NEWMONT Corp /DE/ Commitments Disclosure

NOTE 32    COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

General

Estimated losses from contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the contingency and estimated range of loss, if determinable, is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred.

Operating Segments

The Company’s operating and reportable segments are identified in Note 5. Except as noted in this paragraph, all of the Company’s commitments and contingencies specifically described herein are included in Corporate and Other. The Yanacocha matters relate to the South America reportable segment. The Fronteer matters relate to the Nevada reportable segment. The Newmont Ghana Gold and Newmont Golden Ridge matters relate to the Africa reportable segment. The Mexico tax matter relates to the North America reportable segment.

Environmental Matters

Refer to Note 7 and Note 25 for further information regarding reclamation and remediation. Details about certain of the more significant matters are discussed below.

Newmont USA Limited - 100% Newmont Owned

Ross-Adams mine site. By letter dated June 5, 2007, the U.S. Forest Service (“USFS”) notified Newmont that it had expended approximately $0.3 in response costs to address environmental conditions at the Ross-Adams mine in Prince of Wales, Alaska, and requested Newmont USA Limited pay those costs and perform an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) to assess what future response activities might need to be completed at the site. Newmont agreed to perform the EE/CA pursuant to the requirements of an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“ASAOC”) between the USFS and Newmont. The EE/CA was provided to the USFS in April 2015. During the first quarter of 2016, the USFS confirmed approval of the EE/CA, and Newmont issued written notice to the USFS certifying that all requirements of the ASAOC had been completed. During the third quarter of 2016, Newmont received a notice of completion of work per the ASAOC from the USFS, which finalized the ASAOC. The USFS issued an Action Memorandum in April 2018 to select the preferred Removal Action alternative identified in the EE/CA. The parties are finalizing the ASAOC, after which the ASAOC will be subject to public comment prior to becoming effective.

Dawn Mining Company LLC (“Dawn”) - 51% Newmont Owned

Midnite mine site and Dawn mill site. Dawn previously leased an open pit uranium mine, currently inactive, on the Spokane Indian Reservation in the State of Washington. The mine site is subject to regulation by agencies of the U.S. Department of Interior (the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management), as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).

As per the Consent Decree approved by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on January 17, 2012, the following actions were required of Newmont, Dawn, the Department of the Interior and the EPA: (i) Newmont and Dawn would design, construct and implement the cleanup plan selected by the EPA in 2006 for the Midnite mine site; (ii) Newmont and Dawn would reimburse the EPA for its costs associated with overseeing the work; (iii) the Department of the Interior would contribute a lump sum amount toward past EPA costs and future costs related to the cleanup of the Midnite mine site; (iv) Newmont and Dawn would be responsible for all other EPA oversight costs and Midnite mine site cleanup costs; and (v) Newmont would post a surety bond for work at the site.

During 2012, the Department of Interior contributed its share of past EPA costs and future costs related to the cleanup of the Midnite mine site in a lump sum payment of $42, which Newmont classified as restricted assets with interest on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for all periods presented. In 2016, Newmont completed the remedial design process (with the exception of the new water treatment plant (“WTP”) design which was awaiting the approval of the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit). Subsequently, the new NPDES permit was received in 2017 and the WTP design commenced in 2018. Newmont is managing the remediation project to complete Phase 1 remedial actions during the 2020 construction season with a focus on completing the Pit 4 backfill and preparations for Phase 2 remediation activities. Phase 2 remediation activities will be initiated in 2020.

The Dawn mill site is regulated by the Washington Department of Health and is in the process of being closed. Remediation at the Dawn mill site began in 2013. The Tailing Disposal Area 1-4 reclamation earthworks component was completed during 2017 with the embankment erosion protection completed in the second quarter of 2018. The remaining closure activity will consist primarily of addressing groundwater issues.

The remediation liability for the Midnite mine site and Dawn mill site is approximately $167 at December 31, 2019.

Other Legal Matters

Minera Yanacocha S.R.L. – 51.35% Newmont Owned

Administrative Actions. The Peruvian government agency responsible for environmental evaluation and inspection, Organismo Evaluacion y Fiscalizacion Ambiental (“OEFA”), conducts periodic reviews of the Yanacocha site. In 2011 to 2019, OEFA issued notices of alleged violations of OEFA standards to Yanacocha and Conga relating to past inspections. In 2015 and 2016, the water authority of Cajamarca issued notices of alleged regulatory violations, and resolved some allegations in 2017 with no findings. The experience with OEFA and the water authority is that in the case of a finding of violation, remedial action is often the outcome rather than a significant fine. The alleged OEFA violations currently range from zero to 33,000 units and the water authority alleged violations range from zero to 10 units, with each unit having a potential fine equivalent to approximately $.001290 based on current exchange rates with a total potential fine amount for outstanding matters of ($0 to $41.6). Yanacocha and Conga are responding to all notices of alleged violations, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the agency allegations.

Conga Project Constitutional Claim. On October 18, 2012, Marco Antonio Arana Zegarra filed a constitutional claim against the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Yanacocha requesting the Court to order the suspension of the Conga project as well as to declare not applicable the October 27, 2010, directorial resolution approving the Conga project Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”). On October 23, 2012, a Cajamarca judge dismissed the claims based on formal grounds finding that: (i) plaintiffs had not exhausted previous administrative proceedings; (ii) the directorial resolution approving the Conga EIA is valid, and was not challenged when issued in the administrative proceedings; (iii) there was inadequate evidence to conclude that the Conga project is a threat to the constitutional right of living in an adequate environment and; (iv) the directorial resolution approving the Conga project EIA does not guarantee that the Conga project will proceed, so there was no imminent threat to be addressed by the Court. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case. The Civil Court of the Superior Court of Cajamarca confirmed the above mentioned resolution and the plaintiff presented an appeal. On March 13, 2015, the Constitutional Court published its ruling stating that the case should be sent back to the first court with an order to formally admit the case and start the judicial process in order to review the claim and the proofs presented by the plaintiff. Yanacocha has answered the claim. Neither the Company nor Yanacocha can reasonably predict the outcome of this litigation.

Yanacocha Tax Dispute. In 2000, Yanacocha paid Buenaventura and Minas Conga S.R.L. a total of $29 to assume their respective contractual positions in mining concession agreements with Chaupiloma Dos de Cajamarca S.M.R.L. The contractual rights allowed Yanacocha the opportunity to conduct exploration on the concessions, but not a purchase of the concessions. The tax authority alleged that the payments to Buenaventura and Minas Conga S.R.L. were acquisitions of mining concessions requiring the amortization of the amounts under the Peru Mining Law over the life of the mine. Yanacocha expensed the amounts at issue in the initial year since the payments were not for the acquisition of a concession but rather these expenses represent the payment of an intangible and therefore, amortizable in a single year or proportionally for up to ten years according to Income Tax Law. In 2010, the tax court in Peru ruled in favor of Yanacocha and the tax authority appealed the issue to the judiciary. The first appellate court

confirmed the ruling of the tax court in favor of Yanacocha. However, in November 2015, a Superior Court in Peru made an appellate decision overturning the two prior findings in favor of Yanacocha. Yanacocha appealed the Superior Court ruling to the Peru Supreme Court. On January 18, 2019, the Peru Supreme Court issued notice that three judges support the position of the tax authority and two judges support the position of Yanacocha. Because four votes are required for a final decision, an additional judge has been selected to issue a decision and the parties conducted oral arguments in April 2019. In early February 2020, the additional judge ruled in favor of the tax authority, finalizing a decision of the Peru Supreme Court against Yanacocha. Yanacocha will file an action objecting to the fines and interest associated with the underlying decision of the Peru Supreme Court. The potential liability in this matter is in the form of taxes of approximately $8, and fines and interest in an amount up to $82, for a total amount of up to $90.  It is not possible to fully predict the outcome of this litigation.

NWG Investments Inc. v. Fronteer Gold Inc.

In April 2011, Newmont acquired Fronteer Gold Inc. (“Fronteer”).

Fronteer acquired NewWest Gold Corporation (“NewWest Gold”) in September 2007. At the time of that acquisition, NWG Investments Inc. (“NWG”) owned approximately 86% of NewWest Gold and an individual named Jacob Safra owned or controlled 100% of NWG. Prior to its acquisition of NewWest Gold, Fronteer entered into a June 2007 lock-up agreement with NWG providing that, among other things, NWG would support Fronteer’s acquisition of NewWest Gold. At that time, Fronteer owned approximately 47% of Aurora Energy Resources Inc. (“Aurora”), which, among other things, had a uranium exploration project in Labrador, Canada.

NWG contends that, during the negotiations leading up to the lock-up agreement, Fronteer represented to NWG, among other things, that Aurora would commence uranium mining in Labrador by 2013, that this was a firm date, that Aurora faced no current environmental issues in Labrador and that Aurora’s competitors faced delays in commencing uranium mining. NWG further contends that it entered into the lock-up agreement and agreed to support Fronteer’s acquisition of NewWest Gold in reliance upon these purported representations. On October 11, 2007, less than three weeks after the Fronteer-NewWest Gold transaction closed, a member of the Nunatsiavut Assembly introduced a motion calling for the adoption of a moratorium on uranium mining in Labrador. On April 8, 2008, the Nunatsiavut Assembly adopted a three-year moratorium on uranium mining in Labrador. NWG contends that Fronteer was aware during the negotiations of the NWG/Fronteer lock-up agreement that the Nunatsiavut Assembly planned on adopting this moratorium and that its adoption would preclude Aurora from commencing uranium mining by 2013, but Fronteer nonetheless fraudulently induced NWG to enter into the lock-up agreement.

On September 24, 2012, NWG served a summons and complaint on the Company, and then amended the complaint to add Newmont Canada Holdings ULC as a defendant. The complaint also named Fronteer Gold Inc. and Mark O’Dea as defendants. The complaint sought rescission of the merger between Fronteer and NewWest Gold and $750 in damages. In August 2013 the Supreme Court of New York, New York County issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens. Subsequently, NWG filed a notice of appeal of the decision and then a notice of dismissal of the appeal on March 24, 2014.

On February 26, 2014, NWG filed a lawsuit in Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Fronteer Gold Inc., Newmont Mining Corporation, Newmont Canada Holdings ULC, Newmont FH B.V. and Mark O’Dea. The Ontario complaint is based upon substantially the same allegations contained in the New York lawsuit with claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. NWG seeks disgorgement of profits since the close of the NWG deal on September 24, 2007 and damages in the amount of C$1,200. Newmont, along with other defendants, served the plaintiff with its statement of defense on October 17, 2014. Newmont intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Newmont Ghana Gold Limited and Newmont Golden Ridge Limited

On December 24, 2018, two individual plaintiffs, who are members of the Ghana Parliament (“Plaintiffs”) filed, a writ to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Ghana. On January 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Statement of Plaintiff’s Case outlining the details of the Plaintiff’s case and subsequently served Newmont Ghana Gold Limited (“NGGL”) and Newmont Golden Ridge Limited (“NGRL”) along with the other named defendants, the Attorney General of Ghana, the Minerals Commission of Ghana and 33 other mining companies with interests in Ghana. The Plaintiffs allege that under article 268 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana

that the mining company defendants are not entitled to carry out any exploitation of minerals or other natural resources in Ghana, unless their respective transactions, contracts or concessions are ratified or exempted from ratification by the Parliament of Ghana. Newmont’s current mining leases are both ratified by Parliament: NGGL June 13, 2001 mining lease, ratified by Parliament on October 21, 2008, and NGRL January 19, 2010 mining lease, ratified by Parliament on December 3, 2015. The writ alleges that any mineral exploitation prior to Parliament ratification is unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs seek several remedies including: (i) declaration as to the meaning of constitutional language at issue; (ii) an injunction precluding exploitation of minerals for any mining company without prior Parliament ratification; (iii) a declaration that all revenue as a result of violation of the Constitution shall be accounted for and recovered via cash equivalent, and; (iv) an order that the Attorney General and Minerals Commission submit all un-ratified mining leases, undertakings or contracts to Parliament for ratification. Newmont intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

On December 18, 2019, an individual plaintiff filed a writ against NGGL and other named defendants, including the Attorney General of Ghana, the Minerals Commission of Ghana, and other mining companies with interests in Ghana, seeking the same relief sought in the above-referenced case, plus perpetual and interlocutory injunctive relief to cease operations against NGGL and the other mining companies. Newmont intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Goldcorp, Inc. 100% Newmont Owned

Shareholder Action. On October 28, 2016 and February 14, 2017, separate proposed class actions were commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. Both statement of claims alleged common law negligent misrepresentation in Goldcorp, Inc.’s public disclosure concerning the Peñasquito mine and also pleaded an intention to seek leave from the Court to proceed with an allegation of statutory misrepresentation pursuant to the secondary market civil liability provisions under the Securities Act (Ontario). By a consent order, the latter lawsuit will proceed, and the former action has been stayed. The active lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of persons who acquired Goldcorp Inc.’s securities in the secondary market during an alleged class period from October 30, 2014 to August 23, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Mexico Tax Matters

Tax Reassessment from Mexican Tax Authority. During 2016, the Mexican Tax Authority issued reassessment notices for two of Goldcorp, Inc.’s Mexican subsidiaries primarily related to a reduction in the amount of deductible interest paid on related party debt by those subsidiaries during their 2008 and 2009 fiscal years, and the disallowance of certain intra company fees and expenses. The 2008 fiscal year notices reassessed an additional $11 of income tax, interest, and penalties. The 2009 fiscal year notices reassessed an additional $102 of income tax, interest and penalties relating to the reduction in the amount of intra group interest payments. A Mexican subsidiary of Goldcorp, Inc. also received observation letters from the Mexican Tax Authority for fiscal years 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 relating to additional matters associated with the Company’s operations in Mexico, with years 2016 and 2017 also remaining outstanding. In the second quarter of 2019, significant progress in settling a number of years and issues under dispute was made, resulting in $74 paid in June, which was fully accrued in the financial statements.  The outcome of any potential reassessments for the Company’s Mexican subsidiaries 2010-2016 fiscal years is not readily determinable but could have a material impact on the Company.  The Company believes that its tax positions are valid and intends to vigorously defend its tax filing positions.

State of Zacatecas’ Ecological Tax. In December 2016, the State of Zacatecas in Mexico approved new environmental taxes that became effective January 1, 2017. Certain operations at the Company’s Peñasquito mine may be subject to these taxes. Payments are due monthly in arrears with the first payment due on February 17, 2017. The legislation provides little direction for how the taxes are to be calculated. The Company is not able to calculate the taxes with sufficient reliability given that (a) the legislation at issue is broadly worded and the State of Zacatecas has not issued any guidance on how the taxes are to be levied; and (b) claims filed by other similarly situated companies are yet to be resolved by the Supreme Court, the results of which may impact how to calculate the taxes payable by the Company. Further, the Company believes that there is no legal basis for the taxes and filed legal claims challenging their constitutionality and legality on March 9, 2017. Other companies similarly situated also filed legal claims against the taxes. The Mexican federal government also filed a claim before the National Supreme Court against the State of Zacatecas challenging whether the State of Zacatecas had the constitutional authority to implement the taxes. On February 11, 2019, the National Supreme Court of Mexico ruled that the State of Zacatecas has the constitutional authority to implement environmental taxes, and that ruling was not

subject to appeal. The Company’s case continued, and although there was an initial ruling in favor of the Company, this ruling was appealed by the local tax authorities. On October 15, 2019, the First Collegiate Circuit Court of the Auxiliary Center of the Eleventh Region reversed the favorable ruling (except with respect to one issue, which was affirmed in the Company’s favor). While the First Collegiate Circuit Court’s ruling is not subject to appeal, the Company is considering other potential defense mechanisms to challenge the taxes and recorded immaterial amounts as potential estimates for the amount of the taxes.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

As part of its ongoing business and operations, the Company and its affiliates are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit and bank guarantees as financial support for various purposes, including environmental remediation, reclamation, exploration permitting, workers compensation programs and other general corporate purposes. At December 31, 2019 and 2018, there were $1,924 and $2,514, respectively, of outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and bank guarantees. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that the Company addresses through its ongoing operations. As the specific requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instrument cancels and/or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure. Generally, bonding requirements associated with environmental regulation are becoming more restrictive. However, the Company believes it is in compliance with all applicable bonding obligations and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements through existing or alternative means, as they arise.

​

Newmont is from time to time involved in various legal proceedings related to its business. Except in the above described proceedings, management does not believe that adverse decisions in any pending or threatened proceeding or that amounts that may be required to be paid by reason thereof will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

​

In connection with our investment in Galore Creek, Newmont will owe NovaGold Resources Inc. $75 upon the earlier of approval to construct a mine, mill and all related infrastructure for the Galore Creek project or the initiation of construction of a mine, mill or any related infrastructure. The amount due is non-interest bearing. The decision for an approval and commencement of construction is contingent on the results of a prefeasibility and feasibility study, neither of which have occurred. As such, this amount has not been accrued.

As part of the Newmont Goldcorp transaction, Newmont assumed deferred payments to Barrick of $154 as of December 31, 2019 to be satisfied through funding a portion of Barrick’s share of project expenditures at the Norte Abierto project. These deferred payments to Barrick are included in Other non-current liabilities.

​