The Ascend Elements’ Kentucky Site Has Been Sold, and an Update on Georgia

Was up most of the night reading through 600 pages of legal documents on the Ascend Elements bankruptcy trying to sort out the fate of the Covington, Georgia plant, the one that is operational. But first I want to just include the note I posted yesterday about the Kentucky sale.

New filing on the Ascend Elements Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Turner-Kokosing, the contractor that filed the lawsuit against Ascend Elements over unpaid construction work on the Hopkinsville facility, is now the successful bidder for those same assets. They are effectively converting their creditor position, which was around $138M, into ownership of the Kentucky site.

There is nothing on the Georgia site, which is the one that is operational and producing battery-grade lithium carbonate. This was just the Kentucky site APEX 1. Turner-Kokosing will likely not want to try to get it going unless the state steps in with incentives, which, interestingly enough, there is a spin to.

American Battery Technology Company jumped in on the auction but did not win; they were either interested in the site or attempting to acquire assets at a discount. We will not know the sale price or related details of the sale for about a week, but it will be interesting to see what their limit was.

I am hoping we see details about the Georgia site soon. That one may get complicated for two reasons: it is part of a billion-dollar offtake agreement for lithium carbonate, and it is using a proprietary early-stage lithium extraction component.

But so far all the company has been able to clear out of the bankruptcy is the Poland operations and the IP portfolio.

Now on to the documents I read last night.

First, the IP that is used in Georgia was bought by the company created by Kinterra Capital Corp to purchase the IP portfolio and the Polish assets. What they have done is set up a license agreement to allow Ascend, or whatever the company will be called after this, even though they also bought all the names and internet assets as well, to continue the black mass production platform. Payment for that license is data and ongoing operational updates. In other words, they are allowing them to use it for free as long as they share the information, and has allowed the site to remain in operations for now.

On ownership of the sites, with Poland and Kentucky out of the way, there is just Georgia. What they have done is take $5 million in notes, and that is going to be their bid. If no other bidder comes in higher, say like American Battery Technology Company, then that asset will be rolled into the new company created to purchase everything but Kentucky.

There is also an unresolved issue that may keep potential bidders away from the Georgia facility. The lawsuit with Duesenfeld is still ongoing, with claims that the site used equipment manufactured specifically for their IP, specifically the wet shredding and drying machinery supplied by the German company URT.

However, since the site later pivoted to an ESLR component invented by CTO Eric Gratz, the dispute may now be more about compensation for alleged past infringement rather than claims that the original equipment or process is still actively being used.

The case is currently stayed pending the bankruptcy resolution, meaning it is not actively moving forward right now. Once the bankruptcy process closes, the litigation resumes and is currently scheduled for trial in January 2027. Any buyer of the Georgia site is therefore not just acquiring an operating facility, but potentially buying into ongoing litigation exposure.

As for what I can find that is contested, there is the H2O Innovation equipment and agreements entirely. The information is vague, but that looks to be licensed or leased equipment and not part of the sale, but that looks like fiddlybits right now that the new owner will have to sort out after the sale.

The Department of Energy in the filings state that any equipment acquired or used with federal funds is subject to a reversionary interest, meaning the federal government retains a proportional ownership claim and may assert rights to recover value or control if those assets are sold or otherwise disposed of in violation of the grant terms.

However, as best as I can tell, the Georgia site was not included in the DOE grant funding, only the Kentucky site. Since Kentucky is now owned by the main creditor, I am not seeing any reason for the DOE having any legal claim over Georgia, there does seem to be a tax burden that the new owner will have to take on but that falls under fiddleybits again.

So as long as there is not a bidder higher than $5 million, the company will consist of the Polish facility and the Georgia site, along with all the contracts and IPs associated with those sites. Since that location is operational and has employees, it is not something that can be easily liquidated, and I am sure there is local backing to make sure that does not happen.

---

If you found this article valuable, consider becoming a subscriber. The Critical Materials Bulletin is supported by readers, and for $5 a month or $55 a year you can help fund research that produces clear, no nonsense reporting that informs and advances the discussion on critical materials and battery metals.

DISCLAIMER: This article should not be construed as an offering of investment advice, nor should any statements (by the author or by other persons and/or entities that the author has included) in this article be taken as investment advice or recommendations of any investment strategy. The information in this article is for educational purposes only. The author did not receive compensation, from any of the companies and or persons mentioned to be included in the article.