Hi Rick, it would be nice if they were forced to match it at at a higher price but given the current weakness in Lithium prices it may in fact be at a lower price.
Basically with their right of first refusal Burwill can just wait to see what other parties are willing to agree to and then just say we will match it or decline to. Note, it's likely not only price but all conditions of the proposed agreement arrangements that they would need to match, eg any prepayments etc.
So if there is a third party involved all these terms of the proposed arrangement would need to be agreed first with the third party, then presented to Burwill for their consideration and decision on whether they will match it. If they decide against matching it then back to third party for signing. Any changes prior to signing would likely mean the changes would then need to go back to Burwill for re-consideration of their right to match it once again.
The MIN right of first refusal over PLS product is a classic case in how messy things can get, court cases over what terms were allowed to be included etc, in the end an agreement was reach cancelling the right of first refusal with a equity payment to MIN for agreeing to do so.
https://hotcopper.com.au/documentdownload?id=uOMxKKzFkiWRTLKhOROKAxjvFDZpi1nay0P+v/pw8cAjSrnIG44RXhVlIg/1lg==
So unless A40 can find someone willing to pay higher prices then there is no reason to believe Burwill will need to match a higher price, in a declining Lithium price market it's even possible they just sit and wait to see what prices are offered and then match at the highest lower price if they want the volume.
But all possibly adds to the complexity of the negotiations and time needed for consideration, legal eagles reviews etc.
Strange timing for the negotiations over Christmas/New Year period, makes one wonder if it was at a time of the companies choosing or was their hand forced by other parties/factors.
Oops, nearly forgot to add, all in my very humble opinion of course.
Happy New Year.
