First Nation Sues McEwen Mining Over Alleged | Commodities

The Apitipi Anicinapek Nation (AAN) has filed a lawsuit in opposition to McEwen Mining (TSX:MUX,NYSE:MUX), alleging the company has breached an influence benefit settlement (IBA) by failing to ship practically US$1 million in shares.

The dispute stems from an IBA signed in 2011 between AAN and Brigus Gold, the previous proprietor of the Black Fox mining complicated, which is positioned in Northern Ontario.

IBAs are legally binding agreements that define financial compensation and different advantages for Indigenous communities affected by useful resource development initiatives. Underneath the settlement, AAN was to obtain 25,000 shares of Brigus yearly.

Nevertheless, the complicated has modified possession a number of occasions over the previous decade, first being acquired by Primero Mining in 2013 earlier than McEwen Mining took over in 2017. AAN says the stock funds ceased long earlier than McEwen’s acquisition, however that the present proprietor continues to be answerable for fulfilling the settlement’s obligations.

“We are not against mining development. It’s helped advance our community and supported different programs,” stated Lance Black, AAN’s director of negotiations, in a Monday (February 24) CBC article.

“How can the company not honour the longstanding agreement with the nearby First Nation?” he added.

AAN claims that after reviewing financial information in 2022, it discovered it had not acquired the promised shares for years.

The First Nation estimates that just about US$1 million value of shares are owed, together with shares relationship back to the Primero possession period. Makes an attempt to barter with McEwen Mining have reportedly failed, prompting the lawsuit.

In a assertion, McEwen Mining denied accountability for the unpaid shares, arguing that Brigus ceased to exist after its acquisition by Primero, making it unclear whether or not Brigus and McEwen shares are interchangeable on a “1-to-1 basis.”

The company additionally maintained that it’s not answerable for shares that weren’t delivered by the earlier proprietor.

McEwen Mining stated it has provided AAN 15,000 shares to cowl the period from 2018 to 2023 as a decision to the dispute, however the First Nation rejected this proposal, arguing it’s inadequate.

The company additionally notes that it has offered roughly C$20 million in “direct and indirect benefits” to AAN since 2017, although it didn’t specify the breakdown of these contributions.

Regardless of the lawsuit, McEwen Mining has expressed willingness to interact in additional discussions.

“We remain open to constructive dialogue with AAN on this issue, and we hope to reach an amicable resolution,” the company states in a press release shared with buyers on February 21.

Together with the share dispute, the lawsuit additionally alleges that McEwen Mining has allowed waste supplies from the Black Fox mining complicated to seep into a close by creek, raising issues about environmental contamination.

McEwen has additionally denied these allegations, sustaining that it operates in full compliance with environmental rules and that its tailings facility is subject to frequent inspections by the Ontario Ministry of Surroundings, Conservation and Parks, in addition to different regulatory our bodies at each the federal and provincial degree.

“We continue to take appropriate steps to protect the environment and comply with laws. We do not believe there is cause for concern about harm to the environment or the public from the operation of the tailings facility,” the firm stated.

For now, AAN stays firm in its stance, insisting that McEwen Mining uphold the settlement revamped a decade in the past.

The case is anticipated to proceed via the Ontario courts, with additional developments seemingly within the coming months.

Don’t overlook to comply with us @INN_Resource for real-time news updates!

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, maintain no direct investment curiosity in any company talked about on this article.

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the creator and don’t essentially mirror these of Nasdaq, Inc.