The following quote is from today's ( 19 May 2022 ) email to stock owners of LAC titled: "Vote now! LITHIUM AMERICAS CORP. Annual Meeting" 

"Principal Holders of Voting Securities To the knowledge of the directors and executive officers of the Company, no person or company, directly or indirectly, beneficially owns or exercises control or direction over, 10% or more of the Company’s issued and outstanding common shares (“Common Shares”), other than as set out in the table below. Name of Shareholder Number of Common Shares Owned(1) Percentage of Outstanding Common Shares Ganfeng Lithium Co., Ltd.(2) 15,000,000 11.1% Notes: (1) These numbers are derived from the respective shareholders, or public filings made by these shareholders on the System for Electronic Disclosure by Insiders (SEDI). (2) Mr. Xiaoshen Wang, a director of Lithium Americas, is the Vice Chairman, the Executive Vic"

Back on 28 Feb of this year I posted:  "I remain hopeful that this proposed separation will have positive results for LAC stock holders.  However, as I posted previous concerns about the link between China and Argentina over on the Off Topics Forum I think that the China connection may not have in the future the same positive benefit for LAC that it had earlier in the development phase of Cauchari-Olaroz as China strengthens its close association with the government of Argentina."

Considering the fact that Ganfeng Lithium Ltd. is the ONLY shareholder of LAC that owns more than 10% of the outstanding Common Shares I believe that the proposed split that would separate LAC's South American operations from their North American operations is a political and economic imperative for the future of Thacker Pass in consideration of how failing to perform such a split may have a significant negative influence on the political climate necessary for a successful move forward to bring Thacker Pass to fruition.  The U.S. government is not going to view as a positive factor having a lithium mine in this country whereby 11% ownership is by the Chinese.  Not with current headlines like those below taken from just today:

China’s Yang Jiechi warns US security adviser Jake Sullivan about Washington’s Taiwan moves (yahoo.com)

US-China Relations in Peril? Top Chinese Diplomat Warns of ‘Dangerous Situation’ If America Keeps Supporting Taiwan | HNGN - Headlines & Global News

China's Top Diplomat Pushes U.S. to Repair Strained Relationship (msn.com)

Anyway, you get the point.  The U.S. and China aren't exactly the best of buddies at the moment and it doesn't take a great deal of effort to see how the U.S. government might not look kindly to having a mining company operating in the U.S. when 11% of the Common Stock in that company is owned by a country with interests so out of line to those of the U.S.  Canada, on the other hand, does not represent the same degree of objection.  A Canadian company operating a mine in the U.S. that is devoid of that Chinese connection would be seen in an entirely different and less suspicious light.  

I believe Jon Evans sees this political maze clearly and that his suggestion that the company split into 2 separate entities takes into proper consderation the best way for the company to proceed.  U.S.-China relations are not going to markedly improve in the near future without some miraculous event of transmogrification... and that ain't happening anytime soon!  JMO

I believe we are going to see this split occur "soon".  I haven't gleaned through the entire preliminary document from LAC today, but it would not be a huge surprise to see this issue come up at the AGM.  Evans threw it out there in February to see what the response would be... now it is time to go beyond a fishing expedition and see if it does more than just "float".  Again, JMO.

Okiedo

PS:  Sorry about the "seperation" spelling back in Feb.  Of course, it should have been:  "separation"