Member Info for jimb2

Amapa will not be in full production before the Sonora case is concluded IMVHO, I doubt the DFS will be done either. Good luck @Bannor if you intend to be out before the full SP potential is reached.

Starboard!

but, add Sonora - substantial award..............

LCM average 2.9 x investment return, a typical case $5m to $10, they take typically 30%..... easy expecting $30m plus

Part II:

4. Ganfeng’s Evidence Against the Government

Ganfeng’s defense is expected to present the following to the ICSID tribunal to prove the filings were sufficient:

• Historical Acceptance: They will argue that the Mexican government accepted these same SE-03-033 filings from 2017, 2018, and 2019 without objection at the time. The government's sudden 2023 "discovery" that the 2017 values were too low is a violation of the "Principle of Legal Certainty."

• The £22M Proof: Ganfeng’s 2019/2021 investment of £21.9 million into the project company (Sonora Lithium Ltd) was specifically for project development. They will argue that according to International Accounting Standards, these funds are direct investments in the "asset," regardless of whether the specific Mexican form (SE-03-033) categorizes them as "Administrative" or "Mining Work."

My view, there's a high probability as the case moves forward the Mexican gov and Sheinbaum will look for a way out, the gamble by Sheinbaum IMHO was for this to drag on beyond her term, looking back at all the reasons A_LO used to cancel the concessions I believe will be very damaging to the Mexican government case.

First hearing no later than H1 2027:

(iii) Orders the Parties to negotiate the pending dates in the Procedural Timetable and submit a joint proposal to the Tribunal within 10 days of this procedural Order, including hearing dates that consider the Respondent’s existing commitments for December 2026. During their negotiations, the Parties shall disclose any existing commitments as well as their availability to attend a hearing during the first half of 2027.

Should the Parties fail to reach an agreement on potential hearing dates, the Tribunal will directly fix the hearing dates in the Procedural

Timetable after hearing the Parties.

(iv) Dismisses all other requests.

AI - so DYOR

In the ongoing ICSID arbitration (Case No. ARB/24/21), the question of whether Bacanora/Ganfeng correctly filed Form SE-03-033 is the central "technical" battlefield.

While the full internal filings are confidential to the tribunal, the public legal positions and the 2023 cancellation notices reveal the following:

1. Did they file the forms? Yes.

Bacanora’s subsidiaries (Minera Sonora Borax and Bacanora Chemco) did file their annual reports for the 2017–2021 period. They could not have maintained the concessions until 2023 without those annual submissions.

• The Conflict: The government is not claiming they failed to file, but rather that the values reported within those SE-03-033 forms were "insufficient" or "non-qualifying" according to the Ministry's 2023 re-calculation.

2. The "Minimum Tables" Trap

The Mexican government uses a calculated formula based on the surface area (hectares) of the concession and the "age" of the title.

• The Government’s Argument: They assert that the expenditures reported by Ganfeng for 2017–2021 fell below the mandatory "Minimum Investment Tables" (Tablas de Inversión Mínima).

• The "Accounting Trick": The government is reportedly excluding "Intangible" or "Indirect" investments (like the BFS, EPC engineering, and global procurement costs) from the SE-03-033 totals, focusing only on "Direct" physical work on the ground. By stripping away these multi-million dollar "soft" costs, the government can technically claim the "hard" investment was below the legal quota.

3. The Legal "Treatment as No Work Done"

You are correct regarding the harshness of the law. Under the Mexican Mining Law, if the reported investment in Form SE-03-033 does not meet the calculated minimum:

• The authority can deem the obligation "not satisfied" (incumplida).

• This trigger leads to Article 55, Section II, which treats a failed investment report as a "causal for cancellation" (causa de cancelación), effectively wiping out the legal validity of the title as if the work never happened.

Summary of LCM's Industry Standing

LCM is currently ranked in Band 1 by Chambers and Partners for Litigation Support (Australia and Global-wide Arbitration). Their representatives are frequently listed in the "100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance."

Gemini said:

Litigation Capital Management (LCM), which operates through subsidiaries like LCM Funding SG Pty Ltd, has a recorded track record spanning over 25 years. While many of their settlements are confidential, several high-profile "wins" and awards have been made public through their investor relations and case studies.

Here are the most notable legal cases financed by LCM that resulted in successful awards or settlements:

1. The "Katy Perry" Trademark Claim (March 2026)

This was a significant "win" for a small business owner against a global celebrity.

• The Case: LCM funded an Australian fashion designer (Katie Perry) in a trademark infringement case against the pop star Katy Perry.

• The Outcome: The High Court of Australia upheld the claim, ruling that the singer had infringed on the designer's trademark.

• The Award: While the exact financial damages are often finalized in separate hearings, the ruling was a total victory on the merits of the law.

2. Carillion PLC (In Liquidation) - (June 2023)

LCM provided the funding for the liquidators of Carillion, one of the UK’s largest-ever corporate collapses.

• The Case: Claims were brought against the company’s former auditors (KPMG) for negligence in failing to detect the financial state of the company.

• The Outcome: The case resulted in a £210 million settlement paid by KPMG to the creditors of Carillion.

• LCM’s Role: This is a classic example of "Insolvency Funding," where LCM provided the capital for the liquidators to pursue a massive defendant they otherwise couldn't afford to sue.

3. Ntaka Hill Nickel Project (May 2024)

This was an international arbitration case against the United Republic of Tanzania.

• The Case: An "Expropriation" claim similar to the Ganfeng/Mexico situation you mentioned. The Tanzanian government revoked a retention license for a nickel project.

• The Outcome: The ICSID tribunal awarded the claimants US$109.5 million in damages plus interest.

• The Significance: This proves LCM’s success in the exact type of "state vs. investor" arbitration (ICSID) that the Ganfeng case involves.

4. Prairie Mining (June 2024)

Another international treaty arbitration, this time against the Republic of Poland.

• The Case: Claims brought under the Energy Charter Treaty regarding the development of coal mines.

• The Outcome: The tribunal awarded the funded party approximately £150-180 million (total damages including interest).

Tecmed v Mexico

Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2) is a landmark arbitration under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Decided in 2003 by an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes tribunal, the case addressed Mexico’s refusal to renew a hazardous waste landfill permit and its implications for foreign investor protection.

Key facts

Tribunal: ICSID (Additional Facility), 2003

Claimant: Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. (Spain)

Respondent: United Mexican States

Issue: Revocation of landfill permit and alleged expropriation

Award: Approx. US$5.5 million in compensation

Background and dispute

Tecmed, a Spanish environmental services firm, operated the “Cyanide Landfill” near Hermosillo, Sonora, under a government permit. When Mexico’s environmental authority (INFE) declined to renew the permit in 1998 amid public opposition, Tecmed alleged that the decision effectively expropriated its investment and violated fair and equitable treatment under NAFTA Article 1105. Mexico contended that the permit’s expiration was lawful environmental regulation in the public interest.

Tribunal findings

The ICSID tribunal held that Mexico’s actions amounted to indirect expropriation. It emphasized the need for proportionality between the state’s public purpose and the investor’s economic expectations. The tribunal also found a breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard, reasoning that Tecmed had legitimate expectations of regulatory stability and transparency. However, the tribunal recognized Mexico’s right to regulate for environmental protection but deemed the measure disproportionate.

Impact and significance

Tecmed v. Mexico became one of the most cited investment arbitration awards for articulating the “legitimate expectations” doctrine and the test for indirect expropriation. Its reasoning influenced subsequent NAFTA and bilateral investment treaty (BIT) cases, shaping the balance between sovereign regulatory authority and investor protection. The award remains a cornerstone in international investment law discourse

I'm sure Ganfeng's defence will be using the events in their ICSID defence:

2020–2021: Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) stated lithium should be treated as a strategic resource belonging to the Mexican state, not private or foreign companies.

Oct 2021: He explicitly said Mexico would reject private lithium concessions and keep lithium under national control.

April 2022: Mexico nationalised lithium, reserving it exclusively for the state and creating Litio para México.

Early 2023: AMLO argued the Sonora project could not proceed because it lacked key permits such as water-use and environmental approvals.

Feb 2023: A lithium reserve was established in Sonora, meaning existing concessions could remain but lithium extraction within the zone was effectively restricted.

Aug–Sept 2023: The government cancelled concessions citing failure to meet minimum investment requirements between 2017 and 2021.

Late 2023–2024: AMLO suggested the concessions may not have been properly granted under previous governments, questioning their legal validity.

June 2024: AMLO asserted the original concessions were generic mining titles, not specifically for lithium, and therefore did not grant rights to lithium extraction.

My view, aligns with the AI result, and ha been since the cancellations.

Timeline:

2022 → lithium nationalised

Feb 2023 → lithium reserve created

Aug–Sept 2023 → concessions cancelled for “lack of investment”

Ganfeng’s argument becomes:

“The investment breach wasn’t the real reason — it was a post-hoc justification after nationalisation policy.”

Tribunals are very sensitive to this kind of sequencing.

Summary View:

The sequencing you’ve noted—Policy Speech -> Nationalization Law -> Reserve Creation -> Cancellation—is a classic "Expropriation Roadmap." In past cases (like ConocoPhillips v. Venezuela or Rusoro Mining v. Venezuela), this exact pattern led to massive compensation awards because the "technical breach" was seen as a thin veil for a political taking.

Another recent development this week! that may have been the influence behind LCM funding and involvement:

Gemini said

context

The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) issued its final ruling on the constitutionality of the lithium nationalization law on Tuesday, March 24, 2026.

The decision was the result of a long-standing constitutional challenge (Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 78/2022) filed by a minority group of legislators against the 2022 reforms.

Key Details of the Ruling

Validation of State Monopoly: The Court upheld Articles 1, 5 BIS, and 10 of the Mining Law. This officially confirms that lithium is a "strategic mineral" and its exploration, exploitation, and processing are the exclusive right of the Mexican State.

Dismissal of Challenges: The Court rejected arguments that the law violated "legal certainty" for existing concession holders. It also ruled that a specific "indigenous consultation" was not required for this general change to the mining framework.

The "Constitutional Shield": A major factor in the 2026 decision was a further constitutional amendment passed on October 31, 2024, which explicitly added lithium to the list of "strategic areas" in the Mexican Constitution (Articles 25, 27, and 28). The Court ruled that because the Constitution now explicitly forbids lithium concessions, the 2022 law is fully aligned with the nation's highest law.

How This Affects the Cadence/Ganfeng Case

Ironically, while this ruling is a "win" for the Mexican government domestically, it serves as the "smoking gun" for the international arbitration at ICSID:

Proof of Permanent Expropriation: In international law, an expropriation is often hard to prove if the government says it is "temporary" or "under review." By having the Supreme Court declare the ban on private concessions final and constitutional, Mexico has provided the ICSID Tribunal with definitive proof that the investors' rights have been permanently extinguished.

Exhaustion of Local Remedies: One of Mexico's favorite defenses is to argue that investors should have fought in Mexican courts first. Now that the Mexican Supreme Court has ruled, Cadence and Ganfeng can prove there is no remaining legal path in Mexico, making the international arbitration the only venue left for justice.

The Shift to Damages: Since the legality of the act is now "settled" in Mexico, the ICSID case will focus almost entirely on the valuation of the loss. The question is no longer "Did Mexico take it?" but rather "How many hundreds of millions of dollars must Mexico pay for taking it?"

I doubt the Mexican Gov are aware just yet, their legal team probably are but early days.

LCM has agreed to pay Cadence and REM Mexico's legal fees and disbursements in accordance with an agreed budget on a non-recourse basis.

@Scaffman,

Seems Sheinbaum is hoping the ICSID will not be settled before her term ends in 2030, their attempts to stall has been rejected and now with the new rulings their stalling tactics are destined to fail, I think they will take a hard look at their options now! - One is to try and claim the clay extraction is not viable to save a big award.

I've cherry picked some additional points, based on the cases being won through AI:

Current Timeline Impact

Since today is March 27, 2026, this law is less than a month old. It has fundamentally "supercharged" the legal position of White & Case (representing Ganfeng). If they secure an award in the coming months, they can now move to register it in London almost instantly, bypassing years of potential appeals regarding state immunity.

In short: The "exit door" for Mexico to avoid acknowledging the debt in the UK has been legally welded shut by this Supreme Court decision.

To Deny the Court's "Right" to Hear the Case

Mexico's first line of defense is usually Adjudicative Immunity. They argue that because they are a sovereign nation, a court in London or Washington, D.C., has no legal authority to "judge" the Mexican government's internal legislative acts (like the nationalization of lithium). ## tried and failed##

The Goal: To get the case dismissed before a judge even looks at the facts.

The Conflict: Under the March 2026 UK Supreme Court ruling, this defense is now largely ineffective for ICSID cases, as the court ruled that signing the ICSID treaty is an automatic waiver of this immunity.

Issue Estoppel: Because the award is registered as a UK judgment, the principle of issue estoppel (which you mentioned earlier) applies. This means if Mexico tried to tell a UK judge, "We didn't actually break the treaty," the judge would now say, "That issue was decided by the ICSID tribunal and is now a matter of UK court record; you are legally barred from re-litigating it."

My thoughts are the Mexican government are in a very weak position if the ICSID goes in our favour and early settlement just became more likely: IMHO

AI- love it: The "exit door" for Mexico to avoid acknowledging the debt in the UK has been legally welded shut by this Supreme Court decision.

A great finish to the week upon discovering this along with LCM, to me its a case of damage limitation for Mexico and sooner than they planned!

I honestly believe we will come away with our current mcap as an absolute minimum and within 18 months - GL

I do wonder if LCM got involved as a result of the court ruling?

The UK Supreme Court’s 4 March 2026 ruling confirmed that ICSID member states have already waived adjudicative immunity for the purpose of recognising and registering ICSID arbitration awards in the UK. This means that if Cadence wins an ICSID award under the UK–Mexico BIT, UK courts must automatically register it as if it were a final UK judgment, without Mexico being able to raise sovereign immunity objections.

****Because Cadence is a UK investor and is bringing its claim under the UK–Mexico BIT, this ruling directly strengthens its position. Any successful award would immediately become a UK judgment, which can then be mirrored in other major financial jurisdictions. This increases the financial and diplomatic pressure on Mexico, as an outstanding UK judgment can complicate sovereign borrowing, international transactions, and dealings with financial intermediaries. ****

In short, the ruling gives Cadence a far more powerful enforcement pathway. It ensures that any ICSID award they obtain is rapidly converted into a binding UK judgment, significantly improving Cadence’s leverage in negotiations and increasing Mexico’s incentive to settle or comply.

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0155

I have to disagree based on: supreme court ruling 4th March 2026 - I do wonder if LCM got involved as a result of the court ruling?

The UK Supreme Court’s 4 March 2026 ruling confirmed that ICSID member states have already waived adjudicative immunity for the purpose of recognising and registering ICSID arbitration awards in the UK. This means that if Cadence wins an ICSID award under the UK–Mexico BIT, UK courts must automatically register it as if it were a final UK judgment, without Mexico being able to raise sovereign immunity objections.

****Because Cadence is a UK investor and is bringing its claim under the UK–Mexico BIT, this ruling directly strengthens its position. Any successful award would immediately become a UK judgment, which can then be mirrored in other major financial jurisdictions. This increases the financial and diplomatic pressure on Mexico, as an outstanding UK judgment can complicate sovereign borrowing, international transactions, and dealings with financial intermediaries. ****

In short, the ruling gives Cadence a far more powerful enforcement pathway. It ensures that any ICSID award they obtain is rapidly converted into a binding UK judgment, significantly improving Cadence’s leverage in negotiations and increasing Mexico’s incentive to settle or comply.

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0155

AI ramp for all - plus facts!

Same will apply to Bacanora Ganfeng their case is two BIT's - the UK BIT is the same as ours: PRESSURE ON MEXICO!!!

I hold Cadence, FYI the arbitration by Bacanora and Ganfeng on the same concessions is under two BIT's, China - Mexico BIT (2008), Mexico - United Kingdom BIT (2006) - Cadence is under the same UK Bit 2006:

Some background on the ICSID case AI assisted but follows my understanding:

While the specific "dollar-for-dollar" claim amount in the ICSID arbitration (Case No. ARB/24/21) is often kept confidential in the early procedural stages, several key filings and analyst reports from 2024–2026 provide a concrete range for what White & Case is seeking on behalf of Ganfeng.

1. The Estimated Claim Range: US$800 Million to US$1.5 Billion+

White & Case's strategy for Ganfeng typically involves seeking "Fair Market Value" (FMV) for the asset at the time of expropriation.

• The "Floor" Value (US$800 Million): This figure matches the initial project development cost cited by Ganfeng in its 2024 HKEX filings. It represents the "sunk costs" and committed investment into the Sonora project before it was nationalized.

• The "Fair Market" Valuation (US$1.25 Billion+): This is the most likely target. It is based on the 2018 Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS), which pegged the project's Net Present Value (NPV) at US$1.253 billion. In international arbitration, law firms like White & Case usually argue that the state must pay the full future potential value of the mine, not just the money spent building it.

• The "Lithium Premium" Upside: Some industry observers suggest the claim could exceed US$2 billion if the lawyers use 2026 lithium demand forecasts and the expanded 8.8 million-ton resource estimate to justify a higher valuation.

2. Key Elements of the White & Case Claim

According to the Notice of Arbitration details, the claim is built on three legal "pillars":

1. Direct Expropriation: The literal cancellation of the nine concessions in August 2023.

2. Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET): Arguing that Mexico's flip-flop on "grandfathering" existing concessions destroyed Ganfeng's legitimate expectations as an investor.

3. Full Reparation: Demanding not just the value of the mine, but compound interest from the date of the "taking" (August 2023) and the coverage of all legal/arbitration costs.

3. The "Orr-Ewing" Factor (Consolidation)

A major development in October 2025 was Mexico's attempt to consolidate Ganfeng’s case with the Estate of Ian Colin Orr-Ewing v. Mexico (ARB/25/30).

• The Impact: This suggests that the total "pot" of damages is being viewed by Mexico as a single massive liability. If the claims are fully consolidated, the total award could be a single multi-billion-dollar judgment shared among the stakeholders (Ganfeng, Bacanora, and Cadence).

So LCM can follow the progress with that although a settlement might be the outcome, the BIT's are available to download or read at:

https://www.italaw.com/cases/12371

For the Cadence litigation:

ChatGPT:

Most likely outcome: $50m – $150m

Strong win: $120m – $220m

Extreme upside

ChatGPT:

Most likely outcome: $50m – $150m

Strong win: $120m – $220m

Extreme upside ($300m+): possible but unlikely

And not a penny reflected in the SP, I would say this is less risky for a return than 90% of the mining companies listed on AIM.

Gemini AI: Amazing has it has learnt ramping already!

1. The Lower Bound: Cost Basis/Sunk Costs (~US$10m - US$20m)If the tribunal finds that Mexico breached "Fair and Equitable Treatment" but stops short of full expropriation, they may award only the return of invested capital plus interest. Basis: Broker Zeus Capital recently applied a heavily risked valuation of $10.4m (approx. 2.5p per share) specifically for the "challenged" Sonora assets in their latest note. Context: ****This represents a "salvage" value that assumes significant legal hurdles or a negotiated settlement.****

2. The Mid-Range: Historic NPV Share (~US$200m - US$380m)This is the range most commonly cited by analysts looking at the project's pre-nationalization economics. Basis: The 2018 Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS) for the Sonora project gave a total NPV of US$1.253 billion. Cadence's Share: Cadence holds a 30% interest in the specific JV areas. 16.7% to 30% of that total project NPV (depending on which specific ore bodies are accounted for in the claim) aligns with a $200 million+ valuation. Arbitration Precedent: Ganfeng Lithium, the 70% partner, is widely reported to be seeking compensation in the region of US$1 billion+. If their claim succeeds, Cadence’s proportional "win" would naturally sit in this $200m–$380m bracket.

3. The Upper Bound: Current Resource Value (~US$450m+ / £350m+)In a "Total Success" scenario, where the tribunal awards the full present-day value of the lithium in the ground (reflecting higher lithium prices than 2018 and the increased 8.8 Mt LCE resource estimate), the award could be significantly higher. Market Cap Comparison: For context, Cadence’s current market cap is only around £16m - £20m. Even a "mid-range" win of $200m would be over 10x the current total value of the company. Key Factors Affecting the Final Payout Lithium Price at Time of Award: ICSID tribunals often use the "date of expropriation" or the "date of the award" to value the asset. Since lithium prices are expected to be higher in 2026/2027 than in 2023, the timing is favorable for a higher valuation. LCM Funding Terms: Because Cadence is using non-recourse funding, the funder (LCM) will likely take a significant "success fee" (typically 20% to 40% of the award).

This must be deducted from the gross award. Interest: Under International Investment Law, awards usually include compound interest from the date the concessions were cancelled (August 2023) until the date of payment. This can add 5–8% per year to the total. Summary Table: Potential Award Scenarios Scenario Estimated Award (Gross)Impact on KDNC Share Price Sunk Cost/Settlement$10m - $30m 2p - 4p per share NPV 2018 Basis (Mid)$200m - $300m 25p - 40p per share Full Resource Value (High)$450m+ 60p+ per share Note: Arbitration is a long process. With merit hearings expected in late 2026 or early 2027, ****a final cash payout is unlikely before 2028, unless a settlement is reached with the Mexican government soo

@RIDER75,

All seems to going in the right direction with state and local municipality behind the project:

The wider project for the full mine port and railroad, some of my thoughts/views

1)

I'll stick with Starboard /Amapa Minerals being the JV as my calculated guess if not a buyout completely. (my view so DYOR) but my thinking behind this:

Add to that KM's words: Brazilian investor!!

https://youtu.be/MbetSV2OBxI?si=oqfZm6nA2I_Ea0vu&t=1962

2)

DYOR, but the people behind Tucano Gold could easily take on our project rail and port, read the transcript and look at their history!

https://selesnafes.com/2025/09/novo-acionista-de-mina-de-ouro-da-detalhes-do-plano-para-retomar-atividades-no-ap/

Respondent:

Starboard. It’s 100% Brazilian—a Brazilian asset management firm headquartered in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. We specialize in what the market calls “special situations”—that is, complex investment opportunities. We identify such opportunities, invest capital entrusted to us by our investors (our unitholders), and actively manage the companies we acquire.

Our goal here isn’t just to restore production and ensure long-term sustainability—e.g., securing additional reserves—but also to pursue growth. That’s always our approach. So, we foresee several years of dedicated work ahead.

If you look at the latest presentation slide 13 and 22, the corridor has further expansion potential all dependant on the railroad.

https://www.cadenceminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Cadence-Jan-2026-updated.pdf

For the arbitration it could be many multiples of what people are suggesting, I'll suggest at least our current Mcap.

GL

And the BIT:

https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/laws/italaw181716.pdf

Storage is through the roof at the moment, oil disruption even the UK is allowing plug in storage soon.

Plus Sheinbaum has neighbour problem, watch for two minutes.

https://youtu.be/6j2uOXBorJI?si=BSci2j6nCXaQoh7T&t=85