| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:
Environmental matters:
The Company has instituted extensive environmental conservation programs at its mining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Company’s environmental programs include, among others, water recovery systems to conserve water and minimize the impact on nearby streams, reforestation programs to stabilize the surface of the tailings dams and the implementation of scrubbing technology in the mines to reduce dust emissions.
Environmental capital investments in the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016 were as follows (in millions):
2017
2016
Peruvian operations
$
$
Mexican operations
$
$
Peruvian operations : The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. The Peruvian government, through the Ministry of Environment (“MINAM”) conducts annual audits of the Company’s Peruvian mining and metallurgical operations. Through these environmental audits, matters related to environmental obligation, compliance with legal requirements, atmospheric emissions, effluent monitoring and waste management are reviewed. The Company believes that it is in material compliance with applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. Peruvian law requires that companies in the mining industry provide assurances for future mine closure and remediation. In accordance with the requirements of this law, the Company’s closure plans were approved by MINEM. See Note 6 “Asset retirement obligation,” for further discussion of this matter. In accordance with the requirements of the law, in 2015 the Company submitted the closure plans for the Tia Maria project and for the Toquepala expansion. The process of review and approval of closure plans usually takes several months. In March 2016, MINEM approved the Mining Closure Plan for the Toquepala expansion project. The closure plan for the Tia Maria project is pending approval.
In 2008, the Peruvian government enacted environmental regulations establishing more stringent air quality standards (“AQS”) for daily sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) in the air for the Peruvian territory. These regulations, as amended in 2013, recognize distinct zones/areas, as atmospheric basins. MINAM has established three atmospheric basins that require further attention to comply with the air quality standards. The Ilo basin is one of these three areas and the Company’s smelter and refinery are part of the area. A supreme decree issued on April 8, 2014, indicates that mining companies should review their compliance with these regulations and develop a modification plan to reach compliance.
In April 2017, MINAM published for comments a proposed Supreme Decree which will define new AQS for daily sulfur dioxide for the Peruvian territory, in order to adopt standards similar to comparable countries and to conform them to the technical capabilities available in Peru, while ensuring the protection of public health. This proposed decree considers criteria established by the World Health Organization for the determination of environmental quality standards, as well as current AQS standards from other countries such as the United States, Canada and Chile. It concludes that it is appropriate to establish a mean 24-hour AQS equal to 250 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) of SO2 to replace the current 24-hour AQS of 20 µg/m3 of SO2, effective since 2014.
The Company believes that if approved, these new AQS will be more appropriate for Peru and will allow Peruvian industry to be competitive with other countries. The Company will evaluate the potential impact of these new standards, however, it is expected that its adoption will not have a material impact on the financial position of the Company, as currently the Company maintains a significantly lower daily average level of µg/m3 of SO2 than required by the new AQS.
In 2013, the Peruvian government enacted soil environmental quality standards (“SQS”) applicable to any existing facility or project that generates or could generate the risk of soil contamination in its area of operation or influence. In March 2014, MINAM issued a supreme decree, which establishes additional provisions for the gradual implementation of SQS. Under this rule the Company had twelve months to identify contaminated sites in and around its facilities and present a report of identified contaminated sites. This report was submitted to MINEM in April 2015. After a review of the report, MINEM should evaluate and issue a report to the Company, which will allow it to continue to the next phase. As of March 31, 2017, the Company is awaiting an official response from MINEM. Once notified by MINEM, the Company must prepare a characterization study to determine the depth, extent and physio-chemical composition of the contaminated areas and define an appropriate remediation plan and the time-frame for completion. In addition, the Company must submit for approval a Soil Decontamination Plan (SDP) within 24 months after being notified by the authority. This SDP must include remediation actions, a schedule and compliance deadlines. Also under this rule, if deemed necessary and given reasonable justification, the Company may request a one year extension for the decontamination plan.
Soil confirmation tests must be carried out after completion of decontamination actions (within the approved schedule) and results must be presented to authorities within 30 days after receiving such results. Non-compliance with this obligation or with decontamination goals will carry penalties, although no specific sanctions have been established yet. During compliance with this schedule, companies cannot be penalized for non-compliance with the SQS.
While the Company believes that there is a reasonable possibility that a potential loss contingency may exist, it cannot currently estimate the amount of the contingency. The Company believes that a reasonable determination of the loss will be possible once the characterization study and the SDP are substantially completed. At that time the Company will be in a position to estimate the remediation cost. Further, the Company does not believe that it can estimate a reasonable range of possible costs until the noted studies have substantially progressed and therefore is not be able to disclose a range of costs that is meaningful.
Mexican operations : The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Mexican federal, state and municipal environmental laws, to Mexican official standards, and to regulations for the protection of the environment, including regulations relating to water supply, water quality, air quality, noise levels and hazardous and solid waste.
The principal legislation applicable to the Company’s Mexican operations is the Federal General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (the “General Law”), which is enforced by the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (“PROFEPA”). PROFEPA monitors compliance with environmental legislation and enforces Mexican environmental laws, regulations and official standards. It may also initiate administrative proceedings against companies that violate environmental laws, which in the most extreme cases may result in the temporary or permanent shutdown of non-complying facilities, the revocation of operating licenses and/or other sanctions or fines.
In 2011, the General Law was amended, giving an individual or entity the ability to contest administrative acts, including environmental authorizations, permits or concessions granted, without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of harm to the environment as long as it can be argued that the harm may be caused. In addition, in 2011, amendments to the Civil Federal Procedures Code (“CFPC”) were enacted. These amendments establish three categories of collective actions by means of which 30 or more people claiming injury derived from environmental, consumer protection, financial services and economic competition issues will be considered to be sufficient in order to have a legitimate interest to seek through a civil procedure restitution or economic compensation or suspension of the activities from which the alleged injury derived. The amendments to the CFPC may result in more litigation, with plaintiffs seeking remedies, including suspension of the activities alleged to cause harm.
In 2013, the Environmental Liability Federal Law was enacted. The law establishes general guidelines for actions to be considered to likely cause environmental harm. If a possible determination regarding harm occurs, environmental clean-up and remedial actions sufficient to restore environment to a pre-existing condition should be taken. Under this law, if restoration is not possible, compensation measures should be provided. Criminal penalties and monetary fines can be imposed under this law.
In 2014, an accidental spill of approximately 40,000 cubic meters of copper sulfate solution occurred at a Buenavista mine leaching pond. This solution reached the Bacanuchi River and the Sonora River. The Company took immediate actions to contain the spill, and to comply with all necessary legal requirements. The Company hired contractors including environmental specialists and assigned more than 1,200 of its own personnel to clean the river. In addition, the Company developed a service program to assist the residents of the Sonora River region.
The National Water Commission, the Federal Commission for the Protection of Sanitary Risk and PROFEPA initiated administrative proceedings regarding the spill to determine possible environmental and health damages. On August 19, 2014, PROFEPA, as part of the administrative proceeding initiated after the spill, announced the filing of a criminal complaint against Buenavista del Cobre S.A. de C.V. (“BVC”), a subsidiary of the Company, in order to determine those responsible for the environmental damages. The Company is vigorously defending itself against this complaint. As of March 31, 2017, the case remains in the procedural stages and is pending resolution.
On September 15, 2014, the Company executed an administrative agreement with PROFEPA, providing for the submission of a remediation action plan to the Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales “SEMARNAT”). The general remediation program submitted to SEMARNAT was approved on January 6, 2015.
The Company also created a trust with a Mexican development bank, acting as a Trustee to support environmental remedial actions in connection with the spill, to comply with the remedial action plan and to compensate those persons adversely affected by the spill. The Company committed up to two billion Mexican pesos (approximately $150 million). A technical committee for the trust was created with representatives from the federal government, the Company and specialists assisted by a team of environmental experts to ensure the proper use of the funds. Along with the administrative agreement executed with PROFEPA, the trust served as an alternative mechanism for dispute resolution to mitigate public and private litigation risks.
On December 1, 2016, SEMARNAT issued its final resolution which held that all remediation actions contained in the Remediation Plan, as approved by the same authority, had been fully fulfilled, complied with no pending requirements, except for biological monitoring activities at the Sonora River that will be continued until the first semester of 2019 pursuant to such Plan. On January 26, 2017, PROFEPA issued its final resolution under which it declared all mitigation actions completed and its investigation closed. In light of the above, the Company has obtained all necessary formal rulings from SEMARNAT and PROFEPA. On February 7, 2017, the Company closed the trust. In addition, as a result of this process, $10.2 million of excess provision was reversed in the first quarter of 2017. The total expense recorded for this accident in 2014 and 2015 was $136.4 million. Therefore, this matter is closed.
Through the first half of 2015, six collective action lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Mexico City and Sonora against two subsidiaries of the Company seeking economic compensation, clean up and remedial activities in order to restore the environment to its pre-existing conditions. Four of the collective action lawsuits have been dismissed by the court. The plaintiffs in the two remaining lawsuits are: Acciones Colectivas de Sinaloa, A.C. which established two collective actions (one of which was dismissed on September 26, 2016); and Ana Luisa Salazar Medina et al. which has been granted a collective action certification. The plaintiffs have requested cautionary measures on the construction of facilities for the monitoring of public health services and the prohibition of the closure of the Río Sonora Trust.
Similarly, during 2015, eight civil action lawsuits were filed against BVC in the state courts of Sonora seeking damages for alleged injuries and for moral damages as a consequence of the spill. The plaintiffs in the state court lawsuits are: Jose Vicente Arriola Nunez et al; Santana Ruiz Molina et al; Andres Nogales Romero et al; Teodoro Javier Robles et al; Gildardo Vasquez Carvajal et al; Rafael Noriega Souffle et al; Grupo Banamichi Unido de Sonora El Dorado, S.C. de R.L. de C.V; and Marcelino Mercado Cruz. In 2016, three additional civil action lawsuits, claiming the same damages, were filed by Juan Melquicedec Lebaron; Blanca Lidia Valenzuela Rivera et al and Ramona Franco Quijada et al. In 2017, BVC was served with twenty six additional civil action lawsuits, claiming the same damages; those lawsuits were filed by Francisco Javier Molina Peralta et al; Anacleto Cohen Machini et al; Francisco Rafael Alvarez Ruiz et al; Jose Alberto Martinez Bracamonte et al; Gloria del Carmen Ramirez Duarte et al; Flor Margarita Sabori et al; Blanca Esthela Ruiz Toledo et al; Julio Alfonso Corral Domínguez et al; Maria Eduwiges Bracamonte Villa et al; Francisca Marquez Dominguez et al; Jose Juan Romo Bravo et al; Jose Alfredo Garcia Leyva et al; Gloria Irma Dominguez Perez et al; Maria del Refugio Romero et al; Miguel Rivas Medina et al; Yolanda Valenzuela Garrobo et al; Maria Elena Garcia Leyva et al; Manuel Alfonso Ortiz Valenzuela et al; Francisco Alberto Arvayo Romero et al; Maria del Carmen Villanueva Lopez et al; Manuel Martin Garcia Salazar; Miguel Garcia Arguelles et al; Dora Elena Rodriguez Ochoa et al; Honora Eduwiges Ortiz Rodriguez et al; Francisco Jose Martinez Lopez et al; Maria Eduwiges Lopez Bustamente.
During 2015, four constitutional lawsuits (juicios de amparo) were filed before Federal Courts against various authorities and against a subsidiary of the Company, arguing; (i) the alleged lack of a waste management program approved by SEMARNAT; (ii) the alleged lack of a remediation plan approved by SEMARNAT with regard to the August 2014 spill; (iii) the alleged lack of community approval regarding the environmental impact authorizations granted by SEMARNAT to one subsidiary of the Company; and (iv) the alleged inactivity of the authorities with regard of the spill in August 2014. The plaintiffs of those lawsuits are: Francisca Garcia Enriquez, et al which established two lawsuits, Francisco Ramon Miranda, et al and Jesus David Lopez Peralta et al. During the third quarter of 2016, three additional constitutional lawsuits, claiming same damages were filed by Maria Elena Heredia Bustamante et al; Martin Eligio Ortiz Gamez et al; and Maria de los Angeles Enriquez Bacame et al.
It is not currently possible to determine the extent of the damages sought in these state and federal lawsuits but the Company considers that these lawsuits are without merit. Accordingly, the Company is vigorously defending against them. Nevertheless, the Company considers that none of the legal proceedings resulting from the spill, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations.
The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with applicable environmental, mining and other laws and regulations.
The Company also believes that continued compliance with environmental laws of Mexico and Peru will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, properties, result of operations, financial condition or prospects and will not result in material capital investments.
Litigation matters :
Garcia Ataucuri and Others against SCC’s Peruvian Branch:
In April 1996, the Branch was served with a complaint filed in Peru by Mr. Garcia Ataucuri and approximately 900 former employees seeking the delivery of a substantial number of “labor shares” ( acciones laborales ) plus dividends on such shares, to be issued to each former employee in proportion to their time of employment with SCC’s Peruvian Branch, pursuant to a former Peruvian mandated profit sharing law. The labor share litigation is based on claims of former employees for ownership of labor shares that the plaintiffs state that the Branch did not issue during the 1970s until 1979 under such former Peruvian mandated profit sharing law.
Mr. Garcia Ataucuri seeks delivery, to himself and each of the approximately 900 former employees of the Peruvian Branch, of the 3,876,380,679.65 old soles or 38,763,806.80 “labor shares”, as required by Decree Law 22333 (a former profit sharing law), to be issued proportionally to each former employee in accordance with the time of employment of such employee with SCC’s Branch in Peru, plus dividends on such shares. The 38,763,806.80 labor shares sought in the complaint, with a face value of 100.00 old soles each, represent 100% of the labor shares issued by the Branch during the 1970s until 1979 for all of its employees during that period. The plaintiffs do not represent 100% of the Branch’s eligible employees during that period.
It should be noted that the lawsuit refers to a prior Peruvian currency called “sol de oro” or old soles, which was later changed to the “inti”, and then into today’s “sol”. Due to a past period of high inflation between 1985 and 1990, one billion of old soles is equivalent to today’s one sol.
On September 23, 2015, a lower court that ordered the delivery by the Branch of the labor shares, seized 10,501,857 investment shares owned by SCC and Compania Minera Los Tolmos, S.A. (“Los Tolmos”). The Company is vigorously defending against these measures, and has challenged them on various grounds, mainly because a “labor share” created by law in 1979 is not equivalent to an “investment share”, on a one to one basis, as the latter must recognize the Peruvian inflation since 1980. One “investment share” represents ten million “labor shares”. Additionally, the seized investment shares are owned by SCC and Los Tolmos, companies that are not a party in the lawsuit. In December 2015, the Company appealed the lower court´s decision before the Superior Court that declared without merit its opposition to the seizure.
On October 4, 2016, the Superior Court issued Resolution N°10 which ruled that the seizure of the corporation´s investment shares of Los Tolmos in 2015 was unfounded. To reach this assertion, the Lima Superior Court recognizes that the labor shares have suffered variations in their denomination and face value, due to the currency changes suffered in Peru since 1985 to 1991, for which a first share exchange was made at a rate of 10 to 1, and later at a rate of 1,000 to 1. The Court also indicated that SCC’s assertion that the plaintiffs had participated in each of the labor share exchange transactions has not been proven. Accordingly, the judge in charge of the case must define this situation and determine (a) which plaintiffs received the labor shares to determine who are the holders of the current investment share certificates, (b) who have sold their shares, (c) determine the dividend amounts that have been generated by such shares and identify the plaintiffs who have collected the dividends, and (d) review the shares ledger. The judge ordered that an expert be appointed to assist in defining these items.
In addition, Resolution N° 10 also ruled that the value and proportion of the 10,185,700 labor shares represented by the plaintiffs must be mathematically determined in respect to the total of 57,649,479 current investment shares issued by the Branch.
The Company considers that the Superior Court’s decision is important because it recognizes that the value of the original labor shares was affected by the fluctuations in Peruvian currency, which changed over time from the original “sol de oro” to the “inti”, and subsequently to the “Nuevo sol” or currently simply referred to the “sol”. Such fluctuation affected the value of a labor share.
SCC’s Peruvian Branch believes that the review by an expert will establish that the labor shares ordered to be paid by the Court are not equivalent on a one to one ratio to the current investment shares, as well as to prove the Company’s delivery of the labor shares to some of the plaintiffs. The Court did not define the amount to be paid, however, taking into account the effect of currency fluctuation, the Company expects that the final amount of this contingency will not be material.
In addition to the aforementioned lawsuit, 13 additional lawsuits have been filed against SCC’s Branch, involving approximately 800 plaintiffs, which seek the same number of labor shares as in the Garcia Ataucuri case, plus interest, labor shares resulting from capital increases and dividends. SCC’s Peruvian Branch has answered the complaints and denied the validity of the asserted claims. Additionally, in light of the Superior Court’s decision in the Garcia Ataucuri lawsuit the Company believes that any liability established for these lawsuits will not be material to the Company’s financial position.
The “Virgen Maria” Mining Concessions of the Tia Maria Mining Project
The Tia Maria project includes various mining concessions, totaling 32,989.64 hectares. One of the concessions is the “Virgen Maria” mining concession totaling 943.72 hectares or 2.9% of the total mining concessions.
Related to the “Virgen Maria” mining concessions, in August 2009, a lawsuit was filed against SCC’s Branch by the former stockholders of Exploraciones de Concesiones Metalicas S.A.C. (“Excomet”). The plaintiffs allege that the acquisition of Excomet’s shares by the Branch is null and void because the $2 million purchase price paid by the Branch for the shares of Excomet was not fairly negotiated by the plaintiffs and the Branch. In 2005, the Branch acquired the shares of Excomet after lengthy negotiations with the plaintiffs, and after the plaintiffs, which were all the stockholders of Excomet, approved the transaction in a general stockholders’ meeting. Excomet was at the time owner of the “Virgen Maria” mining concession. In October 2011, the civil court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the superior court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded it to the lower court for further proceedings. In August 2015, the lower court dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not proven the alleged unfairness of the negotiations. The plaintiffs appealed this resolution before the Superior Court. In September 2016, the Superior Court confirmed the lower court’s resolution and the plaintiffs filed an extraordinary appeal in order to have the case reviewed by the Supreme Court. As of March 31, 2017, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.
The Company asserts that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against it. Additionally, the amount of this contingency cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time.
The Tia Maria Mining Project
There are five lawsuits filed against the Peruvian Branch of the Company related to the Tia Maria project. The lawsuits seek (i) to declare null and void the resolution which approved the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project; (ii) the cancellation of the project and the withdrawal of mining activities in the area and (iii) to declare null and void the mining concession application of the Tia Maria project. The lawsuits were filed by Messrs. Jorge Isaac del Carpio Lazo (filed May 22, 2015), Ernesto Mendoza Padilla (filed May 26, 2015), Juan Alberto Guillen Lopez (filed June 18, 2015), Hernan Raul Hatamare Hual (filed August 6, 2015) and Nicolas Belfiore Nicolini (filed November 13, 2015).
The del Carpio Lazio case was rejected by the court of first instance on November 14, 2016. The Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Superior Court on January 3, 2017. As of March 31, 2017, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.
The Mendoza Padilla case was rejected by the lower court on July 8, 2015. This ruling was confirmed by the Superior Court on June 14, 2016. On July 12, 2016, the case was appealed before the Constitutional Court. As of March 31, 2017, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.
In the Belfiore Nicolini case, the court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff. However, the Company is going to file an appeal to challenge said decision.
The Guillen Lopez case is currently before the lower court. As of March 31, 2017, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.
On October 3, 2016 the lower court ruled that the Hatamare Hual case had expired and declared the case concluded. The plaintiff has not filed an appeal before the Superior Court. On November 16, 2016, the Company´s Peruvian Branch requested for the case to be closed.
The potential contingency amount for these cases cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time.
Special Regional Pasto Grande Project (“Pasto Grande Project”)
In 2012, the Pasto Grande Project, an entity of the Regional Government of Moquegua, filed a lawsuit against SCC’s Peruvian Branch alleging property rights over a certain area used by the Peruvian Branch and seeking the demolition of the tailings dam where SCC’s Peruvian Branch has deposited its tailings from the Toquepala and Cuajone operations since 1995. The Peruvian Branch has had title to use the area in question since 1960 and has constructed and operated the tailing dams with proper governmental authorization, since 1995. SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against it. Upon a motion filed by the Peruvian Branch, the lower court has included MINEM as a defendant in this lawsuit. MINEM has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. As of March 31, 2017, the case remains pending resolution without further developments. The amount of this contingency cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time.
Carla Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation
A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the “CIEM Capitalization”), the Company’s entry into a power purchase agreement with MGE in 2012 (the “MGE Power Purchase Agreement”), and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company’s Mexican Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to supply power to the Company’s Mexican operations (the “MGE Loan Restructuring”). The action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company’s charter. The Company has filed a response denying these allegations and is currently in the discovery process.
Labor matters :
Peruvian operations: 73% of the Company’s 4,589 Peruvian employees were unionized at March 31, 2017. Currently, there are five separate unions, one large union and four smaller unions. In the first quarter of 2016, the Company signed three-year agreements with all five unions. These agreements include, among other things, annual salary increases of 5% for each of the three years.
In April 2017, the unified labor union of SPCC workers and one of Toquepala’s unions began a stoppage, which was declared illegal by the Peruvian government. Even though the Company has always been in full compliance with the three-year labor agreements signed last year, these unions demanded a review of certain health and profit sharing benefits. During the stoppage, the Company deployed its emergency plan to maintain production with the use of temporary contractors. The stoppage concluded on April 22 with a decrease of only 1,418 tons of copper production and currently all the Company’s workforce has returned and operations are fully normalized.
Mexican operations : In recent years, the Mexican operations have experienced a positive improvement of their labor environment, as its workers opted to change their affiliation from the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores Mineros, Metalurgicos y Similares de la Republica Mexicana (the “National Mining Union”) to other less politicized unions.
However, the workers of the San Martin and Taxco mines, are still under the National Mining Union and have been on strike since July 2007. On December 10, 2009, a federal court confirmed the legality of the San Martin strike. In order to recover the control of the San Martin mine and resume operations, the Company filed a court petition on January 27, 2011 requesting that the court, among other things, define the termination payment for each unionized worker. The court denied the petition alleging that, according to federal labor law, the union was the only legitimate party to file such petition. On appeal by the Company, on May 13, 2011, the Mexican federal tribunal accepted the petition. In July 2011, the National Mining Union appealed the favorable court decision before the Supreme Court. On November 7, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the federal tribunal. The Company filed a new proceeding before the labor court on the basis of the Supreme Court decision, which recognized the right of the labor court to define responsibility for the strike and the termination payment for each unionized worker. A favorable decision of the labor court in this new proceeding would have the effect of terminating the protracted strike at San Martin. As of March 31, 2017, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.
In the case of the Taxco mine, following the workers refusal to allow exploration of new reserves, the Company commenced litigation seeking to terminate the labor relationship with workers at the mine (including termination of the related collective bargaining agreement). On September 1, 2010, the federal labor court issued a ruling approving the termination of the collective bargaining agreement and all the individual labor contracts of the workers affiliated with the Mexican mining union at the Taxco mine. The mining union appealed the labor court ruling before a federal court. In September 2011, the federal court accepted the union’s appeal and remanded the case to the federal labor court for reconsideration. After several legal proceedings on January 25, 2013, the Company filed a new proceeding before the labor court. On June 16, 2014, the labor court denied the petition of the Company. The resolution issued by the labor court was challenged by the Company before a federal court. In August 2015, the Supreme Court decided to assert jurisdiction over the case and to rule on it directly. As of March 31, 2017, the case remains pending resolution without further developments.
It is expected that operations at these mines will remain suspended until these labor issues are resolved.
In view of these lengthy strikes, the Company has reviewed the carrying value of the San Martin and Taxco mines to ascertain whether impairment exists. The Company concluded that there is a non-material impairment of the assets located at these mines.
Other legal matters :
The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to its operations, but the Company does not believe that decisions adverse to it in any such proceed |
