iM3NY. If that is the strategy, then this announcement makes sense.

My read is that they are looking at iM3NY purely as a battery factory, where they intend to dump the ineffective C4V battery chemistries + dump C4V from their shareholding in iM3NY and re-start manufacturing using proven chemistries. As a strategy, that seems a logical way to try and resurrect the asset and restore some value.

They would need to bring in new equity partners as part of that as clearly the asset cannot support a large debt load until it is operational. This strategy also probably keeps alive the targeted funding from US government.

In the meantime, all equity holders can do is watch and wait. What I can guarantee is that, whatever the outcome, much of the fevered speculations and assertions on these threads in recent times will become totally irrelevant. I'm surprised that so many are wasting so much time on these threads with this rubbish. It will be whatever it is.

Expand

Once again. I will repeat.

MNS directors or nominees have to be on the board of IM3NY, to influence that decision: to replace C4V technology with something else.

And the only way they can get back on board IM3NY, is to buy out (refinance) the USD $100M. These lenders simply want their money back - plus interest if they can get it.

So how is MNS going to find AUD $150M (100/0.65)??? Plus $$$$$$ to re-engineer the plant to produce "generic:' Li batteries???

Is MNS going to raise capital at 1 cents each to raise AUS $150M??? If that is the case, then every shareholder would be diluted to oblivion.

Is MNS going to borrow AUD $150M? What security does it offer to borrow AUD $150M??? Its the plant in NYK - that it has been written off, and $500k cash in the bank!!!

On the best case scenario, you can argue they can offer the plant as security - which is NOT operating to specifications, and will require many millions to re-engineer it to make it operational. Is that enough Security for the Banks/Institutions??? No way.

Then, who will they supply batteries to, when they don't have any OFFTAKE deals anymore??

Last edited by Cosmoterios: 15/02/24

MNS Price at posting: 4.2¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
9 Upvote

2 Great analysis

Reply