What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2023-04-17 compared with 2022-03-31 · 37 added, 38 removed, 13 unchanged (85% of the section changed)

5 unchanged sentences

adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

On 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 was dismissed with prejudice on February 8, 2022 by Chief US

District Court Judge, David C.

On July 28, 2021, a lawsuit

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

The named defendants

include Placer Mining, Robert Hopper Jr., and the Company.

The lawsuit alleges that Placer Mining and Robert Hopper Jr.

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

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

are facially deficient.

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

The named defendants include Placer Mining, Robert Hopper Jr., and the Company.

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.

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.

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.

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 seeks to amend its complaint, it must do so within 30 days of the court’s judgement on March 2, 2022.

The Company believes

Crescent Mining LLC’s lawsuit against Placer Mining Corp.

is without merit and intends to defend Placer Mining Corp.

pursuant to the Company’s indemnification of Placer Mining Corp in the Sale and Purchase agreement executed between the companies

for Bunker Hill Mine on December 15, 2021.

On October 26, 2021,

the Company asserted claims against Crescent in a separate lawsuit.

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 Crescent’s lawsuit is without merit

and intends to vigorously defend itself, as well as Placer Mining Corp.

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.

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

Bunker Hill Mining Corporation v.

Venzee Technologies Inc.

Venzee Technologies

et al, Case No.

2:21-cv-209-REP, filed in the same court on May 14, 2021.

The Company has subsequently executed a tolling agreement 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.

The Company has subsequently executed a tolling agreement

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.

This lawsuit has been consolidated into the lawsuit Crescent

filed on July 28, 2021.

MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

1 unchanged sentence

in each periodic report filed with the SEC certain specified disclosures regarding the Company’s history of mine safety.

currently does not operate any mines and, as such, is not subject to disclosure requirements regarding mine safety that were imposed

The information

concerning mine safety disclosures required by the Act and this Item is included in Exhibit 95 to this report.

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-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings