If this is a tactical move by the LTR BoD, the clue is in the...

If this is a tactical move by the LTR BoD, the clue is in the wording 'best and final offer'. As many have already pointed out, these words have legal implications namely, ALB are prohibited from making another offer for a period of 4 months if the SoA fails and in the absence of a superior offer. WHAT IF by conditionally endorsing the offer, LTR are intentionally locking ALB into an offer to buy price capped at $3 for at least the next 10 months (6 months of SoA implementation + 4 months prohibition once SoA fails) i.e until (almost) production...

ALB wants LTR desperately. They are the biggest lithium company in the world with a supply problem. Up pops LTR - a tier 1 lithium resource just down the road from their other lithium conversion facilities (Greenbushes, Wodgina, Kemerton). It's too good to be true. If LTR rejected the current $3 offer, further offers would just keep coming - $3.10; $3.20, $3.50 eventually a price would be reached where LTR would HAVE to sell. BUT, by locking ALB into a best and final offer of $3, the BoD stand a chance at retaining ownership of the company by foreshadowing that i. the independent expert (appointed by LTR) will conclude (and continuing to conclude) that $3 is not fair value OR ii. less than 75% of shareholders vote down the offer . I suspect they also know there are no other bids coming from alternative companies at this stage which would enable ALB to increase their offer by triggering the 'in the absence of a superior offer' condition.

Full disclosure - I am a complete novice when it comes to the share market generally (I'm a criminal lawyer) so please ignore me if I've got this complete wrong BUT it seems as though IF the LTR board really do want to retain ownership of the company and deliver a 'cash machine' for themselves and shareholders, conditionally accepting the current offer is the ONLY way!?!

I believe in Tim and Tony! Vote No!