URANIUM ENERGY CORP 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings As of the date of this Quarterly Report, other than as disclosed below, there are no material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business, to which our Company or any of our subsidiaries is a party or of which any of their property is subject, and no director, officer, affiliate or record or beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock, or any associate or any such director, officer, affiliate or security holder, is: (i) a party adverse to us or any of our subsidiaries in any legal proceeding; or (ii) has an adverse interest to us or any of our subsidiaries in any legal proceeding. Other than as disclosed below, management is not aware of any other material legal proceedings pending or that have been threatened against us or our properties. 36 Table of Contents On or about March 9, 2011, the TCEQ granted our Company’s applications for a Class III Injection Well Permit, PAA and AE for our Goliad Project. On or about December 4, 2012, the EPA concurred with the TCEQ issuance of the AE permit. With the receipt of this concurrence, the final authorization required for uranium extraction, our Goliad Project achieved fully-permitted status. On or about May 24, 2011, a group of petitioners, inclusive of Goliad County, appealed the TCEQ action to the 250 th District Court in Travis County, Texas. A motion filed by our Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The petitioners’ appeal lay dormant until on or about June 14, 2013, when the petitioners filed their initial brief in support of their position. On or about January 18, 2013, a different group of petitioners, exclusive of Goliad County, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to appeal the EPA’s decision. On or about March 5, 2013, a motion filed by our Company to intervene in this matter was granted. The parties attempted to resolve both appeals, to facilitate discussions and avoid further legal costs. The parties jointly agreed, through mediation initially conducted through the Fifth Circuit on or about August 8, 2013, to abate the proceedings in the State District Court. On or about August 21, 2013, the State District Court agreed to abate the proceedings. The EPA subsequently filed a motion to remand without vacatur with the Fifth Circuit wherein the EPA’s stated purpose was to elicit additional public input and further explain its rationale for the approval. In requesting the remand without vacatur, which would allow the AE to remain in place during the review period, the EPA denied the existence of legal error and stated that it was unaware of any additional information that would merit reversal of the AE. We and the TCEQ filed a request to the Fifth Circuit for the motion to remand without vacatur, and if granted, to be limited to a 60-day review period. On December 9, 2013, by way of a procedural order from a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, the Court granted the remand without vacatur and initially limited the review period to 60 days. In March of 2014, at the EPA’s request, the Fifth Circuit extended the EPA’s time period for review and additionally, during that same period, our Company conducted a joint groundwater survey of the site, the result of which reaffirmed our previously filed groundwater direction studies. On or about June 17, 2014, the EPA reaffirmed its earlier decision to uphold the granting of our existing AE, with the exception of a northwestern portion containing less than 10% of the uranium resource which was withdrawn, but not denied, from the AE area until additional information is provided in the normal course of mine development. On or about September 9, 2014, the petitioners filed a status report with the State District Court which included a request to remove the stay agreed to in August 2013 and to set a briefing schedule. In that Status Report the petitioners also stated that they had decided not to pursue their appeal at the Fifth Circuit. A Class I renewal application for the Goliad Project disposal wells was received by the TCEQ on January 23, 2020 and declared administratively complete on April 27, 2020. The application went through technical review and, on September 13, 2022, the executive director of the TCEQ made a decision that the permit application met the requirements of the law. On or around October 4, 2022, petitioners in Goliad County requested a hearing and reconsideration on the renewal permits. The TCEQ considered the requests on December 14, 2022, during its open meeting, and denied the petitioner’s request for reconsideration but granted its request for hearing. The TCEQ referred the application to the State Office of Administrative Hearing (“SOAH”) to discuss three issues: 1) whether the permit application adequately characterizes the geology and identified and assessed faults in the vicinity of the proposed injections wells; 2) whether the draft permit provides for adequate monitoring of migration of injected fluids in the vicinity of the proposed injection wells: and 3) whether the location and design of the injection wells and pre-injection facilities are adequate. Closing statements were submitted by all parties to the SOAH Administrative Law Judges ("ALJs") on February 5, 2024, and the ALJs are expected to make a recommendation on or about April 12, 2024. The recommendation of the ALJs will be submitted and reviewed by the TCEQ before a final decision is made on the renewal permit. We continue to believe that the pending appeal is without merit and we are continuing as planned towards uranium extraction at our fully-permitted Goliad Project. The Company has had communications and filings with the MOPC, the mining regulator in Paraguay, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty, Alto Parana and Colonel Oviedo Projects are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. While we remain fully committed to our development path forward in Paraguay, we have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect the Company’s continuing rights in those concessions.