“…Disagree Pavel.  More tied to Tesla weakness…”

Taking into consideration my position, I would gladly disagree with myself as well. I just struggle with the fact, that should the court give TP a green light, then approximately 50% of TP value should be incorporated into the share price (no deep analysis on that, had some dealing with an analyst on mining and DFS is supposedly valued something like that). As I see it right now, TP is very much 0 on LAC value. The corelation with EV segment is undoubtedly there, just the hit on LAC seems to be bit rough, therefore I smell a leak from the Judge office.

“…what happens to lithium demand if a recession hits, higher interest rates and the overall markets…”

IMHO, reasonably deep recession should not have any impact on LAC. Not sure how it is in the US/China, but in EU, the EV mandate will drive production up despite stagnation of the light vehicle market. “Reasonably deep” recession/depression, supported with escalation in Russia/Ukraine, China/Taiwan or Serbia/Kosovo may change that.

I am just afraid, that the winter in the US may have opened eyes of too many people to realize, that the “EV revolution” is going to cause more problems than expected. Leaving aside the grid capacity, the fact, that one is not able to charge Tesla cars in cold weather may came as a surprise to many.

“…Why would LAC open this new Job Req if they thought TP was not going to move forward???...”

Not corelated, LAC HR department does not know what is cooked in the Judge office.

“…1/5 can't come soon enough....”

I agree. C-O production could have helped too. But still, my expectation is another delay of the project.