What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2022-08-15 compared with 2022-05-16 · 28 added, 23 removed, 19 unchanged (73% of the section changed)

8 unchanged sentences

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.

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

it, contending that such claims are facially deficient.

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 March 2, 2022, Chief US District Court Judge, David C.

in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss.

The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Crescent’s

Cost Recovery claim under CERCLA Section 107(a), Declaratory Judgment, Tortious Interference, Trespass, Nuisance and Negligence claims.

These claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Nye granted in part and denied

in part the Company’s motion to dismiss.

The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss Crescent’s Cost Recovery

claim under CERCLA Section 107(a), Declaratory Judgment, Tortious Interference, Trespass, Nuisance and Negligence claims.

were dismissed without prejudice.

The court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Placer Mining Corp.

for Crescent’s

trespass, nuisance and negligence claims.

Crescent later filed it amended complaint on April 1, 2022.

Placer Mining

and Bunker Hill Mining Corp are named as co-defendants.

Bunker Hill and Placer have until May 20, 2022 to respond to the amended

The Company believes Crescent Mining LLC’s lawsuit against Placer Mining Corp.

is without merit

and intends to defend Placer Mining Corp.

for Crescent’s trespass,

nuisance and negligence claims.

Crescent later filed an amended complaint on April 1, 2022.

Placer Mining Corp.

and Bunker Hill Mining

Corp are named as co-defendants.

Bunker Hill responded to the amended filing, refuting and denying all allegations made in the complaint

except those that are assertions of fact as a matter of public record.

The Company believes the lawsuit against Placer Mining Corp.

without merit and intends to defend Placer Mining Corp.

vigorously pursuant to the Company’s indemnification of Placer Mining Corp

in the Sale and Purchase agreement executed between the companies for the Mine on December 15, 2021.

On October 26,

2021, the Company asserted claims against Crescent in a separate lawsuit.

The court is in the process of ruling

with respect to the timeline for next steps in the legal process.

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

Bunker Hill Mining Corporation v.

4 unchanged sentences

with Venzee in exchange for dropping its lawsuit.

The Company originally filed this lawsuit on May 14, 2021 against other parties

but has since filed an amended complaint to include its claims against Crescent.

have been no changes to our risk factors as reported in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

The Company originally filed this lawsuit on May 14, 2021 against other parties but

has since filed an amended complaint to include its claims against Crescent.

There are significant risks in investing in our common

Reference is made to the risks described in our prospectus filed with the SEC on May 31, 2022, which is incorporated herein by

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