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.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum Plateau Energy Metals Inc. PLUUF

Plateau Energy Metals Inc is an exploration stage company. The company is in the process of acquisition, and exploration, and evaluation of mineral properties in Peru. It is principally engaged in the exploration for uranium on its properties located in the Macusani plateau region of southeastern Peru and the Falchani lithium project.

GREY:PLUUF - Post Discussion

Plateau Energy Metals Inc. > Judge Hermoza Castro incorporated the files from Case 10760
View:
Post by juanPeru on Jan 14, 2021 3:13pm

Judge Hermoza Castro incorporated the files from Case 10760

After approving the accumulation of cases on October 7th (1) and receiving the corresponding files on November 27th, judge Hermoza Castro has been able to review them and formally incorporate them into the process (Case 10759) under her responsibility, through Resolution Number 7 issued on January 8th, 2021 (2).

As part of said Resolution, judge Hermoza Castro had to incorporate also any precautionary processes in Case 10760, so it has became evident now what happened with the second Medida Cautelar in process 10760. It turns out that the second MC has been rejected two times (!) by judge Sacha Flores, and now the appeal to the second rejection will be resolved by judge Hermoza Castro. But the process is slightly more complicated than this, so I will just describe the events in chronological order:

10/14/2019: Judge Sacha Flores rejected the Medida Cautelar requested by Macusani Yellowcake for the group of 15 concessions. The ID of this process is 10760-2019-98.

11/20/2019: Judge Hermoza Castro approved the Medida Cautelar requested by Macusani Yellowcake for the group of 17 concessions.

12/06/2019: Macusani Yellowcake requested that the two judicial processes (10759 and 10760) were accumulated under process 10759, that is, under judge Hermoza Castro's responsibility.

01/03/2020: Given that Macusani Yellowcake didn't appeal, the Resolution dated October 14th, 2019 was declared consent and the precuationary request 10760-2019-98 was archived.

01/23/2020: Judge Sacha Flores rejected again a new Medida Cautelar requested by Macusani for the group of 15 concessions. The ID this time was 10760-2019-50.

02/02/2020: Macusani Yellowcake appealed the Resolution dated January 23rd, 2020 that rejected the MC 10760-2019-50.

10/07/2020: Judge Hermoza Castro approved the accumulation fo cases.

10/21/2020: Macusani Yellowcake sent a writing to judge Hermoza Flores desisting on their appeal filed on February 2nd, 2020 before judge Sacha Flores. I guess that, after seeing the accumulation approved, they decided to request the MC for the 15 concessions directly to judge Hermoza Castro.

11/27/2020: Judge Hermoza Castro received the files from Case 10760, including the precautionary process still open with ID 10760-2019-50.

01/08/2021: Judge Hermoza Castro opened a third "entry" (3) in the judicial process to be able to continue (4) with the precautionary process 10760-2019-50. Although Macusani desisted of the appeal through its writing dated October 21st, 2020, it seems that for formal reasons this writing had to be sent to judge Sacha Flores too so its application has been suspended. If this formal "obstacle" were to be overcome then precautionary process 10760-2019-50 would be archived.

So after looking at these events, I see two possibilities:

1. The withdrawal of Macusani's appeal is accepted and the second MC is requested direclty to judge Hermoza Castro.

2. Judge Hermoza Castro resolves over the appeal in the short term (this month) and the second MC is finally granted. I assume she will resolve in Macusani's favour because the legal facts are the same as with the 17 concessions.


(1) https://stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/v.plu/plateau-energy-metals-inc?postid=31704838

(2) https://cdn-ceo-ca.s3.amazonaws.com/1g01666-Resolucion_08_01_2021.pdf

(3) https://cdn-ceo-ca.s3.amazonaws.com/1g01847-expediente_10759.png

(4) https://cdn-ceo-ca.s3.amazonaws.com/1g0185e-segundo_proceso_cautelar.png
Comment by juanPeru on Jan 15, 2021 7:12pm
Have been reviewing the regulations and have to correct a mistake in my previous post. In the case the withdrawal of the pending appeal is not accepted (case 2 in the quoted post), said appeal will be reviewed by the immediate superior judge in the hierarchy. In other words, the appeal would be raised to the next judicial level and so would be resolved by a different judge.   In fact ...more  
The Market Update
{{currentVideo.title}} {{currentVideo.relativeTime}}
< Previous bulletin
Next bulletin >

At the Bell logo
A daily snapshot of everything
from market open to close.

{{currentVideo.companyName}}
{{currentVideo.intervieweeName}}{{currentVideo.intervieweeTitle}}
< Previous
Next >
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities