Executives from a multibillion-dollar critical minerals enterprise that had previously considered establishing its headquarters in St. Louis recently returned to the city under extraordinary circumstances: to participate in depositions connected to a paternity matter.
While the paternity case remains confidential, related proceedings in St. Louis County are public record and reveal documents suggesting a contentious dispute surrounding the multibillion-dollar corporation. The records indicate that the former wife of St. Louis attorney Al Watkins, a native of Peru, became worried about a Peruvian immigrant she believed to be in the country illegally. The woman was residing with the company’s executive chairman—and Watkins’ ex-wife made a welfare check call. This contact prompted legal action and prompted Watkins to claim that the company’s legal counsel had violated disclosure obligations to shareholders by not revealing the woman’s immigration status.
Get a fresh take on the day’s top news
We will never send spam or annoying emails. Unsubscribe anytime.
John Arrastia, the lawyer in question, declined to address the allegations, citing the sealed status of the paternity case.
Arrastia serves as chief legal officer of Evolution Metals and Technology, a West Palm Beach-headquartered firm valued at approximately $4 billion in market capitalization. The company is relatively new, formed through a SPAC transaction in which Evolution Metals LLC (based in Florida) was intended to acquire St. Louis-based Critical Mineral Recovery along with four Korean enterprises. Following a merger with a Chicago-based special purpose acquisition company, the combined entity was to launch as Evolution Metals and Technology. St. Louis entrepreneur Rob Feldman was slated to serve as co-CEO, with Watkins designated as chief legal officer. The transaction was scheduled to conclude in July of the previous year.
The transaction never materialized—and friction between Watkins and the company intensified. According to Watkins, the agreement collapsed after he uncovered that executive chairman David Wilcox controlled a similarly named entity called Evolution Metals Corporation, which faced litigation from both an investor and a former executive claiming unpaid funds.
Despite Watkins’ concerns, Evolution Metals finalized the SPAC merger and went public in January of this year, but without Feldman, his company, or Watkins.
However, the conflict between Watkins and Wilcox continued. Earlier this year, Wilcox’s legal representatives in an Idaho paternity matter began attempts to depose Watkins’ former spouse, Carolina Diaz-Silva.
While paternity suit documents remain sealed, public filings indicate more than 300 court documents have been submitted over the past 14 months. The matter also generated a separate proceeding in St. Louis County Circuit Court. In February, attorneys from Lewis Rice served Diaz-Silva, who was married to Watkins during the 1990s, with a subpoena requesting “certain documents.”
Watkins contends that the request aimed to help Wilcox identify how Diaz-Silva obtained the contact information for a Peruvian worker employed by Wilcox. According to Watkins: “Mr. Wilcox appears preoccupied with establishing the origin of the phone number belonging to the undocumented Peruvian household employee.”
Efforts to question Diaz-Silva became contentious.
In the previous month, a Lewis Rice representative submitted a petition in St. Louis County court requesting authorization for Evolution’s counsel, Arrastia, to participate pro hac vice, a standard procedural request enabling an out-of-state attorney to participate with judicial approval. These petitions are typically granted without issue.
Diaz-Silva’s counsel, Patrick Watts, contested Arrastia’s involvement. In a comprehensive response, Watts asserted that Wilcox was acting with “bad faith” in pursuing Diaz-Silva’s deposition. He highlighted that Watkins had publicly criticized Wilcox and alleged that Arrastia had previously made inaccurate statements about him to SLM. Given that the individual being deposed is Watkins’ ex-spouse, Watts maintained the circumstances demonstrated “obvious bad faith implications.”
The filing then escalates substantially. Watts charges Arrastia with neglecting to inform Evolution’s board that Wilcox employs “Peruvian nationals as domestic workers” without proper legal standing. The filing additionally contends that Arrastia faces divided interests—representing Wilcox individually (in the paternity proceeding) while serving Evolution’s shareholders (as chief legal officer). It mentions that Wilcox’s child’s mother is herself an Evolution shareholder.
Adding to the unusual nature of the matter, Evolution’s previous CFO, Robert Loitman, submitted his own filing opposing Arrastia’s participation. A St. Louis native and former corporate manager who previously managed a consulting practice in Los Angeles, Loitman was hired by Evolution but subsequently became an outspoken critic, alleging to SLM that Wilcox obstructed necessary corporate infrastructure development for the proposed multibillion-dollar operation. Loitman maintains an ongoing legal action against Wilcox, asserting wrongful termination as the enterprise prepared for its public launch, an occurrence that would have yielded a $5 million benefit. A court recently partially rejected Wilcox’s request to dismiss Loitman’s case last month, permitting certain claims to advance.
In their counter to that motion, Wilcox’s attorneys characterized Loitman as “a former disgruntled employee of Evolution Metals LLC, predating Evolution Metals and Technologies’ formation.” They maintained that Loitman had no legitimate reason to weigh in on whether a St. Louis resident should be questioned regarding an Idaho paternity matter.
“The court rejected those objections to my participation in the Missouri proceeding, and my pro hac vice application was approved,” Arrastia communicated to SLM via correspondence.
Indeed, Wilcox’s representatives did not issue replies to Watts’ comprehensive response. On the identical day Watts submitted his filing, St. Louis County Judge Bruce Hilton approved Arrastia’s admission. Diaz-Silva was questioned at the end of May, with Arrastia traveling to St. Louis to attend.
The deposition transcript indicates that Diaz-Silva was questioned regarding two phone calls she placed in autumn 2025 to a Peruvian household worker in Wilcox’s Idaho residence. Diaz-Silva explained she contacted the woman to ensure her safety because she understood Wilcox was “dangerous” and that the woman might encounter immigration enforcement. According to Diaz-Silva’s account, the woman indicated she was well, and the conversation concluded. The exchange took place in Spanish. Diaz-Silva noted that she was motivated by concern for another Peruvian national and that she did not give the matter further consideration until receiving the deposition subpoena.
During the deposition, when asked who informed her of the worker’s circumstances and provided the phone number, Diaz-Silva identified “Albert Watkins.”
During the call, which was recorded and later read aloud during the deposition, Diaz-Silva informed the woman: “So they informed me that this man, David Wilcox, is under investigation by law enforcement and that it would be beneficial for you to find another location to remain, how would you put it, safe for, for various considerations because immigration enforcement can arrive at any point.”
During the deposition, Arrastia demonstrated considerable doubt about whether Watkins provided the contact information solely motivated by humanitarian concern for an allegedly undocumented immigrant far away. Diaz-Silva characterized Watkins as “a very caring individual” but acknowledged that this represented the sole instance of him requesting her to reach out to an unknown person facing danger.
“I was absent from the deposition, but I understand Ms. Diaz-Silva made complimentary remarks about me and recommended that Mr. Arrastia become acquainted with me … that I was pleasant,” Watkins communicates to SLM through email. (The deposition record substantiates this characterization.)
The Evolution initiative—whether the iteration that did not achieve public status in July 2025 or the currently publicly listed entity—rests on establishing a more environmentally conscious, American-based source for the essential minerals required for cellular devices, battery-powered automobiles, and processing equipment. The proposition posits that mineral extraction from equatorial African locations and Chinese manufacturing can be supplanted by recovery from discarded electronics such as outdated computing devices and cellular phones, followed by domestic manufacturing.
In the weeks subsequent to Evolution’s January public launch, its stock price surged from $10 per share to approximately $24 per share, producing a market value of roughly $15 billion.
As of this Tuesday, however, the share price had dropped to approximately $7, producing a market valuation near $4.3 billion.
In late April, prestigious legal firm Jones Day initiated proceedings in Georgia asserting that Evolution owed $3.9 million in unpaid legal compensation for work conducted to facilitate the company’s NASDAQ offering.
Jones Day indicates its attorneys “executed considerable, intricate legal services” for Evolution spanning August 2024 through December 2025. The action notes that modifications to the transaction structure—including Feldman’s company’s elimination—necessitated “substantial effort to reorganize,” increasing the financial obligations. Following July 2025, when Feldman’s enterprise was removed, Jones Day contends Evolution continued requesting finalization work while guaranteeing settlement despite unpaid statements surpassing $2 million, eventually ceasing contact in November 2025. The organization states it discontinued its representation on Dec. 13, roughly three weeks before Evolution concluded its NASDAQ transaction. According to Jones Day’s legal action, Evolution remitted approximately $600,000 of the $4.3 million claimed.
Evolution’s legal response contests that Jones Day’s representation “was executed so inadequately that Evolution Metals engaged a different legal team to complete the transaction.”
Watkins characterizes the legal proceedings occurring in Idaho, Missouri, and Georgia courts as follows: “Examination of accessible court information was adequate to uncover multiple moral, statutory, and compliance violations involving several persons connected with Mr. Wilcox and Evolution. I maintain no quantity of concealment will remedy this pervasive corruption.”
