This may be what happened this weekI'm going to share my speculations about how the surprising twist we saw this week happened. And they are based on the following information:
1. I've just noted that the news was included in the "Dia 1" businness supplement" of "El Comercio" newspaper, which is printed only on Mondays (1). So the news appeared for the first time this Monday, October 19th.
2. On Tuesday (October 20th), Macusani Yellowcake's attorneys entered one written request in the main process and another in the precautionary process of Case 10759 (accumulated case). The day after (October 21st), both writings (which had the same number of pages, so I assume were actually the same) were withdrawn and a new different written request was entered only in the main process. This is the first time I see something like this happen in this judicial case.
So things might have happened in the following order:
October 19th. "Dia 1" published the news showing how the dispute between Macusani and Ingemmet had intensified to the point that 9 concessions were published as freely available, which would damage the lithium project and cause a speculative fever (2).
October 20th (morning). Macusani's attorneys sent a writing to judge Hermoza Castro, quoting the "Dia 1" news so she was able to adequatelly assess the consequences of a further delay on issuing the Medida Cautelar.
October 20th (afternoon). After reading Macusani's writings (any of the parties in a judicial process can read them), Ingemmet's servants communicated with Macusani's to inform them they would be able to participate in the auction too. At the same time, Ingemmet's servants communicated with El Comercio's journalist (Juan Saldarriaga) to inform him about the Macusani's legal ability to participate in the auction.
October 21th. Macusani's attorneys withdrew the previous writings and replaced them with a single writing (only in the main process) asking for the second Medida Cautelar to be postponed (or outright cancelled?).
October 22nd. "El Comercio" published the news online (3), including this time the information provided by Ingemmet.
If I'm right about this week's events, then the question arise: how is it possible that Macusani's legal team wasn't aware of their legal habilitation to participate in the auction? Maybe they knew about the 2016 Supreme Decree, but preferred to go the most conservative way of asking a Medida Cautelar instead of trustring a mechanism (participating in the auction) that could have been rejected by Ingemmet. But now that Ingemmet itself is suggesting them to use that "mechanism", PLU must have swiftly changed its strategy in the last few days.
(1)
https://ecomedia.pe/producto_detalle/5 (2)
https://stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=v.plu&postid=31765574 (3)
https://stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=v.plu&postid=31771982