RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:What does this change ...JohnPeru wrote: Several of those properties expired for non-payment in February 2019. So they were not in good standing on March 15th 2019.
Not true. I have been following the concessions issue since then and I can assure you that, until August 2019, the 32 concessions (now expired) were in good standing (
vigentes), which was easy to check on Ingemmet's database. So PLU said the truth.
Regarding Ingemmet's resolution issued in February 2019, it's true it showed their decision to declare the expiration of the 32 concessions for non-timely payment, but any resolution is not law until it has been consent (
consentida) or executed (
ejecutoriada). Given that Macusani Yellowcake appealed said resolution before the Mining Council, it was not consent, and it was declared executed only when the Mining Council conffirmed it, in July - August 2019.
What happened in March 2019 was that a well-known blogger said "PLU has lost 32 concessions. I have the decrees", but it was not true and PLU issued the press release you have quoted to confute the blogger's false and uninformed statement.
In other words, in March 2019 the 32 concessions were in good standing but there were indeed an administrative procedure that could eventually result in the 32 concessions being expired. Now you may ask, why didn't PLU informed its shareholders of that administrative process? Because it was the result of a clerical error in the part of Ingemmet that should have been easily overturned in the Mining Council. They had the vouchers that proved that they had paid the validity fees within the legal term and, although Ingemmet rejected the vouchers on July 2nd, Macusani Yellowcake should have been allowed to hand them in within a period of 48 hours (they were handed in the next day, July 3rd), as is clearly stablished in the 134th article of the Law of the General Administrative Procedure (Law N° 27444). Macusani Yellowcake had complied with their susbtantial obligation (
obligacion sustancial) of wiring the money to Ingemmet's account, so they should have been allowed to correct the formal aspects (
subsanar la forma).
Thus the only sin PLU committed back then was underestimating Ingemmet's and the Mining Council's incompetence, and that is if we assume there wasn't any corruption behind their illegal acts.
Anyway, maybe my previous post was ambiguous, but when I asked you to mention your sources I was referring to the (more actual) topic we have been discussing through this thread, related to the statement PLU made on its last corporate update. They said:
"The Company has filed notices with INGEMMET for inclusion in the dossiers of the nine concessions highlighting that there is an ongoing judicial case and an active administrative procedure and any interested party will not be able to obtain clean title on the area of any of the nine concessions. Any interested third party could become a party to the ongoing judicial process which will be an impediment for any other party, besides Plateau or its affiliates, in developing these concessions."
So, again, I ask you: is there any lie in the above paragraph? If your answer is "Yes" then please provide your arguments or, even better, reference to the non-anonymous legal opinions on which you're are basing such a serious accusation.