Well, they did plan to continue production at MP. After all, they had a contract to fill, right?
But they also had a change of plan in order to emerge from BK with a better shape. That plan, while in complete secrecy, probably calls for a movement by the management to look more towards BK rather than less, so that debtor would yield to terms rather than sticking out with the heavy debt not going to be wiped out.
Just that you know. I am sure MCP management knew.
Until they announce that current equity position is canceled, Molymet has not lost their investment completely. When the announcement come, every one sure has a fair chance to register objection. After all, who is the management or the board working for?
All of the arguments centered on "the need to continue". MCP has problem to argue both ways: They blame the business environment for over supply of RE, then turn around argue that they need be in business to supply more RE products that are critical for their customers.
But the reality is MCP defied Oaktree and worked out a deal with the other seniors.
It is true that MCP is in this mess because of over supply of RE. They should have demonstrated any efforts to slow down spending money on production and preserve cash to wait out for better pricing turn. But they did not, as if things are going to be better if they ram up production.
I would have the same argument to deny any more spending by MCP if the reason they cite for their trouble is real.
How can the company exclude money-making units from the filing? What is the legal basis for it? Who owns these profitable subsidiaries?
And anyone know why they can exclude profitable units out of this filing? Who owns these profitable units ?