Discussion on Agreement Conditions

There are a couple of aspects to this deal that I find unusual and I have started a new thread for a bit of clarity and hopefully will get other's comments.  (Apologies if this has already been covered - I might have missed it)
I understand that this deal is an implementation deed in regard to purchasing shares in ALO, however it is normally the receivers job to assess best course of action and offers whether it is a sale of the Lithium operations or some other sort of refinance / recapitalisation.
My comments should also be read in light of AJM Ann 29/10 (Receivership Update) which states:-
"We advise that the Loan Noteholders of the Group have entered into an Implementation Agreement with Pilbara Minerals. The Receivers and the Group are not a party to the Implementation Agreement."
The 2 conditions I find unusual are:-
1 - PLS has procured the right to match any competing proposal.... - As stated the agreement is purely between PLS and the Noteholders so how can the noteholders agree to placing PLS in a preferred position by giving them this right? You would expect any further offers to be negotiated with the receivers and anyone putting in a competing offer would surely be aggrieved if the receivers then offered PLS matching rights? The noteholders are no doubt trying to get back all their principal and interest however any offer over and above that surely has little to do with them. To me this would not be a condition that the receiver would want to have anything to do with as surely it will open up further challenges (if, of course other offers)
2 - PLS has secured payment of a break fee - Again purely an agreement between PLS and the noteholders so can only presume that the noteholders are prepared to pay a break fee if the receivers accepts a different offer. I do not understand this, as it potentially reduces the note holders full pay back because I do not think the break fee should be considered in any noteholders claim (for money owed) as it has been negotiated outside the AJM terms (and after appointing receivers according to anns!!) If the break fee is included in the noteholders claim it potentially reduces funds available to other stakeholders if another higher offer is accepted and again surely would be subject to challenge?
Anyway, all my comments might be irrelevant and of course the noteholders are the secured lenders, however I just found this quite odd and just thought I'd throw it out there...............