Almonty's Two Fronts: A $67 Million Canadian Claim and a Montana Tungsten Bet

Almonty is fighting on two very different battlegrounds, and shareholders now have to weigh them side by side. In Canada, a legal dispute with Deutsche Rohstoff over the 2014 sale of the Australian Wolfram Camp Mine has been consolidated, with Almonty's counterclaim folded into the same proceedings. In the United States, CEO Lewis Black used Sunday's company newsletter to lay out an ambition to restore American tungsten production through Gentung in Montana.

The two storylines share little beyond the company name, yet together they frame the investment case: one is a question of legal exposure, the other a question of industrial execution.

Consolidated claims in Canada

Deutsche Rohstoff disclosed that the mutual lawsuits have been merged in Canada. Its claims against Almonty total roughly USD 67 million, or about EUR 60 million, and include a demand for the delivery of 3.5 million conversion shares. A separate repayment claim covers outstanding loans of around EUR 10 million, with the fulfillment deadline having expired on 31 October.

Almonty's counterclaim centers on the same 2014 sale of Wolfram Camp. The company is seeking the return of the shares tied to that transaction. According to Deutsche Rohstoff, Almonty has largely left the claimed damages unquantified. Deutsche Rohstoff rejects the allegations as unfounded and considers them for the most part time-barred.

For investors, the practical question is enforceability. If Deutsche Rohstoff prevails, the quantified claims represent a real financial burden. If Almonty's counterclaim succeeds, the demanded share return could work in the company's favor. The unquantified nature of Almonty's damages claim makes its position hard to value economically — more clarity would come only from specifying those claims.

Montana as the growth story

The American plans offer a different kind of test. On 2 November, Almonty reported that Montana had joined the federal FAST-41 permitting process. The company said it attended the signing in Philipsburg and stated that the procedure could support permitting of its US tungsten project.

That political framework gives Gentung a concrete anchor, but its value depends on whether it actually helps the project clear approval. A plan to rebuild American production gains economic substance only once it moves through the necessary permitting steps.

Sangdong sets the yardstick

Sangdong's commissioning roughly two weeks ago provides the practical benchmark. Black described progress there alongside technical difficulties: after the switch to round-the-clock operation, a defective plant component caused an interruption before the facility restarted. The filter press proved especially telling — it processed 40 tonnes per hour against a design capacity of 80 tonnes, and Almonty bought a used replacement in Korea.

That experience makes operational execution the proving ground for the US plans. The replacement purchase reflects a concrete response to the bottleneck, provided the substitute unit delivers the required throughput in service. Building production requires not only a supportive permitting framework but equipment that works reliably day to day.

Revenue growth as the base

Almonty already brings substantial top-line momentum. In its second-quarter 2026 release published on 11 August, the company reported revenue of USD 43.0 million, a rise of 498 percent year on year.

That is an argument for the business as it stands. For the next stage, the growth gains quality if Almonty masters its technical bottlenecks and advances its further projects. The combination of reported revenue and new production plans therefore deserves scrutiny along concrete milestones.

The investment view is demanding but clear: a return of American tungsten production can become a viable corporate story if permitting and industrial execution converge. Gentung supplies the goal, Montana a potentially supportive framework, and Sangdong the practical yardstick. Whether Almonty ties those three levels together — while the Canadian proceedings run their course — is what will decide the economic persuasiveness of the case.