SYA - PLL OTA Clarification, page-97

And what did you learn? JB corrects HK PoV with ... my bolding

(JB) "Yeah. The joint venture has the rights to sell as tons. I just want to separate Sayona as the parent company, where 75% shareholder is the joint venture. The joint venture sells those tons, not Sayona."

HK persists with ....

(HK)"Okay, but if Sayona, because there has been questions about why don't you sign an offtake, like Piedmont signed an offtake for some of their tons with LG ... Why doesn't Sayona - I know you don't know the exact tonnage - but if it's not 77,000 tons, if it's 40,000 tons for three or four years before you kind of go into carbonate, ... is there scopeto use some tonnage for some period of time from Sayona jointventure to get some capital outside of doing a capital raise"

HK is confusing that PLL's has 2 types OTAs. PLL has 1 OTA where SYQ is the seller (and PLL the buyer) - this is revenue to SYQ and expense to PLL (and that expense shows up in PLL financials) and then the another OTA where PLL is the seller and LG is the buyer and that revenue only shows up in PLL financials (not in SYQ or SYA).

JB (again) clarifies with

(JB) "Definitely, Howard. This is a decision that Joint Venture makes. Both of us, both parties could propose together - I'd be a liar if I said we haven't discussed this at length - we're looking at where we could place it, how we can place it,where we could put it there ..."

Sure the JV could enter into another OTA with a 3rd party who wants to (hopefully make a prepayment) for the "remnant" 40,000 tonnes (or whatever the number will be), but you need to understand that revenue belongs to the JV. And JB makes that very very clear

(JB) "In essence, yes, Howard, because in the end, the money would go to the JV and any repatriation of loans or funding would come out of the JV, but that would be the proportion. But they would be JV funds because it's NAL as the seller."

This would be a way for the JV to further fund itself without relying on equity cash from SYA (and PLL). This hasn't changed.

What @Norbeto and I were discussing was what if SYA was the 3rd party BUYER of the remnant from SYQ (NAL) as the seller. And my answer hasn't changed. They are the buyer ... and as buyer why would the seller (the JV) sell at below market price (or $900 ceiling) ... and an answer of because thats what PLL has is not valid (because back then the SYA needed a counterparty to buy SC and so the JV was formed and that 50% OTA satisfied IQ ... abbreviated version of events). The deal is the deal however "unfavorable" as HC feel it is. Clearly not to SYA at the time.

Send an email to Dougal for clarification if you're unsure. Be specific in your scenario. Don't ask an open ended question if you really want to tie the answers down tightly.