−Removed: Legal Proceedings
+Added: ITEM 3 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The Company’s mining and exploration activities are subject to various laws and regulations governing environmental protection.
2 unchanged sentences
The Company continuously makes expenditures to comply with such laws and regulations, but cannot predict the full amount of such future expenditures.
−Removed: Comstock Residents Association
−Removed: On January 31, 2014, the Comstock Residents Association (the “CRA”) and two of its members filed a civil action in the Third Judicial District Court in Lyon County, Nevada (the “District Court”) against the Lyon County Board of Commissioners (the “Commissioners”) and the Company, asking the District Court to reverse the Commissioners’ decision to grant a master plan amendment and zone changes that were approved by the Commissioners in 2014 (the “Application”).
+Added: On January 31, 2014, the Comstock Residents Association (“CRA”) and two of its members filed a civil action in the Third Judicial District Court in Lyon County, Nevada (“District Court”) against the Lyon County Board of Commissioners (the “Commissioners”) and the Company, asking the District Court to reverse the Commissioners’ decision to grant a master plan amendment and zone changes that were approved by the Commissioners in 2014 (“Application”).
Prior to the approval of the Application, the master plan designation and zoning precluded mining on certain property of the Company in the area of Silver City, Nevada.
−Removed: In April 2015, the District Court ruled in favor of the Company and the Commissioners.
−Removed: The written Order Denying Petition for Judicial Review was filed and mailed to all parties on June 15, 2015.
−Removed: On July 14, 2015, the CRA and one individual (together “Appellants”) filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court Order, appealing the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court.
−Removed: On December 9, 2015, Appellants filed their Opening Brief in the Nevada Supreme Court, generally repeating the arguments that were made at the District Court.
−Removed: On January 15, 2016, the Company and the Commissioners jointly filed an Answering Brief.
−Removed: Briefing in the Nevada Supreme Court was completed with the Appellants’ filing of a Reply Brief on March 3, 2016.
−Removed: Oral arguments before a three-judge panel took place on September 14, 2016.
−Removed: On December 2, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court entered an order affirming all three of the District Court’s decisions associated with 1) the Commissioners’ discretion and authority for changing master plans and zoning, 2) their compliance with Nevada’s Open Meeting Law, and 3) their compliance with Nevada statutory provisions.
−Removed: Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s conclusions that Lyon County did not abuse its discretion and that it acted with substantial evidence in support of their decision, that the County did not violate Nevada’s Open Meeting Law or any other statutes.
−Removed: The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the CRA’s claim of a due process violation, concluding that this claim should not have been dismissed and that further proceedings are necessary in the District Court on this single claim.
−Removed: The District Court concluded that the Supreme Court's reversal of the CRA's due process claim required that the CRA be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery and allowed the CRA the time to conduct discovery on its due process claim.
−Removed: The Company responded to the CRA discovery request on February 20, 2018, and the District Court held a hearing on April 23, 2018.
−Removed: Additional discovery was also allowed by the District Court.
−Removed: On May 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the CRA’s due process claim and issued its ruling from the bench.
−Removed: The Court concluded that the CRA, having been afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery, was unable to meet its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Lyon County had denied the CRA of its due process rights.
−Removed: The Court, therefore, denied the CRA's due process claim.
−Removed: On July 11, 2019, the Court issued and filed a formal judgment in favor of Lyon County and Comstock Mining.
−Removed: The Company and Lyon County have filed a motion to recover attorney's fees and costs from the CRA.
−Removed: On August 14, 2019, the CRA filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the judgment to the Nevada Supreme Court.
−Removed: The CRA filed their Opening Brief on January 24, 2020.
−Removed: The Company’s Answering Brief was filed on March 25, 2020.
−Removed: The appellate briefing was completed with the filing of the CRA’s Reply Brief on May 8, 2020.
On January 11, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a final order affirming the District Court's judgment in favor of Lyon County and Comstock Mining.
1 unchanged sentence
On February 25, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order denying a rehearing.
−Removed: Precious Royalties LLC
−Removed: On July 12, 2018, Precious Royalties LLC (“Precious”) filed a complaint against the Company in the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in Storey County, alleging that the Company failed to properly pay Precious a net smelter return royalty in accordance with a settlement agreement dated September 24, 2012, and seeking $510,000 in damages, plus interest at 18% per annum.
−Removed: On November 16, 2018, the Company filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement on the basis that the complaint is too vague to allow a responsive pleading.
−Removed: On May 16, 2019, the Court granted the Company’s Motion, which required Precious to revise and re-file its complaint in order to proceed with the action.
−Removed: Precious re-filed the complaint on June 5, 2019.
−Removed: On July 3, 2019, the Company answered the amended claim by Precious and filed a counterclaim that, among other
−Removed: things, requests reimbursement of legal fees and related interest.
−Removed: On July 26, 2019, Precious filed an answer to the counterclaim and a four-day trial was set for July 20, 2020.
−Removed: The Company and Precious met for a Settlement Conference on January 13, 2020.
−Removed: The Company negotiated a definitive and final settlement of all claims and counterclaims between the parties, for a one-time payment of $60,000.
−Removed: OSHA Complaint
−Removed: On or about February 27, 2020, the Company received notice that three former employees had filed a complaint with the U.S.
−Removed: Department of Labor - Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) regarding alleged wrongful termination of employment in 2019, seeking backpay, frontpay and other compensatory damages, as well as interest and legal fees and costs.
−Removed: On April 10, 2020, the Company filed its reply to the complaint, and believes that those terminations were appropriate and lawful and is vigorously defending the complaint.
+Added: On March 8, 2021, the CRA filed a Petition for En Banc Reconsideration to the Nevada Supreme Court.
+Added: On April 9, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court responded to the petition by issuing an order denying en banc reconsideration, once again, in favor of Lyon County and Comstock Mining.
+Added: On July 30, 2021 Judge Estes of the Third Judicial District Court in Lyon County, Nevada ruled in favor of Lyon County and Comstock Mining and awarded attorney fees and costs to be paid by the plaintiffs in the sum of $50,000 to Lyon County and $203,151 to Comstock Mining.
+Added: On August 27, 2021 the CRA filed a notice of appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.
+Added: On or about February 27, 2020, we received notice that three former employees had filed a complaint with OSHA regarding alleged wrongful termination of employment in 2019, seeking backpay, front pay, compensatory damages, interest, legal fees and other costs.
+Added: On September 8, 2021, OSHA notified the three former employees that it was dismissing their complaint after OSHA was informed that the former employees were instead planning to file a complaint in federal court.
+Added: On August 20, 2021, the former employees filed a lawsuit against the Company, its Board of Directors, its Audit and Finance Committee, its Chief Executive Officer and certain of its managers for wrongful employment termination.
+Added: We believe those terminations were lawful and we are vigorously defending the complaint.
+Added: At December 31, 2021 and 2020, we have accrued severance and related costs in connection with this lawsuit, which is recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.
From time to time, we are involved in claims, investigations and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business.
1 unchanged sentence
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
−Removed: Under Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act, mine operations are required to include in their periodic reports filed with the SEC certain information concerning mine safety violations and other regulatory matters.
−Removed: The required information is included in Exhibit 95 to this report.
+Added: Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and Item 104 of Regulation S-K, we are required to disclose items believed to be violations of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, any health and safety standard, or any regulation, as administered by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration.
+Added: We did not have any violations or variations from the aforementioned standards.
+Added: The required information is also 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.