Emerita Resources' Legal Position Strengthening in the Aznalcóllar Mine Litigation

The trial for the $25 billion mine has begun and boy has it been entertaining

Emerita Resources' legal position in the Aznalcóllar mine litigation continues to improve as the trial progresses, with mounting evidence of irregularities favoring its claims in the ongoing court proceedings.

The case, which centers on allegations of corruption and procedural misconduct during the tender process, has revealed significant flaws in the evaluation and awarding of the mining rights. Below is a court update from my previous article that was written pre-trial.

Court Validation of Emerita's Legal Standing

At the start of this trial, a significant ruling from the Seville Provincial Court has strengthened Emerita Resources' position in the ongoing litigation. The court explicitly rejected defense arguments that questioned Emerita's legitimacy to pursue legal action regarding the Aznalcóllar mine tender.

The court determined that "it is evident that the plaintiff company is the injured party" in the award process, and affirmed that Emerita's right to litigate remains valid regardless of any allegations about its financial status or technical capabilities.

This ruling effectively dismantles one of the primary strategies employed by the defense teams, who had repeatedly characterized Emerita as an "empresita" (small company) lacking the necessary resources to operate the mine. The court specifically stated that Emerita's "current economic situation" and "future projects" have no bearing on its right to pursue justice through the courts regarding potential criminal activities in the tendering process.

The Aznalcóllar case tribunal has also fully endorsed the investigation conducted by Judge Mercedes Alaya, who twice ordered the reopening of the case after previous attempts to archive it. In a decisive ruling, judges Ángel Márquez, Luis Gonzaga de Oro-Pulido, and Carmen Caracuel rejected the vast majority of preliminary objections raised by defense attorneys at the beginning of the trial in March. This ruling not only legitimizes the investigation process but also specifically validates Judge Alaya's controversial decisions to reopen the case when it was about to be dismissed.

With that said, here are some of the key findings so far:

1. Questionable Qualifications of Minorbis

Minorbis S.L., the company controversially awarded the Aznalcóllar mining rights, lacked both financial and technical qualifications required for such a significant project.

"Minorbis was constituted just a month before the close of the first phase of the tender with only €3,000 in capital and no experience in the mining sector."

This glaring disparity between Minorbis and Emerita, a well-established company backed by Canadian investment and expertise, underscores serious concerns about the legitimacy of the bidding process.

The timing of Minorbis' formation raises further questions. Minorbis entered into a "Talks Agreement" with Grupo México, which "guarantees no commitment and should have resulted in its automatic exclusion." This agreement explicitly allowed Grupo México to rescind its involvement at any time, undermining any claim of financial or technical solvency. Despite these deficiencies, Minorbis was awarded the tender, leaving Emerita to challenge this decision through legal channels.

2. Procedural Irregularities and Preferential Treatment

Evidence presented during the trial suggests that Minorbis received preferential treatment from officials involved in the tender process.

Court documents revealed email exchanges between Vicente Fernández Guerrero, then Secretary General of Innovation, Science, and Employment, and representatives of Magtel (a company linked to Minorbis). These communications demonstrated an "excellent personal relationship" between Guerrero and Magtel executives, including requests for administrative favors and coordination on municipal ordinances.

Such interactions highlight potential conflicts of interest that compromised the integrity of the process. Accused officials denied introducing new evaluation criteria or receiving external pressures but admitted to replicating parameters from other sections when certain subcategories lacked explicit guidelines. This raises doubts about their objectivity and adherence to established rules.

3. Evidence of Manipulated Scoring

Testimony during the trial has exposed discrepancies in how bids were evaluated, particularly regarding Emerita’s technical proposal. Manuel Gil Calderón testified that Emerita should have received a 40% higher technical score for including a water treatment plant (WTP), a critical feature absent from Minorbis’ proposal. He stated unequivocally, "If it had been granted [this score], [Emerita] would have won the competition"

There was also additional testimony that Minorbis "snatched" points from Emerita by a now-retired former chief inspector of the Economic and Tax Crime Unit (UDEF) stating “but the bottom line is that points were subtracted for minor considerations, and that allowed one bidder to beat the other by a small margin."

Additionally, "biased assessments" from two or three officers who "coincidentally always went in the same direction were present.”

He also said that “There are two or three [technicians] whose discrepancies are more visible, not because they are predetermined to do one thing or another, but it is extremely striking.”

Despite this nuance, he stated that he indeed did believe there was a crime in the mine tender. "This has a political and an administrative origin. There are a series of acts that I haven't been able to prove, but there are indications that a public body made a biased interpretation in favor of one and to the detriment of another, and that is what we denounce," he stated. "We didn't go any further because the investigation ended after the officials' statements. Another type of investigation should have been conducted, but the judge deemed it irrelevant.”

This manipulated scoring not only disadvantaged Emerita but also violated principles of fairness and transparency.

4. UDEF Confirms Anomalies

The Spanish Central Unit for Economic and Tax Crimes (UDEF) has provided damning evidence supporting Emerita’s case. Investigators described "incongruences and anomalies" in the evaluation process as a "grotesque deviation" from standard practices.

Specific issues with Minorbis’ proposal included impossible claims of "zero discharge," serious safety risks related to mine access, and flawed water management calculations.

For example, he explained that investigators found that the second investment offer per mining grid had been "higher value" than the first, thanks to a "subdivision" of the grids based on location criteria; he warned, regarding the commitments of the Minorbis technical project, that "zero discharge does not exist."

Another aspect highlighted in the report, as he recalled, was Minorbis' proposal for "access to the mining deposit area," which, he indicated, would present a "problem" by causing a possible "flooding" due to the impact of water, which, he emphasized, would result in "the death of all the miners" working in that area; this, in turn, stemming from the state of the area due to the work carried out during the Boliden-Apirsa phase.

In all cases, he pointed out, the report also includes the "literal explanations" provided by the Board officials regarding these "apparent discrepancies," a point he has reiterated several times.

These findings not only discredit Minorbis’ bid but also highlight procedural negligence or intentional manipulation by those overseeing the tender. UDEF's testimony strengthens Emerita’s argument that proper evaluation would have disqualified Minorbis outright.

5. Defense Testimonies Highlight Contradictions

During recent court sessions, members of the technical commission responsible for evaluating bids defended their actions but faced scrutiny over their impartiality. While they claimed their reports were "magnificent and professional," UDEF investigators found evidence suggesting deliberate manipulation to favor Minorbis. These contradictions weaken their credibility and bolster Emerita’s claims of procedural bias.

“At the trial, several officials from the technical committee exposed the process. Aurora Gomera Martínez, Alberto Fernández Bueno, and Luis Cordero González admitted that the bids submitted "were not final" and that the companies "could modify their projects after the fact," which, according to the legal principles of public procurement, violates equal treatment, transparency, and competition.”

• They added a new water treatment plant 10 years later, after not having included one in their original bid.

• They projected mineral deposits and ponds that were not initially listed and that do not have the required environmental procedures.

• They plan to dump treated water into the Guadalquivir River without sufficient studies on the ecological impact or emergency plans for a possible flood.

Additionally, defense arguments alleging an "excessive competence" by appellate courts were dismissed by judges who cited established jurisprudence allowing modifications to lower court rulings when new evidence emerges. This rejection further validates Emerita’s pursuit of justice through higher courts.

7. Legal Framework Favors Emerita

Under Spanish law, proven corruption in public tenders requires disqualification of the winning bid and reassignment to the next qualified bidder. Given that Emerita is the only other qualified participant, it stands to benefit directly if allegations against Minorbis are upheld. This legal precedent provides a clear path for Emerita to secure rights to the Aznalcóllar mine.

Furthermore, judicial acknowledgment of irregularities strengthens Emerita’s position as proceedings continue.

8. Broader Implications for Accountability

The trial has broader implications for governance and accountability within Andalusia’s public procurement processes. High-ranking officials like Vicente Fernández Guerrero face charges of prevarication and influence peddling, highlighting systemic issues within regional administration. The case serves as a litmus test for transparency and fairness in public tenders.

Emerita’s persistence in challenging these irregularities not only advances its own interests but also sets a precedent for holding officials accountable for corruption. This case underscores “the need for stricter oversight mechanisms” to prevent similar controversies in future tenders.

The Economic Prize:

What bears repeating is that at stake is over US$25 Billion in very economic resources located in an extremely mining friendly jurisdiction with access to water, power, labor, roads, and EU subsidies.

The Aznalcóllar Project Public Tender (which includes the Los Frailes and Aznalcóllar mines) was endorsed by all levels of the Spanish Government, and once granted, will allow the mines to be put back into production, which will likely produce profitably for multiple generations.

This tier-1, world-class project contains 4 known deposits to date with a total resource estimate potentially exceeding 200 million tons.

The two largest deposits were previously production drilled (Los Frailes and Aznalcóllar ) by Boliden with the resources defined to 350 meters in depth and booked with the Spanish Government.

---

The Los Frailes Mine, 70-million-ton resource including a 28 million ton high-grade underground resource grading:

Zn 6.65% Pd 3.87% Cu 0.29% Ag 84 g/t

4.1 Billion pounds of Zinc

2.4 Billion pounds of Lead

179 Million pounds of Copper

76 Million ozs of Silver

---

The Aznalcóllar Copper-Silver Mine, 90-million-ton resource including 43 million ton high-grade underground resource grading:

Zn 3.33% Pd 1.77% Cu 0.44% Ag 67 g/t Au 1g/t

3.15 billion pounds of zinc

1.67 billion pounds of lead

416 Million pounds of copper

1.38 million ozs gold

93 million ozs silver

*Note both high-grade deposits are open for expansion at depth below 350 meters.

---

The in situ value of the remaining high-grade resources amenable to underground mining techniques within just these 2 deposits exceeds US$25 Billion.

Conclusion

Emerita Resources’ strengthened legal position is supported by compelling evidence of irregularities during the Aznalcóllar tender process. From questionable qualifications of Minorbis to manipulated scoring and judicial support for reopening investigations, each revelation reinforces Emerita’s claim as the rightful bidder for this valuable mining concession. As proceedings unfold, these developments highlight critical issues surrounding transparency, accountability, and fairness in public procurement—a victory not just for Emerita but also for ethical governance standards in Spain. There is more to come as the trial continues later this month with representatives from Emerita testifying along with other witnesses, so keep your popcorn handy.

Postscript:
There is a lot of coverage of this trial in Spanish news media, which is good for transparency. Links attached below for reference. As Justice Louise Brandeis said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

1. Montero Implicated in Another €18 Billion Scandal: Shielded the Main Defendant in the Aznalcóllar Mine Case

2. Aznalcóllar Mine Defendants Deny Introducing Their Own Criteria and Claim Objectivity

3. Montero Shielded the Main Defendant in the Aznalcóllar Case and Made Him SEPI Director Before Air Europa Rescue

4. Police Officer Convicted in Riotinto Testifies in Aznalcóllar Mine Trial

5. Aznalcóllar Mine Trial: Magtel and Junta de Andalucía Under Scrutiny

6. Tense Aznalcóllar Mine Trial: UDEF Agent Confirms "Grotesque Deviations"

7. Aznalcóllar Case Implicates Key Figure María Jesús Montero: 348 Years of Prison at Stake

8. Mayor of Aznalcóllar Demands Urgency from Junta for Final Mine Reopening Permit

9. Magtel Brothers Testify in Aznalcóllar Mine Case

10. Police Allege Aznalcóllar Mine Tender Was Rigged