General LPI Discussion, page-418

The court rulings concluded in April. And just remember this was not a court case against LPI, rather Simbalik who also sits on 1932 old code. The outcome in turn would also reflect on us. See below:

Background:
* The case revolves around mining easements, which are rights to access and use a piece of land for mining purposes.
* Simbalik Group Inversiones Limitada had been granted mining easements over a part of the Treasury's property.
* The initial judgment on October 7, 2021, favored Simbalik Group, but the Treasury appealed.
* The main contention was about the exploration and exploitation of lithium. While Simbalik Group's concessions allowed them to explore and exploit sodium chloride, they sought rights for lithium, which the Treasury argued was not justified.

Key Points:
* The appellant (Codelco) claimed that the mining easements were established without proper justification. They argued that Simbalik Group's concessions only permitted them to explore sodium chloride, not lithium.
* The appellant highlighted that lithium was reserved for the State of Chile and that not all mining concessions established before a certain date were exempt from this reservation.
* The court noted that Simbalik Group had authorization from the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission to commercialize lithium but not to extract or exploit it.
* The court also pointed out that the plaintiff's mining concessions were established under the Mining Code of 1932, which had different provisions than later codes.

Judgment:
* The court recognized that Simbalik Group owned the Cocina Uno a Nueve mining concession, which produced Sodium Chloride.
* Simbalik Group was authorized to produce and sell lithium salts extracted from this concession for 15 years, with certain conditions.
* The Chilean Treasury owned the property on which the easement was claimed.
* The court's decision was based on the fact that Simbalik Group owned the mining concessions and that the Treasury owned the property where the easement was sought.
* The court also considered the necessity of the easement for Simbalik Group's mining operations.