What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2025-11-14 compared with 2025-08-14 · 48 added, 29 removed, 35 unchanged (69% of the section changed)

20 unchanged sentences

Durango, and Jorge Alberto Samaniego Mota.

Since Unifin and Minera William had previously settled the dispute and Unifin desisted or withdrew

its action against Minera William, the company was not condemned in the judgment.

Procesadora de Minerales de Durango and Jorge Alberto

Samaniego Mota were ordered to pay all the amounts claimed by Unifin.

However, the judgment states that Minera William, Procesadora de

Minerales de Durango, and Jorge Samaniego Mota are jointly and severally liable to Unifin.

The Company believes the Judge should not have

ruled on whether or not Minera William was jointly and severally liable.

Moreover, the Judge did not assess Minera William’s arguments

that it was not jointly and severally liable to Unifin.

Minera William appealed that ruling as it is clearly contrary to the settlement

agreement between Unifin and Minera William.

On June 11, 2025, the Appellate

Court dismissed Minera Williams appeal, on the grounds that it lacks legal standing, as the judgment issued in the original proceeding

does not cause it any harm.

Regarding the risk raised by Minera William concerning a potential repetition action by the co-defendants

Procesadora and Samaniego, the Appellate Court found such risk to be unfounded, as it is merely a hypothetical scenario that, to date,

has not resulted in any harm to Minera William.

The Company currently believes that it is unlikely any future liability will arise from

this judgement.

Since Unifin and Minera William had previously settled the dispute and Unifin desisted or

withdrew its action against Minera William, the company was not condemned in the judgment.

Procesadora de Minerales de Durango and Jorge

Alberto Samaniego Mota were ordered to pay all the amounts claimed by Unifin.

However, the judgment states that Minera William, Procesadora

de Minerales de Durango, and Jorge Samaniego Mota are jointly and severally liable to Unifin.

The Company believes the Judge should not

have ruled on whether or not Minera William was jointly and severally liable.

Moreover, the Judge did not assess Minera William’s

arguments that it was not jointly and severally liable to Unifin.

Minera William appealed that ruling as it is clearly contrary to the

settlement agreement between Unifin and Minera William.

On June 11, 2025, the Appellate Court dismissed Minera Williams appeal, on the grounds that it lacks legal standing,

as the judgment issued in the original proceeding does not cause it any harm.

Regarding the risk raised by Minera William concerning a

potential repetition action by the co-defendants Procesadora and Samaniego, the Appellate Court found such risk to be unfounded, as it

is merely a hypothetical scenario that, to date, has not resulted in any harm to Minera William.

The Company currently believes that it

is unlikely any future liability will arise from this judgement.

Claims Related to Shutdown or Reduction of

6 unchanged sentences

In total, the supplier

is seeking approximately $42,000 and this amount is recorded in accounts payable as of June 30, 2025.

Early in 2025, we received

two labor claims against our Argentina subsidiary from former employees seeking compensation that we believe is unsupported.

employee has filed a claim for approximately $99,000, while the second employee has not yet specified the amount of compensation sought.

We are assessing the merits of these claims and at this time do not believe they are valid claims.

is seeking approximately $46,000 and this amount is recorded in accounts payable as of September 30, 2025.

In 2025, we received two

labor claims against our Argentina subsidiary from former employees seeking compensation that we believe is unsupported.

The first employee

has filed a claim for approximately $70,000, and the second employee filed a claim for approximately $90,000, plus legal fees.

assessing the merits of these claims and at this time do not believe they are valid claims.

As a result of the Company’s

reduced or ceased operations in the US, Mexico, Argentina and Peru, the Company has been and may in the future be exposed to claims from

former employees, labor unions, suppliers, consultants or contractors and tax and environmental claims, which may individually or in the

aggregate be material.

The risk factors for the six months ended June

former employees, labor unions, suppliers, consultants or contractors and tax and environmental claims, which may individually or in

the aggregate be material.

Mexican Mining Concession

In July 2025, the

Company was notified by the Mexican Mining Registry of an outstanding balance of approximately $403,000 in fees, penalties, and late

fees related to the Rucio mining concession, originally requested by Minera de Cordilleras, a subsidiary that was sold

earlier in 2025.

Under the terms of the sale the Company would be responsible for this claim.

Based on the Mining Registry files, the Rucio concession was originally

requested in 2011 by a former manager of Minera Cordilleras.

The concession was not issued until 2018, and the Company was never notified

of its issuance or of any associated payment obligations.

The Company elected not

to make payment pending further investigation, and the concession has since been cancelled by the Mining Registry.

Registry has not commenced an enforcement action related to the alleged fees.

If filed, the Company plans to challenge the validity

of the claim, citing irregularities in the timing of the concession’s issuance and notification.

The Company initiated a concession annulment action during November 2025.

As of September 30, 2025, no provision has been recorded, as management believes

that the outcome of this matter is uncertain and that any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

The risk factors for the nine months ended September

30, 2025, are substantially the same as those set forth in Part I, Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

and Use of Proceeds

Defaults Upon Senior Securities

2 unchanged sentences

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings