Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

American Lithium Corp V.LI

Alternate Symbol(s):  AMLI

American Lithium Corp. is a Canada-based company, which is engaged in the development of large-scale lithium projects within mining-friendly jurisdictions throughout the Americas. The Company is focused on development of its strategically located TLC lithium project (TLC) in the richly mineralized Esmeralda lithium district in Nevada, as well as continuing to advance its Falchani lithium (Falchani) and Macusani uranium (Macusani) development-stage projects in southeastern Peru. Its TLC Lithium Project is located near the regional hub and county seat in the town of Tonopah, Nevada. The Falchani Lithium Project consists of 1,090 square kilometers (km2) of mineral concessions in the Province of Carabaya, Department of Puno, in southeastern Peru. The Macusani Uranium Project is an undeveloped uranium projects in the world containing significant measured, indicated, and inferred uranium resources. Located approximately 25 kilometers away from the Company’s Falchani Lithium Project.


TSXV:LI - Post by User

Comment by juanPeruon Sep 17, 2022 1:06am
436 Views
Post# 34968658

RE:RE:Second court hearing to be held on 7/13/2022

RE:RE:Second court hearing to be held on 7/13/2022
juanPeru wrote: Update: The higher judicial authorities at the 4th Court have just decided that the whole appeal should be cancelled and restarted from scratch in the 6th Court, because of a vice found in the process. After judge Hermoza Castro issued the sentence, one of the participants in the application process, started by Ingemmet (on November 2020) over the area of 32 disputed concessions, requested to be included in the appeal process as a third affected party (coadyuvante in formal terms), but judge Hermoza Castro decided that, given that the sentenced had already been issued, this topic should be decided by the higher court (the 4th Court). However, the authorities at the 4th Court have decided that Hermoza Castro should have evaluated the coadyuvante request despite having already issued the sentece, because the coadyuvante stuff was not part of the first sentence process but rather part of the appeal process, so the latter is being rolled back to that point.

Now, who exactly is the third party that considers himself to be affected by the first court decision (favourable to Macusani Yellowcake)? His name is Diego Alfonso Ramirez Motta (...)

 

Update: Resolution 19 has just been uploaded. The case is back in the 6th Court, with judge Hermoza Castro, and, on August 12, Diego Ramirez withdrew his request (after collecting the corresponding "fee" I assume), so judge Hermoza Castro doesn't need to decided over that anymore. However, 4 other applicants (aparently members of a family) in the process started by Ingemmet in 2020 have requested their inclusion in the process, this time as liticonsortes instead of coadyuvantes. A liticonsorte is like a codefendant, that is, a party that has the same rights as the defendants (Ingemmet and Minem) to participate in the appeal process to seek the nullity of the first court sentence.

But what caught my eye is the fact that Ingemmet has also requested the inclusion of all (!) the applicants in the 2020 process as liticonsortes in the current appeal process. In other words, more than 30 different parties could soon be incorporated as liticonsortes, each of them with its lawyers, writings and pretensions. Why is Ingemmet doing this? I believe they need to include all these parties to shelter themselves from any potential future lawsuit filed by these disappointed applicants. If they are part of the process, it means they already have the means to defend their allegedly gained legal rights.

In summary, more delays to the appeal process, which I now doubt will have a solution this year. Not sure if $LI will seek settlements with each of these parties or just go ahead against all of them in a longer process. 
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>