Disputed Claims Here is a link to a translated version of the ruling In favour of Li.V for the disputed claims. This is from the Li.V web site.
https://americanlithiumcorp.com/peruvian-judicial-resolution-eng/
- Li.V fails to pay annual claim for the year before events leading to removal of claims from Li.V
- INGEMMET system set up to issue payment codes for fees based on the "most outstanding balance"
-Li.V not able to submit proof of payment on line for year after this transgression
- Li.V submits manual payment forms to INGEMMET office without proof of payment at 4:30 on last day payments can be submitted.
-This counts as two years of claim fees not paid on time. Li.V has had 12 months to rectify this issue.
- After close of INGEMMET business Li.V manages to provide proof of payment for a subset of the disputed claims
- Proof of payment is provided for balance of claims the next day.
Li.V does not dispute these facts (except they claim all proof of payment vouchers were provided after 4:30 on the day of expiration and there was not a subset provided the next day)
The Peruvian law clearly outlines what procedures need to be undertaken when submitting payments for them to be accepted as valid payments. These procedures were not adhered to.
The Peruvian law clearly states deadlines by which the procedures should be completed.
The Peruvian law has built in leniency in it only starts the process to remove claims from owners if they skip two payments in a row
The court’s ruling in favour of Li.V relies on the principal in Peruvian law that states the formalities of a procedure should not interfere with the purpose of a law. Implying that by adhering to a strict deadline INGAMMET was not accommodating the purpose of the law and being too “formalistic”
Li.V claims the Peruvian lower court’s judgment was both strong and definitive.
The ruling is by no means definitive because it has been appealed. If the upper courts uphold this ruling it will violate several other Peruvian laws. The chances of this ruling not being overturned are very slim to none.
Furthermore nothing in the language of the ruling can lead one to believe that this was a “strong” ruling.
There was a substantial capital raise completed on the back of the initial assertions that Li.V was “free and clear” of the issues relating to the disputed claims. False and or misleading information was provided to investors in relation to this capital raise and now we have investment funds that are subject to mandatory hold periods and we have traders trying to catch a falling knife on this stock. By the time the hold period is over those traders will have walked away and investments made into that placement will be under water.
I am very concerned about this investment.