Y4,Me thinks the bubble is intact and not at all burst. A few...

Y4,
Me thinks the bubble is intact and not at all burst. A few things to chew on

There are indeed 3 OTAs in play (and none of them are with SYA as a counterparty)
S = Selling Party, B= Buying Party

1. SYQ (S) to PLL (B) ... under long term supply agreement (Life of Mine)
2. PLL (S) to TSLA (B) ... under medium term (so >1 but less than 5 years)
3. PLL (S) to LG Chem (B) under medium term also

And I agree that OTA's have "Force Majeure" clauses (I would be vary referencing stock standard because if your legal contract team is doing its job well, these should be well thought out). The intent of the clause is as you say to "remove any liability for any unforseen or extrodinary events/ circumstance beyond their controls that prevent participants from fulfilling their obligations".

And therein lies the rub for SYQ immediately. The duration of the OTA (being LoM) presents a challenge to address every type of eventuality that may arise in future. Issues wrt operation or in what we are specifically talking about - commerciall/economics that will AFFECT EITHER SELLING OR BUYING parties ability to perform their obligations which could not have been foreseen (even by experienced parties).

So what specifically was put in place to address "Price"
1. Market Price as the basis with standard quality/grade adjustments and freight as DAP basis
2. A ceiling price that offers protection for the Buyer in a rising market (what was)
3. A floor price that offers protection for the Seller in a falling market (what is)

There is no way you can say that "price variability" is an "unforeseen event". But to address market circumstances the counterparties specifically agreed to prices.

What's also a common misconception about the use of "Force Majeure" is that it applies to "economic events" - so shall we say China CIF pricing being pushed (managed) down or investment banks/research services writing forecasts of oversupplied market and falling prices which may make the LTSA (OTA) uneconomical to perform (which could lead to and number of bad things happening ... the obvious being bankruptcy) are generally NOT CONSIDERED as FM events and more often than not are likely expressly excluded.

Keep in mind FM is for the benefit of both parties, but in actuality it is usually the party with the obligation of physical delivery of product (i.e. the SELLER and in our case that is SYQ (not SYA)) that likely to invoke the force majeure clause AND BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING the relevant event (price collapse) is within the definition of force majeure within this agreement. There is also usually a notification period. So in this case SYQ has to notify PLL of its intent to claim FM (and lets say that's a 6 month period before that can happen) and that also assumes SYQ can make this decision (C&M) without the joint agreement of both equity partners (but for grins lets say they can do it). PLL would then immediately notify its counterparties (TSLA & LG Chem) in their OTAs that it's JV partner has claimed FM as the mine is not economic. How they view that would be interesting (note TSLA current ligation with CXO).

Likewise for Care & Maintenance ... stock standard in LTSA ... mines do shutdown for (scheduled) maintenance periods or for more emergency shutdown when things go awry (and a FM event occurs ... operating issue). But C&M because losing money on a OTA ... I don't think so.

Point is ... I think you're right ... KP is a smart CEO whose investment banking experience would ensure PLL's interests are well protected.

What do you do? Disregard what the announcement says or take it on face value that
* "its a collaborative effort with the JV"
* "optimising cost structure"
* "preserve the Quebec's operation financial sustainability" (dwell on that a bit - what happens to a failing bank for example ... it cuts out the "bad bank" so that the "good bank" survives). Their choice of words suggests to me they are looking at altering the capital and corporate structure of SYQ. Think about the options, as it sounds like SYQ needs additional equity funding. So many things are possible ... hopefully all aspect of SYQ assets are considered into a workable solution that can reliably deliver lithium units to North American market customers through the market cycle.