Li-Cycle seeks buyers of business and assets due to financial struggles
According to a statement from the company, it is seeking more assistance to meet its obligations and repay its liabilities. The statement says that Li-Cycle may need to modify or terminate operations and liquidate its assets.
The company is currently seeking buyers for its business or assets, including the entire company. They said they can't assure whether any buyers would be found.
Li-Cycle releases 2024 year-end report: Revenue up, costs down, no new plans for Rochester Hub
Li-Cycle also references the Rochester Hub project, saying their inability to develop it and other future projects is considered a 'risk and uncertainty' when making a forward-looking statement such as this.
Years ago, Li-Cycle was awarded $375 million loan for the Rochester Hub, but construction of the hub was put on hold due to rising costs. They entered a commercial agreement with Glencore and then secured a $475 million loan in 2024. As of April 2025, no new plans were announced for the facility.
The company then faced hardship after it was removed from the New York Stock Exchange. Li-Cycle did not appeal the decision and instead traded on OTCQX Best Market.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
2 days ago
- Bloomberg
Young Men Should Be Worried About Their Jobs
Is the recent decline in male employment due to a blip in the business cycle, or does it represent a structural change in the economy?
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Farewell to a soy sauce chicken legend – Ma Li Ya Virgin Chicken closes for good
It's official — Ma Li Ya Virgin Chicken, a beloved name in Singapore's hawker scene, has quietly shuttered at Chinatown Complex Food Centre. Though the exact closing date remains unclear, it's understood that the stall ceased operations in early Aug 2025. To loyal patrons, I'd imagine this feels like saying goodbye to a dear friend, one who fed both stomachs and souls. Founded by Xiao Peiying, affectionately known by her English name 'Maria', Ma Li Ya Virgin Chicken has drawn generations of fans for its silky, soy sauce chicken and comforting plates of braised tofu and rice. They first launched in 1989, then relaunched in 2011 after a hiatus, carving out a reputation for honest, soulful food rooted in tradition and her father's recipe from way back in 1926! Talks of their closure date back to Jan 2025, when Maria announced her plans to retire at 75, citing old age and slow business as key reasons. Since then, she had been searching for a worthy successor to carry on her legacy. Despite receiving a jaw-dropping S$500,000 offer, Maria stood firm — she wasn't looking for just any buyer, she was looking for someone who genuinely wanted to preserve the legacy she had built. She even listed her treasured recipe for S$138,000, offering to personally train the right person to take over. But as time passed and no buyer came forward, the inevitable happened. On 6 Aug, a regular customer shared a farewell tribute with a picture of the shuttered storefront on Facebook with the caption, 'It is slowly sinking in. Maria had been talking about hanging up her apron for a year and it has finally happened.' The bittersweet tone echoed what many longtime customers must be feeling — a surge of gratitude tinged with loss. In the end, Ma Li Ya didn't just serve soy sauce chicken. They served heart, heritage, and a reminder that some flavours, and the people behind them, can never be replaced. Thank you for your years of service, Maria. Soya Chicken Showdown: Chiew Kee Eating House vs Chew Kee Eating House The post Farewell to a soy sauce chicken legend – Ma Li Ya Virgin Chicken closes for good appeared first on
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Honeywell illegally forced US worker in China to retire, lawsuit alleges
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: Honeywell International, Inc., allegedly violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act when it illegally subjected a U.S. citizen working in Shanghai to China's mandatory retirement age and fired her solely because she turned 55, the employee claims in a July 30 lawsuit. Per the complaint in Li v. Honeywell International, Inc., the employee served as corporate counsel to the firm and as general counsel to Honeywell's regional aerospace division at its Shanghai subsidiary. She alleged that under the ADEA's 'foreign laws' exception, China's mandatory retirement law did not dictate her termination because, among other reasons, China did not make its retirement age mandatory for foreign workers, particularly in Shanghai. The employee also alleged that Honeywell violated the ADEA when it denied her executive severance package, purportedly because her turning 55 gave it 'cause' to terminate her. But nothing in China's retirement law mandated that she be denied her severance because she reached 55, the complaint alleged, and denying her severance violated the ADEA, which 'prohibits discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment,' the lawsuit said. Dive Insight: For businesses employing U.S. citizens abroad, the Honeywell lawsuit is a reminder they need to stay on top of the complicated interplay between foreign and U.S. employment laws. The issue here focused on whether China's mandatory retirement law conflicted with the ADEA. The employee alleged there was no conflict because the law didn't apply to foreign workers and that Honeywell relied on an interpretation of the law that was 'blatantly wrong' so it could fire her because of her age. HR professionals are familiar with the ADEA's general prohibition on discrimination against employees who are 40 and older on the basis of their age. Pertinent to the lawsuit, the ADEA defines 'employee' to include 'any individual who is a citizen of the United States employed by an employer in a workplace in a foreign country.' However, under the foreign laws exception, it's not unlawful under the ADEA to take otherwise prohibited action 'where such practices involve an employee in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance ... would cause [the] employer ... to violate the laws of the country in which such workplace is located,' EEOC guidance states. In the Honeywell lawsuit, the employee alleged that although her employment contract had been in effect for several years, she was informed for the first time, nine days before her 55th birthday and two months before the contract ended, that she would be terminated when she turned 55. She alleged Honeywell told her she was being terminated based on clauses in the contract mentioning that Chinese law applied to retirement age and related matters and an employee could be subject to early termination if they reached retirement age as regulated by China's law. The complaint asserted that Honeywell's purported reliance on China's mandated retirement age to terminate the employee violated the ADEA because, in addition to the mandate allegedly not applying to foreign workers, the employee's work permit wasn't subject to age restrictions and had an expiration date that matched her contract. The employee also alleged that shortly before she was terminated, she was told her leadership role would be significantly expanded to cover countries outside of China where business practices were irregular, demonstrating that her performance was not at issue and that instead, Honeywell considered her to be an outstanding executive. She alleged additionally that Honeywell had viable alternatives to firing her, such as reassigning her to another country, or offering her a multi-year contractor position that matched, or closely matched, her financial package. Recommended Reading DHL will pay $8.7M to settle allegations it gave Black workers more dangerous assignments Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
