Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
(Stated in U.S. dollars, except where noted)
Government of Mongolia is seeking in the counterclaim an alternative declaration that the Investment Agreement is void.
Turquoise Hill denied the allegations relating to the Company in the GoM Defence and Counterclaim and filed submissions to the arbitral tribunal to oppose the Government of Mongolia’s request that it be added to the tax arbitration. As announced by the Company on January 17, 2022, the arbitral tribunal issued a ruling deciding that Turquoise Hill not be added as a party to the arbitration. As described above, Resolution 103 authorised certain measures to be completed by the Government of Mongolia in order for Resolution 92 to be considered formally implemented.
On February 11, 2022, at the request of the parties to the tax arbitration, the arbitral tribunal issued an order suspending the tax arbitration for six months or until 21 days from when the tribunal receives notice from OT LLC or the Government of Mongolia to terminate the suspension. Initial discussions were held between the parties but there were no material developments in relation to the negotiations. On August 15, 2022, at the request of the parties to the international tax arbitration, the arbitral tribunal issued an order suspending the tax arbitration for a further twelve months (until August 12, 2023) or until 21 days from when the tribunal receives notice from OT LLC or the Government of Mongolia to terminate the suspension.
The Company remains committed to continue to work with the Government of Mongolia and Rio Tinto to finalise the outstanding tax matters whether through arbitration or negotiation.
Anti-Corruption Authority Information requests
On March 1, 2022, OT LLC notified the Company that it received a letter from the Mongolian Anti-Corruption Authority requesting certain documents and information relating to an investigation regarding the underground construction work. The Company has no further details at this time and will update the market as appropriate.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTS
US Class Action Dismissed
In October 2020, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its current and former officers as well as Rio Tinto and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and material omissions with respect to, among other things, the schedule, cost and progress to completion of the development of Oyu Tolgoi in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Under the schedule established by the court, a first amended complaint was filed on March 16, 2021, and a second amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2021. The defendants moved to dismiss the operative amended complaint on October 19, 2021, under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, for failure to state a claim. As of December 17, 2021, the motion was fully briefed and oral argument was held on August 25, 2022. On September 2, 2022, the court granted the Company’s and its defendant officers’ motion to dismiss in its entirety.
Quebec Class Action Update
In January 2021, a proposed class action was initiated in the Superior Court in the District of Montreal against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. An amended complaint was filed on July 27, 2021 which did not substantially alter the claim. The claim alleges that the Company and its current and former officers named therein as defendants made material misstatements and material omissions with respect to, among other things, the schedule, cost and progress to completion of Oyu Tolgoi, in violation of, among other things, sections 225.8, 225.9 and 225.11 of the Securities Act (Quebec). On January 7, 2022 the plaintiff re-amended its claim to include allegations relating to developments arising since the previous amended complaint was filed.
The Company and its defendant officers filed evidence to defend the claim in June 2022 and the class plaintiff subsequently announced their intention to add additional parties as defendants to the action, which led to an effective suspension of the proceedings. It is unknown at this time if or when additional defendants might be
| | |
September 30, 2022 | | Page| 19 |