olivLaw · US equity research
Sigma Lithium Corporation SGML
Metal Mining · SIC 1000 · Vertical: Metal Mining (SIC 1000)
Sigma Lithium Corporation is a mining company whose main lithium project, described in its filings with the SEC, sits at the centre of its activity in Brazil. The company is of particular interest given rising demand for lithium used in electric vehicle batteries and the local processing of its ore.
The AI analysis may be outdated: new filings came after its sources (see the «AI analysis» section).
At the close of 04 Nov 2026, Sigma Lithium Corporation (SGML) stock was 5.62 USD (+1.54% on the day), with market capitalisation 626.1 m USD, beta 1.83, 52-week range 5.07–23.65 USD.
Data as of · AI analysis dated · Source: SEC filings and closing prices, computed by olivLaw.
Price history
Loading chart…
Technical reading
- RSI (14)
- 28.6
- oversold (≤ 30)
- Bollinger (20, 2)
- 5.54 – 10.28
- in the lower half of the band · %B 0.02 · band width 59.9%
- SMA 50 / 200
- 9.46 / 12.77
- downtrend (price < SMA50 < SMA200)
- MACD (12, 26, 9)
- -0.96 / -0.72
- MACD below signal
Indicators describe past prices; on their own they do not predict direction. On our history the RSI ≤ 40 filter added no return (see the signals methodology).
Performance
| Company | S&P 500 | vs S&P 500 | Vertical median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | −41.2% | −1.1% | −40.1 pp | — |
| 3 months | −46.7% | −0.5% | −46.3 pp | — |
| 6 months | −75.4% | +4.4% | −79.8 pp | — |
| Year to date | −57.4% | +12.3% | −69.7 pp | — |
| 1 year | +20.1% | +13.5% | +6.5 pp | −9.4% |
| 3 years | −78.3% | +76.4% | −154.7 pp | +102.6% |
| 5 years | −39.7% | +63.7% | −103.4 pp | — |
Price returns, dividends excluded.
Quarterly results
ESEF annual reports carry no quarters: the results are annual (below).
E/P over time
E/P = trailing-12-month diluted EPS / price at quarter end. E/P is the inverse of P/E and stays defined when earnings are negative.
Fiscal years
| Fiscal year | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | 181.2 m | 151.4 m | 110.0 m |
| Revenue YoY | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | −16.5% | −27.3% |
| Net income | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | -38.2 m | -51.4 m | -50.2 m |
| Net income YoY | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| Diluted EPS | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | -0.46 | -0.45 |
| Diluted EPS YoY | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| net % | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | -21.1% | -34.0% | -45.6% |
| Free cash flow | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | -35.0 m | -7.4 m |
Reported results vs expectations
Loading…
Balance sheet & financial health
Fiscal year 2025 · 31 Dec 2025
- Cash
- 6.2 m USD
- Financial debt
- 13.2 m USD
- Net debt
- 7.0 m USD
- Equity
- 56.6 m USD
- Total assets
- 293.7 m USD
- Debt / equity
- 0.23x
- Current ratio
- 0.25x
- ROE
- -67.4%
- ROA
- -16.2%
- FCF margin
- -6.8%
Financial statements (source on every figure)
Revenue and net income (USD)
Margins
Income statement · USD
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 181.2 m | 151.4 m | 110.0 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Cost of revenue | — | 119.7 m | 91.6 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Gross profit | — | 31.6 m | 18.4 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Operating income | — | -36.7 m | -42.5 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Depreciation & amortisation | — | — | -2.0 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| EBITDA | — | — | -40.5 m ≈ | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026derived |
| Interest expense | — | -32.0 m | -26.2 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Pre-tax income | — | -66.0 m | -34.4 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Income tax | — | 14.6 m | -15.8 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Net income | -38.2 m | -51.4 m | -50.2 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Diluted EPS | — | -0.46 | -0.45 | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Weighted average diluted shares | 108.0 m | 110.8 m | 111.3 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
≈ computed by olivLaw from the reported lines of the same year: Operating income + Depreciation & amortisation.
Balance sheet · USD
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash | 48.6 m | 45.9 m | 6.2 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Inventories | 14.7 m | 16.1 m | 20.7 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Current assets | 107.6 m | 92.8 m | 49.2 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Total assets | 367.6 m | 327.1 m | 293.7 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Long-term debt | 107.1 m | 112.0 m | 13.2 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Current liabilities | 92.3 m | 108.8 m | 200.5 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Equity | 161.7 m | 92.3 m | 56.6 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Shares outstanding at year end | 110.1 m | 111.3 m | 111.4 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
Cash flow · USD
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating cash flow | — | -18.3 m | 2.4 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Capex | — | 16.7 m | 9.9 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Free cash flow | — | -35.0 m ≈ | -7.4 m ≈ | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026derived |
| Investing cash flow | — | -23.6 m | -12.0 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
| Financing cash flow | — | 53.7 m | -33.3 m | SEC (XBRL)· 30 Mar 2026verified |
≈ computed by olivLaw from the reported lines of the same year: Operating cash flow − Capex.
Computed indicators
Growth
Profitability
Returns
Balance sheet
Liquidity
Cash
Efficiency
Market and valuation
Risk
Valuation
olivLaw classification
- indicators available: 5 of at least 6
- score weight coverage: 35.4% of at least 60%
A scoring methodology on indicators and valuation, not investment advice.
Closing price
04 Nov 2026Source: olivLaw, closing series
Market cap: 626.1 m USD
Key indicators
Coverage and freshness
Score by group
35% · Insufficient data
Estimated value range
The combined range = the median of the valid methods' low, central and high values; it is not a probability interval and does not cover every result. Envelope of all methods: 1.33 – 2.05 USD.
Valuation assumptions are editorial choices, not measured; beta is not measured.
Method ranges (USD per share)
— — Mid · ▏ Price
Valuation methods
- DCF (discounted cash flow)1.33 – 2.05 (Mid 1.61)WACC 9.2% · starting FCFF 14.6 m USD · terminal value share of EV 72%The WACC × g sensitivity gives the method's bounds; these are not probabilities.Reverse DCF: no growth between −30% and +40% justifies the price
- Peers: EV/EBITDAunavailable · the base of the ratio is not positive
- Peers: P/Eunavailable · the base of the ratio is not positive
- Dividend discount (DDM)unavailable · the company pays no dividend: a dividend model needs an explicit initiation assumption
Classification (SIC) comparables group by industry code, not by economic activity; the direct group is an editorial selection by activity. Members' multiples are on their own trailing twelve months, at their own latest close.
Assumptions (illustrative, editorial)
- Risk-free rate
- 4.3%
- Equity risk premium
- 5.0%
- Beta (default)
- 1.00
- Cost of equity
- 9.3%
- Terminal growth
- 2.5%
Factor scorecard
Insufficient data
Minimum-evidence gate: indicators available: 5 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 35.4% of at least 60%
| Factor | Value | Score | Weight used |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROIC · Quality | -32.1% | 9 (vs peers) | 29% |
| Net margin · Quality | -45.6% | 32 (vs peers) | 18% |
| FCF conversion · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Revenue CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EPS CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Net debt / EBITDA · Balance sheet | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Interest coverage · Balance sheet | -1.6x | 0 (on a fixed band) | 18% |
| Current ratio · Balance sheet | 0.2x | 0 (on a fixed band) | 12% |
| P/E (TTM) · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EV/EBITDA · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| FCF yield · Valuation | -1.2% | 0 (on a fixed band) | 24% |
| Shareholder yield (distributions) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Payout ratio (FCF) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
Factors without a value were dropped; the remaining weights were renormalised.
Score groups
- Balance sheet0/100 · 2/3 factors with a value
- Growth· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Quality18/100 · 2/3 factors with a value
- Returns· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Valuation· partial0/100 · 1/3 factors with a value
A «partial» group is computed from under half of its weight or from one factor: it is not a full assessment of the group.
Memo
SIGMA LITHIUM CORPORATION (SGML). Latest full fiscal year: 2025; data up to 2025-12-31.
Figures computed from the financial statements: revenue 110.0 m USD in 2025; YoY growth -27.3%; net margin -45.6%; ROE -67.4%.
The estimated value range is 1.33–2.05 USD per share (median of 1 methods, agreement: single method); assumptions are illustrative. Against the central value of 1.61 USD, the price of 5.62 USD leaves a potential of -71.3% (value / price − 1) and a margin of safety of -249.0% (1 − price / value). The range is the median of the methods' low, central and high values, not a probability interval.
Insufficient data for a verdict (indicators available: 5 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 35.4% of at least 60%).
Text generated deterministically from the figures shown; no language model. Not investment advice.
What supports the thesis
No signal among the computed factors. That is not an absence of risk: factors without data were not assessed, and business risks (margins, inventory, demand) are in the source-based analysis.
What contradicts it
- ROIC: -32.1%
- Interest coverage: -1.6x
- Current ratio: 0.2x
- FCF yield: -1.2%
- The price is above the estimated value range
Not assessed (insufficient data or a ratio without meaning): FCF conversion, Revenue CAGR 3Y, EPS CAGR 3Y, Net debt / EBITDA, P/E (TTM), EV/EBITDA, Shareholder yield (distributions), Payout ratio (FCF).
Versus the vertical median
Metal Mining (SIC 1000) · same industry (4-digit SIC) · compared with 26 companies
Multiples and returns vs the median
Price rebased to 100 (monthly, 5 years)
Companies in the vertical
| Market cap | P/E | ROE | Net margin | Revenue YoY | 1A / 3A | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BHPBhp Group Limited | 406.8 bn | 45.2 | 19.5% | 17.6% | −7.9% | +46% / +31% |
| SCCOSouthern Copper Corp | 149.3 bn | 23.0 | 53.2% | 37.3% | +17.4% | +35% / +163% |
| RIORio Tinto PLC | 106.2 bn | 13.9 | 17.0% | 17.3% | +7.4% | +18% / +22% |
| FCXFreeport-McMoRan Inc. | 89.9 bn | 29.2 | 21.8% | 16.2% | +1.8% | +46% / +68% |
| HBMHudbay Minerals Inc. | 8.8 bn | 15.4 | 19.7% | 25.7% | +9.4% | +31% / +388% |
| CLFCleveland-Cliffs Inc. | 7.3 bn | — | -8.5% | -2.4% | −3.0% | −2% / −25% |
| BVNBuenaventura Mining Co Inc | 7.3 bn | 18.1 | 12.6% | 34.9% | +40.1% | +16% / +202% |
| MPMP Materials Corp. | 6.4 bn | — | -4.1% | -19.9% | +10.1% | −42% / +126% |
| EROEro Copper Corp | 3.2 bn | 12.2 | 34.6% | 33.6% | +67.1% | +21% / +150% |
| NEXANexa Resources S.A. | 1.6 bn | 11.9 | 14.6% | 4.4% | +8.5% | +70% / +103% |
| IEIvanhoe Electric Inc. | 1.2 bn | — | -8.4% | -1,138.7% | +11.8% | −46% / −32% |
| USARUSA Rare Earth, Inc. | 1.1 bn | — | -23.6% | -2,159.3% | unavailable | −39% / −20% |
| TMCTMC the metals Co Inc. | 1.0 bn | 4.2 | -1,123.2% | — | unavailable | −67% / +103% |
| USASAmericas Gold And Silver Corporation | 986.9 m | — | -61.6% | -74.1% | +17.7% | −31% / +413% |
| ASMAvino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. | 769.3 m | 79.0 | 7.0% | 12.2% | +50.8% | −15% / +746% |
| LARLithium Argentina AG | 682.1 m | — | -9.5% | — | +12.9% | −24% / −21% |
| SGMLSigma Lithium Corporation | 626.1 m | — | -67.4% | -45.6% | −27.3% | +20% / −78% |
| GSMFerroglobe PLC | 547.5 m | — | -25.9% | -12.8% | −18.8% | −34% / −49% |
| ALOYRealloys Inc. | 459.5 m | — | -155.8% | -5,144.4% | −5.3% | −5% / +68% |
| THMInternational Tower Hill Mines Ltd | 455.2 m | — | -2.8% | — | unavailable | −10% / +222% |
| LZMLifezone Metals Limited | 336.9 m | — | -16.7% | -1,289.2% | +652.2% | +1% / −60% |
| USAUU.s. Gold Corp. | 186.4 m | — | -55.2% | — | −30.9% | −35% / +239% |
| PZGParamount Gold Nevada Corp. | 83.9 m | — | -46.1% | — | −54.7% | −20% / +146% |
| WWRWestwater Resources, Inc. | 52.5 m | — | -19.1% | — | unavailable | −57% / −33% |
| COPRIdaho Copper Corporation | 25.7 m | — | -187.5% | — | −63.5% | unavailable / unavailable |
1- and 3-year price returns: for SGML from daily closes (the same as the performance table), for the other companies from month-end closes.
olivLaw engine forecast
The world engine ran after the company's latest material disclosure. Probabilities are of TOUCHING a level within the horizon (not closing there) and sit next to the random walk (p_rw), the no-information benchmark.
The engine has no published run for this company yet.
Valuation scenarios (editable assumptions)
Illustrative scenarios
Illustrative: not forecasts and without probabilities. Each case is one coherent set of assumptions, computed on today's figures.
Estimated price (USD)
| Estimated price | Bear | Base | Bull |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 years | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable |
| 3 years | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable |
| 5 years | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable | insufficient data Total return unavailable · Per year unavailable |
AI analysis
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
Possibly outdated: the newest document it read is from 30 Mar 2026; since then the company filed 6-K (03 Nov 2026), 6-K (02 Nov 2026), 6-K (23 Oct 2026), 6-K (06 Oct 2026), 6-K (01 Oct 2026).
In brief
Sigma Lithium Corporation is a mining company whose main lithium project, described in its filings with the SEC, sits at the centre of its activity in Brazil. The company is of particular interest given rising demand for lithium used in electric vehicle batteries and the local processing of its ore.
SWOT
Strengths
- The company publishes audited financial statements from a firm based in Brazil and has an audit committee with independent members, which supports the credibility of its reporting.
- A code of conduct applicable to all personnel and the absence of waivers in fiscal 2025 point to a culture of compliance.
- Reporting under IFRS and the NI 43-101 standard provides a detailed technical basis for its mineral properties.
Weaknesses
- Resource estimates are not directly comparable with those of companies reporting under the SEC, which may limit understanding among US investors.
- The main document is a form that refers to exhibits, and the financial and operational details are spread across several documents.
- The source does not give in its own text figures on production, revenue or costs, which makes performance assessment difficult from this single document.
Opportunities
- Demand for lithium from the battery industry could support expansion of activity if projects are developed as planned.
- Local processing of ore in Brazil could bring cost and supply chain advantages if confirmed in later documents.
- Greater transparency towards US investors could strengthen interest in the company if reporting differences are clearly explained.
Threats
- Changes in Brazilian mining regulation could affect permits and operating costs.
- Volatility in lithium prices could reduce revenue if demand or supply shifts suddenly.
- Differences in accounting and reporting standards from the SEC could create uncertainty for investors who compare companies.
Risks
- Differences in reporting from the SEChigh
Resource and reserve estimates are prepared under NI 43-101, which differs significantly from SEC requirements, so the information is not comparable with that of US companies 1.
- Reliance on external auditmedium
The audit is performed by a firm in Brazil, and if issues of independence or standards arise, confidence in the financial statements could be affected 1.
- Local mining regulationmedium
The company is not subject to MSHA, but its operations are governed by Brazilian law, and changes to it could influence costs and project timing 1.
- Market and financial exposuremedium
The document refers to the market risk section in exhibit 99.2, which indicates financial exposures that could affect results if conditions change 1.
- Concentration of information in exhibitslow
Many essential details are included by reference in other documents, which can make a full assessment difficult from the main form alone 1.
Investment thesis
What would need to be true (bull case)
- If demand for lithium remains solid, the company's projects could generate significant growth in activity, and detailed reporting could support investor confidence.
- A governance structure with an independent audit committee and a designated financial expert could reduce long-term reporting risks.
- Local processing of lithium in Brazil could offer a competitive advantage if the efficiency of the operations is confirmed.
What would break the thesis
- Differences from SEC standards could limit interest from US investors and make comparisons more difficult.
- Dependence on Brazilian regulation and local conditions could affect project costs and timing.
- The lack of financial and operational figures in the main document could make performance assessment difficult without other sources.
What to watch
- Management's Discussion and Analysis in exhibit 99.2 and production and revenue figuresnext 10-K
- Updates to resource and reserve estimates under NI 43-1012027
- Changes to mining regulation in Brazil2027
- Audit results and any change of audit firm2027
Products, market & competition
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
Possibly outdated: the newest document it read is from 30 Mar 2026; since then the company filed 6-K (03 Nov 2026), 6-K (02 Nov 2026), 6-K (23 Oct 2026), 6-K (06 Oct 2026), 6-K (01 Oct 2026).
The business
Sigma Lithium Corporation files Form 40-F with the SEC, which shows it reports under Canadian requirements adapted through the multijurisdictional disclosure system. Its financial statements are prepared under IFRS, while information on its mineral properties follows NI 43-101, a Canadian standard that differs from the SEC rules applicable to US companies. The fiscal 2025 audit was performed by Grant Thornton Auditores Independentes Ltda., of São Paulo, Brazil 1.
The company's reporting consists of an Annual Information Form, a Management's Discussion and Analysis and audited financial statements filed as exhibits to the Form 40-F for the year ended 31 December 2025 1. The company has a Code of business conduct applicable to the Board, officers and employees, and no waivers from this code were granted in 2025 1.
The Audit Committee is made up of three independent members, and the Board has determined that one of them is an audit committee financial expert under US law 1. The company was not subject to MSHA regulation under the Mine Act during fiscal 2025 1.
Segments
Lithium mining and processing
The main activity described in the document relates to the company's lithium mineral properties in Brazil, for which resource and reserve estimates are published under NI 43-101 1.
Financial reporting and governance
The documentation includes consolidated financial statements for 2025 and 2024 and Sarbanes-Oxley certifications from the chief executive and chief financial officers 1.
Cross-border reporting requirements
The company uses the US and Canada multijurisdictional disclosure system, which means its information is not directly comparable with that of US companies 1.
Market context
The sources reviewed contain no data on the size of the global lithium market, prices or market shares, so these aspects must be checked in the Management's Discussion and Analysis and the attached documents. The filing only states that disclosure on reserves and resources follows NI 43-101, which is not equivalent to the SEC standard 1.
Market conditions could change with demand for electric vehicle batteries, but the source does not describe this environment explicitly, so conclusions remain conditional on the additional information in exhibits 99.1 and 99.2 1.
Trends
- Alignment of reporting with Canadian standardsmixed
Companies reporting under the multijurisdictional system may present data different from US firms, which can complicate direct comparisons if investors use different methods 1.
- Transparency of mineral resourcestailwind
The NI 43-101 standard requires specific disclosures about mining projects, which could increase confidence in resource estimates if they are published with sufficient detail 1.
- Governance and audit requirementsmixed
The presence of an independent audit committee and a designated financial expert could reduce reporting risks, although differences from US practices may raise questions 1.
- Mining regulation in Brazilheadwind
The company stated it is not under US MSHA regulation, so local Brazilian rules are the relevant ones, and changes to them could affect operations 1.
Competitive position
The source provided does not name direct competitors or give comparative market share data. Comparable companies would need to be identified from other sources, and competitive analysis remains limited to what the Form 40-F documents disclose 1.
The difference in reporting standards from US companies in the sector means any direct comparison would need adjustments, and this could influence how investors perceive the company's position 1.
- Comparable companies not named in the source
The document reviewed does not identify competitors, so no tickers can be attributed without additional sources.
- North American lithium producers
The source contains no verified names or data on these players, so no ticker symbols are attributed.
- Australian lithium producers
The source gives no information on these players, and the ticker cannot be confirmed from the documents provided.
- Other mining companies with projects in Brazil
Local competition is not detailed in the source, so there is no verified ticker for these companies.
Links, dependencies and risks
Who the company is tied to, from its own SEC filings (customers, suppliers, production, partners, competitors, countries, regulation), from the 5 %+ holders' statements (13D/13G) and from what other companies say about it. Click a node for its evidence; on a listed company the graph moves to it.
Loading the links…
News & filings
In the press
- Live: Two Sigma, Top Money Managers Speak at HK Investment Summit Day 2Bloomberg Markets · 04 Nov 2026 · EN
- Lean Six Sigma framework for developing doctoral research problem statements outlined in white paperPhys.org · 27 Oct 2026 · EN
- Sigma Says the Compact, Modular FP2 Is the Ultimate Hybrid CameraHacker News · 23 Oct 2026 · EN
- The Sigma FP2 brings significant upgrades to the ‘world’s smallest’ full-frame cameraThe Verge · 23 Oct 2026 · EN
- Sigma Review | Sigma Movie Review | Sigma Tamil Movie Review Rating | Sigma X Review | What Audiences Are Saying About Vijay Son Jason Sanjay Debut Directorial FilmSurge — GDELT DOC · 02 Oct 2026 · RO
- Sigma Movie Review : What Good , What Bad In Vijay Son Debut Film ?Surge — GDELT DOC · 02 Oct 2026 · RO
- Sigma Lithium (SGML) Faces Federal Mine Suspension. Can it Resolve Consultation Quickly?Yahoo Finance — News · 10 Sept 2026 · EN
- Sigma Lithium Shares Fall After Brazilian Court Orders Halt at Grota do CiriloYahoo Finance — News · 08 Sept 2026 · EN
- Brazilian judge suspends Sigma Lithium mine licences and operationsYahoo Finance — News · 07 Sept 2026 · EN
- Brazilian Court Suspends Permits, Halts Sigma Lithium’s MineBloomberg Markets · 05 Sept 2026 · EN
- Two Sigma’s Overdeck Says Control of Firm a Concern in DivorceBloomberg Markets · 02 Sept 2026 · EN
- Two Sigma’s Overdeck Defends $723 Million Divorce Offer to WifeBloomberg Markets · 26 Aug 2026 · EN
- Two Sigma Lost ‘Major Investor’ in Founders’ Feud, Overdeck SaysBloomberg Markets · 19 Aug 2026 · EN
- Two Sigma’s Overdeck Offered Wife $633 Million, Her Lawyer SaysBloomberg Markets · 12 Aug 2026 · EN
- Sigma’s Doomed Boots Bid Highlights Australian Outbound M&A WoesBloomberg Markets · 16 Jun 2026 · EN
- Крупные аптечные компании Sigma Healthcare и Boots отказались от слиянияKommersant (RU) · 15 Jun 2026 · RU
- Australia’s Sigma drops out of talks to buy UK’s BootsThe Guardian World · 15 Jun 2026 · RO
- Blackstone to Back Two Sigma Veteran’s Quant Hedge Fund StartupBloomberg Markets · 11 Jun 2026 · EN
- Sigma Court Victory Eases Uncertainty Around Lithium ExpansionBloomberg Markets · 09 Jun 2026 · EN
- ZF Deschiderea de astăzi la Bursă. Andrei Sota, platforma de cercetare financiară Signal Sigma: Sunt optimist privind evoluţia bursei americane, unde capitalul investit în AI ar putea trage în sus toate industriileZiarul Financiar · 08 Jun 2026 · RO
SEC filings
- Current report (foreign issuer)03 Nov 2026
- Current report (foreign issuer)02 Nov 2026
- Current report (foreign issuer)02 Nov 2026
- Current report (foreign issuer)23 Oct 2026
- Current report (foreign issuer)06 Oct 2026
- Current report (foreign issuer)01 Oct 2026
- Current report (foreign issuer)28 Sept 2026
- Current report (foreign issuer)22 Sept 2026
- Current report (foreign issuer)17 Sept 2026
- Current report (foreign issuer)08 Sept 2026
Sources
- [1] Form 40-F, fiscal year ended 2025-12-31 · SEC / Sigma Lithium Corporation · 30 Mar 2026
Figures computed by olivLaw from SEC filings and closing prices; the qualitative analysis is AI-generated from cited sources. Not investment advice.