I was wondering why LAC's lawer requested the oral argument since the first second I knew it. Frankly, I don't think it shows her confidence on this case as some of you guys think. Instead, I think this means she felt her written reply was not persuasive enough to the court. That's why she requested the oral argument for a chance to further express something.

I don't want to be a jinx and hope I am wrong, since I've been heavily long LAC for years.

The reason why I 'm still heavily holding LAC is the return/risk ratio is still good for me. Even if judge Du is not giving a possitive decision to the LAC case as we are expecting, I don't believe she will agree to withdraw the ROD, which means of course LAC still have to be facing further leagal hurdles and the Thacker Pass project is gonna be delayed again. However, considering the Argentina projects, the 50/50 chance of Thacker Pass being approved by judge Du,  valuation of LAC stock price, I will want to hold my shares.

In a word, I'm not that confident about LAC lawer's request of an oral argument but am still holding all my shares of LAC.