That's exactly why the looseness of the language of the final...

That's exactly why the looseness of the language of the final sentence of this announcement is significant. They say they "have not received both an offtake and financing proposal from the counterparty and accordingly the Company could no longer proceed with that option". The problem is as you've highlighted: the offtake with Glencore was a binding term sheet, the financing was just an offer to facilitate. Galan even separated these two things in the both the summary dot points and the main body of the November announcement. What today's announcement needed to say was something along the lines of: "Galan and Glencore have mutually agreed to terminate the previously announced binding offtake".

That said, what I think will likely save their bacon is that a term sheet is generally considered a pre-contractual document so if the trail really has gone totally cold then Galan should be at liberty to pursue other options. I also think, with lithium sentiment where it is, will Glencore really bother trying to hold Galan to the offtake? Probably they have bigger fish to fry. With all of that said and done, I think it's great they've (hopefully) rid themselves of this albatross, however given they had talked about having a "shortlist" of financiers not that long ago, I'd have thought they would have been able to come up with something more than a non-binding MOU, and with a better-known counterparty.