What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2021-11-15 compared with 2021-08-16 · 29 added, 16 removed, 8 unchanged (85% of the section changed)

4 unchanged sentences

adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

or about June 14, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Idaho brought by a purported

personal representative of the estate of a minority shareholder of Placer Mining.

The named defendants include Placer Mining, certain

of Placer Mining’s shareholders, the Company, and certain of the Company’s shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges that Placer

Mining entered into a series of transactions, including amendments to the Company’s lease with Placer Mining, in breach of an agreement

dated August 31, 2018 which allegedly restricted the sale of shares in Placer Mining by certain shareholders.

On August 13, 2021, the

Company filed a motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction and standing.

or about June 14, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Idaho brought by a purported personal representative

of the estate of a minority shareholder of Placer Mining.

The named defendants include Placer Mining, certain of Placer Mining’s

shareholders, the Company, and certain of the Company’s shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges that Placer Mining entered into a series

of transactions, including amendments to the Company’s lease with Placer Mining, in breach of an agreement dated August 31, 2018

which allegedly restricted the sale of shares in Placer Mining by certain shareholders.

In August 2021, the Company and

other defendants filed motions to dismiss and agreed that Placer Mining should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Company, as well as other named defendants, filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss and argued that Placer Mining is

an indispensable party and with dismissal of Placer Mining the lawsuit should be dismissed.

The US District Court has not yet ruled on

the motions to dismiss, but the Company believes the motion to dismiss will be granted and the lawsuit dismissed.

July 28, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Idaho brought by Crescent Mining, LLC (“Crescent”).

1 unchanged sentence

The lawsuit alleges that Placer Mining and Robert Hopper

intentionally flooded the Crescent Mine during the period from 1991 and 1994, and that the Company is jointly and severally

liable with the other defendants for unspecified past and future costs associated with the presence of AMD in the Crescent Mine.

plaintiff has requested unspecified damages.

Company believes the claims in both lawsuits, as they relate to Bunker Hill, are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

1A - Risk Factors of the Company’s report filed on Form 10-KT for the six months ended December 31, 2020 sets forth information

relating to important risks and uncertainties that could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition

or operating results.

intentionally flooded the Crescent Mine during the period from 1991 and 1994, and that the Company is jointly and severally liable

with the other defendants for unspecified past and future costs associated with the presence of AMD in the Crescent Mine.

The plaintiff

has requested unspecified damages.

On September 20, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Crescent’s claims against it,

contending that such claims are facially deficient.

On October 26, 2021, the Company asserted claims against Crescent in a separate

lawsuit, Bunker Hill Mining Corporation v.

Venzee Technologies Inc.

et al, Case No.

2:21-cv-209-REP, filed in the same court on May 14,

While the Company is not able to predict the

outcome of these matters, it does not currently believe that they will result in material liability to the Company.

1A - Risk Factors of the Company’s report filed on Form 10-KT for the six months ended December 31, 2020 sets forth

information relating to important risks and uncertainties that could materially adversely affect the Company’s business, financial

condition or operating results.

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