Common use of Class Action Lawsuit Clause in Contracts

Class Action Lawsuit. In January 2014, Xxxxxxxx LLP, a Canadian law firm, filed a class action (the “Class Action”) against the Company, certain of its former senior officers and directors, and its former auditors (the “Former Auditors”), in the Ontario Court in relation to the Company’s restatement of certain financial statements previously disclosed in the Company’s public fillings (the “Restatement”). To commence and proceed with the Class Action, the plaintiff was required to seek leave of the Court under the Ontario Securities Act (“Leave Motion”) and certify the action as a class proceeding under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act. The Ontario Court rendered its decision on the Leave Motion on November 5, 2015, dismissing the action against the former senior officers and directors and allowing the action to proceed against the Company in respect of alleged misrepresentation affecting trades in the secondary market for the Company’s securities arising from the Restatement. The action against the Former Auditors was settled by the plaintiff on the eve of the Leave Motion. Both the plaintiff and the Company appealed the Leave Motion decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On September 18, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Company’s appeal of the Leave Motion to permit the plaintiff to commence and proceed with the Class Action. Concurrently, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to proceed with their action against the former senior officers and directors in relation to the Restatement. The Company filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2017, but the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed in June 2018. In December 2018, the parties agreed to a consent Certification Order, whereby the action against the former senior officers and directors was withdrawn and the Class Action would only proceed against the Company. Counsel for the plaintiff and defence have agreed on and the case management judge has ordered a trial to commence in December 2022 (subject to Court availability). To accomplish all steps necessary for trial preparation, counsels have agreed to the following proposed schedule under the case management of the judge: (i) document production and pleading amendments by October 31, 2021; (ii) oral examinations for discovery ending by December 31, 2022; (iii) expert reports of plaintiff by March 31, 2022 and by defendants July 31, 2022; and (iv) pre-trial filings and motions by August 31, 2022. The Company has urged a trial as early as possible. The Company firmly believes that it has a strong defense on the merits and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the Class Action through independent Canadian litigation counsel retained by the Company for this purpose. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible to predict the final outcome of the Class Action or determine the amount of potential losses, if any. However, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June 30, 2021 was not required. Toll Wash Plant Agreement with Ejin Jinda In 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Ejin Jinda, a subsidiary of China Mongolia Coal Co. Ltd., to toll-wash coal from the Ovoot Tolgoi Mine. The agreement had a duration of five years from the commencement of the contract and provided for an annual washing capacity of approximately 3.5 million tonnes of input coal. Under the agreement with Ejin Jinda, which required the commercial operation of the wet washing facility to commence on October 1, 2011, the additional fees payable by the Company under the wet washing contract would have been $18.5 million. At each reporting date, the Company assesses the agreement with Xxxx Xxxxx and has determined it is not probable that this $18.5 million will be required to be paid. Accordingly, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June 30, 2021 was not required.

Class Action Lawsuit. In January January, 2014, Xxxxxxxx LLP, a Canadian law firm, filed a class action (the “Class Action”) against the Company, certain of its former senior officers and directors, and its former auditors (the “Former Auditors”)auditors, Deloitte LLP, in the Ontario Court in relation to the Company’s restatement of certain consolidated financial statements as previously disclosed in the Company’s public fillings (the “Restatement”)filings. To commence and proceed with the Class Action, the plaintiff was required to seek bring a preliminary leave of motion and to certify the Court under Class Action as a class proceeding (the Ontario Securities Act (“Leave Motion”) and certify the action as a class proceeding under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act). The Ontario Court rendered its decision on the Leave Motion on November 5, 2015, dismissing . The Ontario Court dismissed the action plaintiff’s Leave Motion as against each of the former senior officers and directors of the Company named in the Class Action on the basis that the “large volume of compelling evidence” proved the defense of reasonable investigation on the balance of probabilities and allowing provided the basis for dismissing the Leave Motion as against them. However, the Ontario Court allowed the Ontario class action to proceed under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act, permitting the plaintiff to commence and proceed with an action against the Company in respect of alleged misrepresentation misrepresentations affecting trades in the secondary market for the Company’s securities arising from the Restatementrestatement. The Company initiated the Corporation’s Appeal to appeal this portion of the decision of the Ontario Court. On his part, the plaintiff initiated the Individual’s Appeal whereby the plaintiff appealed that part of the November 5, 2015 Ontario Court decision dismissing the action against the Former Auditors was settled by the plaintiff on the eve former officers and directors of the Leave MotionCompany. Both the plaintiff and the Company appealed the Leave Motion decision The Individual’s Appeal was brought as of right to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On By Order dated September 1812, 20172016, the Corporation Appeal was transferred to the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Company’s appeal of the Leave Motion to permit the plaintiff to commence and proceed be heard together with the Class ActionIndividuals’ Appeal. ConcurrentlyThe Corporation Appeal was perfected on October 25, 2016 in the Ontario Court of Appeal. Both the Individuals’ Appeal and the Corporation Appeal will now be verbally argued together. The appeals have been scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to proceed with their action against the former senior officers and directors in relation to the RestatementJune 2017. The Company filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2017, but the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed in June 2018. In December 2018, the parties agreed to a consent Certification Order, whereby the action against the former senior officers disputes and directors was withdrawn and the Class Action would only proceed against the Company. Counsel for the plaintiff and defence have agreed on and the case management judge has ordered a trial to commence in December 2022 (subject to Court availability). To accomplish all steps necessary for trial preparation, counsels have agreed to the following proposed schedule under the case management of the judge: (i) document production and pleading amendments by October 31, 2021; (ii) oral examinations for discovery ending by December 31, 2022; (iii) expert reports of plaintiff by March 31, 2022 and by defendants July 31, 2022; and (iv) pre-trial filings and motions by August 31, 2022. The Company has urged a trial as early as possible. The Company firmly believes that it has a strong defense on the merits and will continue to is vigorously defend defending itself against the Class Action plaintiff’s claims through independent Canadian litigation counsel retained by the Company and the other defendants for this purpose. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible to predict the final outcome of the Class Action or determine the amount of potential losses, if any. However, the Company has determined that judged a provision for this matter as at June 30December 31, 2021 was not required. Toll Wash Plant Agreement with Ejin Jinda In 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Ejin Jinda, a subsidiary of China Mongolia Coal Co. Ltd., to toll-wash coal from the Ovoot Tolgoi Mine. The agreement had a duration of five years from the commencement of the contract and provided for an annual washing capacity of approximately 3.5 million tonnes of input coal. Under the agreement with Ejin Jinda, which required the commercial operation of the wet washing facility to commence on October 1, 2011, the additional fees payable by the Company under the wet washing contract would have been $18.5 million. At each reporting date, the Company assesses the agreement with Xxxx Xxxxx and has determined it 2016 is not probable that this $18.5 million will be required to be paid. Accordingly, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June 30, 2021 was not required.

Class Action Lawsuit. In January 2014, Xxxxxxxx LLP, a Canadian law firm, filed a class action (the “Class Action”) against the Company, certain of its former senior officers and directors, and its former auditors (the “Former Auditors”), in the Ontario Court in relation to the Company’s restatement of certain financial statements previously disclosed in the Company’s public fillings (the “Restatement”). To commence and proceed with the Class Action, the plaintiff was required to seek leave of the Court under the Ontario Securities Act (“Leave Motion”) and certify the action as a class proceeding under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act. The Ontario Court rendered its decision on the Leave Motion on November 5, 2015, dismissing the action against the former senior officers and directors and allowing the action to proceed against the Company in respect of alleged misrepresentation affecting trades in the secondary market for the Company’s securities arising from the Restatement. The action against the Former Auditors was settled by the plaintiff on the eve of the Leave Motion. Both the plaintiff and the Company appealed the Leave Motion decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On September 18, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Company’s appeal of the Leave Motion to permit the plaintiff to commence and proceed with the Class Action. Concurrently, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to proceed with their action against the former senior officers and directors in relation to the Restatement. The Company filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2017, but the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed in June 2018. In December 2018, the parties agreed to a consent Certification Order, whereby the action against the former senior officers and directors was withdrawn and the Class Action would only proceed against the Company. Counsel for the plaintiff and defence defendants have agreed on and the case management judge has ordered a trial to commence in December 2022 (subject to Court court availability). To accomplish all steps necessary for trial preparation, counsels have agreed to the following proposed schedule under the case management of the judge: (i) document production and pleading amendments by October 31, 2021; (ii) oral examinations for discovery ending by December 31, 2022; (iii) expert reports of plaintiff complete by March 31April 25, 2022 and expert reports of defendants complete by defendants July 31August 22, 2022; and (iv) pre-trial agreements, filings and motions by August 31, 2022. The Company has urged for a trial to begin as early as possible. The Company firmly believes that it has a strong defense on the merits and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the Class Action through independent Canadian litigation counsel retained by the Company for this purpose. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible to predict the final outcome of the Class Action or determine the amount of potential losses, if any. However, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June 30December 31, 2021 was not required. Toll Wash Plant Agreement with Ejin Jinda In 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Ejin Jinda, a subsidiary of China Mongolia Coal Co. Ltd., to toll-wash coal from the Ovoot Tolgoi Mine. The agreement had a duration of five years from the commencement of the contract and provided for an annual washing capacity of approximately 3.5 million tonnes of input coal. Under the agreement with Ejin Jinda, which required the commercial operation of the wet washing facility to commence on October 1, 2011, the additional fees payable by the Company under the wet washing contract would have been $18.5 million. At each reporting date, the Company assesses the agreement with Xxxx Xxxxx and has determined it is not probable that this $18.5 million will be required to be paid. Accordingly, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June 30December 31, 2021 was not required.

Class Action Lawsuit. In January 2014, Xxxxxxxx LLP, a Canadian law firm, filed a class action (the “Class Action”) against the Company, certain of its former senior officers and directors, and its former auditors (the “Former Auditors”), in the Ontario Court in relation to the Company’s restatement of certain financial statements previously disclosed in the Company’s public fillings (the “Restatement”). To commence and proceed with the Class Action, the plaintiff was required to seek leave of the Court under the Ontario Securities Act (“Leave Motion”) and certify the action as a class proceeding under the Ontario Class Proceedings ActAct (“Certification Motion”). The Ontario Court rendered its decision on the Leave Motion on November 5, 2015, dismissing the action against the former senior officers and directors and allowing the action to proceed against the Company in respect of alleged misrepresentation affecting trades in the secondary market for the Company’s securities arising from the Restatement. The action against the Former Auditors was settled by the plaintiff on the eve of the Leave Motion. Both the plaintiff plaintiffs and the Company appealed the Leave Motion decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On September 18, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Company’s appeal of the Leave Motion to permit the plaintiff to commence and proceed with the Class Action. Concurrently, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to proceed with their action against the former senior officers and directors in relation to the Restatement. The Company filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2017, but the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed in June 2018. In December 2018, the parties agreed to a consent Certification Order, whereby the action against the former senior officers and directors was withdrawn and the Class Action would only proceed against the Company. Counsel Since December 2018, counsels for the plaintiff and defence parties have agreed on and proceeded with the action as follows: (1) two case management judge has ordered a trial to commence in December 2022 conferences before the motions judge; (subject to Court availability). To accomplish all steps necessary for trial preparation, counsels have agreed 2) production of certain documents by the Company to the following proposed schedule under the case management of the judge: (i) document production and pleading amendments by October 31, 2021plaintiffs; (ii3) oral review of those documents by plaintiffs’ counsel from May 2020 to November 2020; and (4) setting down examinations for discovery ending by December 31, 2022; (iii) expert reports of plaintiff by for February and March 31, 2022 and by defendants July 31, 2022; and (iv) pre-trial filings and motions by August 31, 20222021. The Company has urged a trial as is urging an early as possibletrial. The Company firmly believes that it has a strong defense on the merits and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the Class Action through independent Canadian litigation counsel retained by the Company for this purpose. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible to predict the final outcome of the Class Action or determine the amount of potential losses, if any. However, the Company has determined that judged a provision for this matter as at June 30December 31, 2021 was 2020 and December 31, 2019 is not required. Toll Wash Plant Agreement with Ejin Jinda In 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Ejin Jinda, a subsidiary of China Mongolia Coal Co. Ltd., to toll-wash coal from the Ovoot Tolgoi Mine. The agreement had a duration of five years from the commencement of the contract and provided for an annual wet washing capacity of approximately 3.5 million tonnes of input coal. Under the original agreement with Ejin Jinda, which required the commercial operation of the wet washing facility to commence on October 1, 2011, the additional fees payable by the Company under the wet washing contract would have been $18.5 million. At each reporting date, the Company assesses the agreement with Xxxx Xxxxx and has determined it is not probable that this $18.5 million will be required to be paid. Accordingly, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June 30December 31, 2021 was 2020 and December 31, 2019 is not required. Special Needs Territory in Umnugobi On February 13, 2015, the entire Soumber mining license and a portion of SGS’ exploration license 9443X (9443X was converted to mining license MV-020436 in January 2016) (the “License Areas”) were included into a special protected area (to be further referred as Special Needs Territory, the “SNT”) newly set up by the Umnugobi Aimag’s Civil Representatives Khural (the “CRKh”) to establish a strict regime on the protection of natural environment and prohibit mining activities in the territory of the SNT. On July 8, 2015, SGS and the Chairman of the CRKh, in his capacity as the respondent’s representative, reached an agreement (the “Amicable Resolution Agreement”) to exclude the License Areas from the territory of the SNT in full, subject to confirmation of the Amicable Resolution Agreement by the session of the CRKh. The parties formally submitted the Amicable Resolution Agreement to the appointed judge of the Administrative Court for her approval and requested a dismissal of the case in accordance with the Law of Mongolia on Administrative Court Procedure. On July 10, 2015, the judge issued her order approving the Amicable Resolution Agreement and dismissing the case, while reaffirming the obligation of CRKh to take necessary actions at its next session to exclude the License Areas from the SNT and register the new map of the SNT with the relevant authorities. Mining activities at the Soumber property cannot proceed unless and until the Company obtains a court order restoring the Soumber Mining Licenses and until the License Areas are removed from the SNT. The Company will continue to liaise and work with CRKh to have the License Areas excluded from the SNT, however, the Company has not yet received any indication on the timing of the next session of the CRKh.

Class Action Lawsuit. In January 2014, Xxxxxxxx LLP, a Canadian law firm, filed a class action (the “Class Action”) against the Company, certain of its former senior officers and directors, and its former auditors (the “Former Auditors”), in the Ontario Court in relation to the Company’s restatement of certain financial statements previously disclosed in the Company’s public fillings (the “Restatement”). To commence and proceed with the Class Action, the plaintiff was required to seek leave of the Court under the Ontario Securities Act (“Leave Motion”) and certify the action as a class proceeding under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act. The Ontario Court rendered its decision on the Leave Motion on November 5, 2015, dismissing the action against the former senior officers and directors and allowing the action to proceed against the Company in respect of alleged misrepresentation affecting trades in the secondary market for the Company’s securities arising from the Restatement. The action against the Former Auditors was settled by the plaintiff on the eve of the Leave Motion. Both the plaintiff and the Company appealed the Leave Motion decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On September 18, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Company’s appeal of the Leave Motion to permit the plaintiff to commence and proceed with the Class Action. Concurrently, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to proceed with their action against the former senior officers and directors in relation to the Restatement. The Company filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2017, but the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed in June 2018. In December 2018, the parties agreed to a consent Certification Order, whereby the action against the former senior officers and directors was withdrawn and the Class Action would only proceed against the Company. Counsel for the plaintiff and defence defendants have agreed on and the case management judge has ordered a trial to commence in December 2022 (subject to Court availability). To accomplish all steps necessary for trial preparation, counsels have agreed to the following proposed schedule under the case management of the judge: (i) document production and pleading amendments by October 31, 2021; (ii) oral examinations for discovery ending by December 31, 2022; (iii) expert reports of plaintiff by March 31April 25, 2022 and by defendants July 31August 22, 2022; and (iv) pre-trial agreements, filings and motions by August 31, 2022. The Company has urged a trial as early as possible. The Company firmly believes that it has a strong defense on the merits and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the Class Action through independent Canadian litigation counsel retained by the Company for this purpose. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible to predict the final outcome of the Class Action or determine the amount of potential losses, if any. However, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June 30December 31, 2021 was not required. Toll Wash Plant Agreement with Ejin Jinda In 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Ejin Jinda, a subsidiary of China Mongolia Coal Co. Ltd., to toll-wash coal from the Ovoot Tolgoi Mine. The agreement had a duration of five years from the commencement of the contract and provided for an annual washing capacity of approximately 3.5 million tonnes of input coal. Under the agreement with Ejin Jinda, which required the commercial operation of the wet washing facility to commence on October 1, 2011, the additional fees payable by the Company under the wet washing contract would have been $18.5 million. At each reporting date, the Company assesses the agreement with Xxxx Xxxxx and has determined it is not probable that this $18.5 million will be required to be paid. Accordingly, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June 30December 31, 2021 was not required.

Class Action Lawsuit. In January 2014, Xxxxxxxx LLP, a Canadian law firm, filed a class action (the “Class Action”) against the Company, certain of its former senior officers and directors, and its former auditors (the “Former Auditors”), in the Ontario Court in relation to the Company’s restatement of certain financial statements previously disclosed in the Company’s public fillings (the “Restatement”). To commence and proceed with the Class Action, the plaintiff was required to seek leave of the Court under the Ontario Securities Act (“Leave Motion”) and certify the action as a class proceeding under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act. The Ontario Court rendered its decision on the Leave Motion on November 5, 2015, dismissing the action against the former senior officers and directors and allowing the action to proceed against the Company in respect of alleged misrepresentation affecting trades in the secondary market for the Company’s securities arising from the Restatement. The action against the Former Auditors was settled by the plaintiff on the eve of the Leave Motion. Both the plaintiff and the Company appealed the Leave Motion decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. On September 18, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the Company’s appeal of the Leave Motion to permit the plaintiff to commence and proceed with the Class Action. Concurrently, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to proceed with their action against the former senior officers and directors in relation to the Restatement. The Company filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2017, but the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed in June 2018. In December 2018, the parties agreed to a consent Certification Order, whereby the action against the former senior officers and directors was withdrawn and the Class Action would only proceed against the Company. Counsel for the plaintiff and defence defendants have agreed on and the case management judge has ordered a trial to commence in December 2022 (subject to Court availability). To accomplish all steps necessary for trial preparation, counsels have agreed to the following proposed schedule under the case management of the judge: (i) document production and pleading amendments by October 31, 2021; (ii) oral examinations for discovery ending by December 31, 2022; (iii) expert reports of plaintiff by March 31, 2022 and by defendants July 31, 2022; and (iv) pre-trial filings and motions by August 31, 2022. The Company has urged a trial as early as possible. The Company firmly believes that it has a strong defense on the merits and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the Class Action through independent Canadian litigation counsel retained by the Company for this purpose. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible to predict the final outcome of the Class Action or determine the amount of potential losses, if any. However, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June September 30, 2021 was not required. Toll Wash Plant Agreement with Ejin Jinda In 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Ejin Jinda, a subsidiary of China Mongolia Coal Co. Ltd., to toll-wash coal from the Ovoot Tolgoi Mine. The agreement had a duration of five years from the commencement of the contract and provided for an annual washing capacity of approximately 3.5 million tonnes of input coal. Under the agreement with Ejin Jinda, which required the commercial operation of the wet washing facility to commence on October 1, 2011, the additional fees payable by the Company under the wet washing contract would have been $18.5 million. At each reporting date, the Company assesses the agreement with Xxxx Xxxxx and has determined it is not probable that this $18.5 million will be required to be paid. Accordingly, the Company has determined that a provision for this matter as at June September 30, 2021 was not required.