NOTE 13-COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Environmental matters:

The Company has instituted extensive environmental conservation programs at its mining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Company’s environmental programs include, among other features, water recovery systems to conserve water and minimize impact on nearby streams, reforestation programs to stabilize the surface of the tailings dams and the implementation of scrubbing technology in the mines to reduce dust emissions.

Environmental capital expenditures in years 2012, 2011 and 2010, were as follows (in millions):

	2012		2011		2010
Peruvian operations	$	3.4	$	2.5	$	6.4
Mexican operations	20.7		11.5		10.2
Total	$	24.1	$	14.0	$	16.6

Peruvian operations: The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. The Peruvian government, through the Environmental Ministry conducts annual audits of the Company’s Peruvian mining and metallurgical operations. Through these environmental audits, matters related to environmental commitments, compliance with legal requirements, atmospheric emissions, and effluent monitoring are reviewed. The Company believes that it is in material compliance with applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations.

Peruvian law requires that companies in the mining industry provide for future closure and remediation. In accordance with the requirements of this law the Company’s closure plans were approved by MINEM. As part of the closure plans, the Company is providing guarantees to ensure that sufficient funds will be available for the asset retirement obligation. See Note 9, “Asset retirement obligation,” for further discussion of this matter.

Mexican operations: The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Mexican federal, state and municipal environmental laws, to Mexican official standards, and to regulations for the protection of the environment, including regulations relating to water supply, water quality, air quality, noise levels and hazardous and solid waste.

The principal legislation applicable to the Company’s Mexican operations is the Federal General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (the “General Law”), which is enforced by the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (“PROFEPA”). PROFEPA monitors compliance with environmental legislation and enforces Mexican environmental laws, regulations and official standards. PROFEPA may initiate administrative proceedings against companies that violate environmental laws, which in the most extreme cases may result in the temporary or permanent closing of non-complying facilities, the revocation of operating licenses and/or other sanctions or fines. Also, according to the federal criminal code, PROFEPA must inform corresponding authorities regarding environmental non-compliance.

On January 28, 2011, Article 180 of the General Law was amended. This amendment, gives an individual or entity the ability to contest administrative acts, including environmental authorizations, permits or concessions granted, without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of harm to the environment, natural resources, flora, fauna or human health, because it will be sufficient to argue that the harm may be caused.

In addition in 2011, amendments to the Civil Federal Procedures Code (“CFPC”) were published in the Official Gazette and are now in force. These amendments establish three categories of collective actions, by means of which 30 or more people claiming injury derived from environmental, consumer protection, financial services and economic competition issues will be considered to be sufficient in order to have a legitimate interest to seek through a civil procedure restitution or economic compensation or suspension of the activities from which the alleged injury derived. The amendments to the CFPC may result in more litigation, with plaintiffs seeking remedies, including suspension of the activities alleged to cause harm.

On December 5, 2011, the Mexican Senate Chamber approved the Environmental Liability Federal Law, which establishes general guidelines in order to determine which environmental actions will be considered to cause environmental harm that will give rise to administrative responsibilities (remediation or compensations) and criminal responsibilities. Also economic fines could be established. This initiative has been returned to the lower chamber for discussion and voting. The law will be in force once approved by the lower chamber and signed by the President.

In March 2010, the Company announced to the Mexican federal environmental authorities the closure of the copper smelter plant at San Luis Potosi. The Company initiated a program for plant demolition and soil remediation with a budget of $35.7 million, of which the Company has spent $31.6 million through December 31, 2012. Plant demolition and construction of a confinement area at the south of the property were completed in 2012 and the Company expects to complete soil remediation and the construction of a second confinement by the end of 2013. We will deposit in the confinement areas metallurgical and other waste material resulting from plant demolition. The program also includes the construction of a recreational park, a plant nursery to improve the environmental culture, and a logistic center for raw material and finished goods from the San Luis Potosi zinc plant, which the Company expects will improve the flow of traffic in the west of the city. The Company expects that once the site is remediated, the Company will be able to promote an urban development to generate a net gain on the disposal of the property.

The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with applicable environmental, mining and other laws and regulations.

The Company also believes that continued compliance with environmental laws of Mexico and Peru will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, properties, result of operations, financial condition or prospects and will not result in material capital expenditures.

Litigation matters:

Peruvian operations

Garcia Ataucuri and Others against SCC’s Peruvian Branch:

In April 1996, the Branch was served with a complaint filed in Peru by Mr. Garcia Ataucuri and approximately 900 former employees seeking the delivery of a substantial number of “labor shares” (acciones laborales) plus dividends on such shares, to be issued to each former employee in proportion to their time of employment with SCC’s Peruvian Branch.

The labor share litigation is based on claims of former employees for ownership of labor shares that the plaintiffs state that the Branch did not issue during the 1970s until 1979 under a former Peruvian mandated profit sharing system. In 1971, the Peruvian government enacted legislation providing that mining workers would have a 10% participation in the pre-tax profits of their employing enterprises. This participation was distributed 40% in cash and 60% in an equity interest of the enterprise. In 1978, the equity portion, which was originally delivered to a mining industry workers’ organization, was set at 5.5% of pre-tax profits and was delivered, mainly in the form of “labor shares” to individual workers. The cash portion was set at 4.0% of pre-tax earnings and was delivered to individual employees also in proportion to their time of employment with the Branch. In 1992, the workers’ participation was set at 8%, with 100% payable in cash and the equity participation was eliminated from the law.

In relation to the issuance of “labor shares” by the Branch in Peru, the Branch is a defendant in the following lawsuits:

1) Mr. Garcia Ataucuri seeks delivery, to himself and each of the approximately 900 former employees of the Peruvian Branch, of the 3,876,380,679.65 old soles or 38,763,806.80 “labor shares” (acciones laborales), as required by Decree Law 22333 (a former profit sharing law), to be issued proportionally to each former employee in accordance with the time of employment of such employee with SCC’s Branch in Peru, plus dividends on such shares. The 38,763,806.80 labor shares sought in the complaint, with a face value of 100.00 old soles each, represent 100% of the labor shares issued by the Branch during the 1970s until 1979 for all of its employees during that period. The plaintiffs do not represent 100% of the Branch´s eligible employees during that period.

It should be noted that the lawsuit refers to a prior Peruvian currency called “sol de oro” or old soles, which was later changed to the “inti”, and then into today´s “nuevo sol.” One billion of old soles is equivalent to today’s one nuevo sol.

After lengthy proceedings before the civil courts in Peru on September 19, 2001, on appeal from the Branch (the 2000 appeal), the Peruvian Supreme Court annulled the proceedings noting that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction and that the matter had to be decided by a labor court.

In October 2007, in a separate proceeding initiated by the plaintiffs, the Peruvian Constitutional Court nullified the September 19, 2001 Peruvian Supreme Court decision and ordered the Supreme Court to decide again on the merits of the case accepting or denying the Branch’s 2000 appeal.

In May 2009, the Supreme Court rejected the 2000 appeal of the Branch affirming the adverse decision of the appellate civil court and lower civil court. While the Supreme Court has ordered SCC’s Peruvian Branch to deliver the labor shares and dividends, it has clearly stated that SCC’s Peruvian Branch may prove, by all legal means, its assertion that the labor shares and dividends were distributed to the former employees in accordance with the profit sharing law then in effect, an assertion which SCC’s Peruvian Branch continues to make. None of the court decisions state the manner by which the Branch must comply with the delivery of such labor shares or make a liquidation of the amount to be paid for past dividends and interest, if any.

On June 9, 2009, SCC’s Peruvian Branch filed a proceeding of relief before a civil court in Peru seeking the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision and, in a separate proceeding, a request for a precautionary measure. The civil court rendered a favorable decision on the nullity and the precautionary measure, suspending the enforcement of the Supreme Court decision, for the reasons indicated above and other reasons. In February 2012, the Branch was notified that the civil court had reversed its decision regarding the nullity. The precautionary measure is still in effect. The Peruvian Branch has appealed the unfavorable decision before the superior court. In view of this, and the recent civil court decision, SCC´s Peruvian Branch continues to analyze the manner in which the Supreme Court decision may be enforced and what financial impact, if any, said decision may have.

2) In addition, there are filed against SCC’s Branch the following lawsuits, involving approximately 800 plaintiffs, which seek the same number of labor shares as in the Garcia Ataucuri case, plus interest, labor shares resulting from capital increases and dividends: Armando Cornejo Flores and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 10, 2006); Alejandro Zapata Mamani and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed June 27, 2008); Arenas Rodriguez and others, represented by Mr. Cornejo Flores, v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed January 2009); Eduardo Chujutalli v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 2011); Edgardo Garcia Ataucuri, in representation of 216 of SCC’s Peruvian Branch former workers, v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 2011); Silvestre Macedo Condori v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed June 2011); Juan Guillermo Oporto Carpio v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed August 2011); Rene Mercado Caballero v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed November 2011); Enrique Salazar Alvarez and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed December 2011); Indalecio Carlos Perez Cano and others v. SCC Peruvian Branch (filed March 2012); Jesús Mamani Chura and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed March, 2012); Armando Cornejo Flores, in representation of 37 of SCC’s Peruvian Branch former workers v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed March, 2012) and Porfirio Ochochoque Mamani and others v. SCC´s Peruvian Branch (filed July, 2012). SCC’s Peruvian Branch has answered the complaints and denied the validity of the claims.

SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the labor shares were distributed to the former employees in accordance with the profit sharing law then in effect. The Peruvian Branch has not made a provision for these lawsuits because it believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the complaints. Additionally, the amount of this contingency cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time.

The “Virgen Maria” Mining Concessions of the Tía Maria Mining Project

The Tia Maria project includes various mining concessions, totaling 32,989.64 hectares. One of the concessions is the “Virgen María” mining concession totaling 943.72 hectares, or 2.9% of the total.

Related to the “Virgen María” mining concessions, the Company is party to the following lawsuits:

a) Exploraciones de Concesiones Metalicas S.A.C. (“Excomet”): In August 2009, a lawsuit was filed against SCC’s Branch by the former stockholders of Excomet. The plaintiffs allege that the acquisition of Excomet’s shares by the Branch is null and void because the $2 million purchase price paid by the Branch for the shares of Excomet was not fairly negotiated by the plaintiffs and the Branch. In 2005, the Branch acquired the shares of Excomet after lengthy negotiations with the plaintiffs, and after the plaintiffs, which were all the stockholders of Excomet, approved the transaction in a general stockholders’ meeting. Excomet was at the time owner of the “Virgen Maria” mining concession. In October 2011, the civil court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. Upon appeal by the plaintiffs, the superior court reversed the lower court decision. At December 31, 2012, the case is pending resolution.

b) Sociedad Minera de Responsabilidad Limitada Virgen Maria de Arequipa (SMRL Virgen Maria): In August 2010, a lawsuit was filed against SCC’s Branch and others by SMRL Virgen Maria, a company which until July 2003 owned the mining concession Virgen Maria. SMRL Virgen Maria sold this mining concession in July 2003 to Excomet (see a) above). The plaintiff alleges that the sale of the mining concession Virgen Maria to Excomet is null and void because the persons who attended the shareholders’ meeting of SMRL Virgen Maria, at which the purchase was agreed upon, were not the real owners of the shares. The plaintiff is also pursuing the nullity of all the subsequent acts regarding the mining property (acquisition of the shares of Excomet by SCC’s Branch, noted above, and the sale of this concession to SCC’s Branch by Excomet). On October, 2011, the civil court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. Upon appeal by the plaintiffs, the superior court remanded the proceedings to the lower court, ordering the issuance of a new decision. At December 31, 2012, the case is pending resolution.

c) Omar Nuñez Melgar: In May 2011, Mr. Omar Nuñez Melgar commenced a lawsuit against the Peruvian Mining and Metallurgical Institute (“INGEMMET”) and MINEM challenging the denial of his request of a new mining concession that conflicted with SCC’s Branch’s Virgen Maria mining concession. SCC’s Branch has been made a party to the proceedings as the owner of the Virgen Maria concession. SCC’s Branch has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. As of December 31, 2012, this case remains open with no further developments.

The Company asserts that the lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against these lawsuits.

Special Regional Pasto Grande Project (“Pasto Grande Project”)

In the last quarter of 2012, the Pasto Grande Project, an entity of the Regional Government of Moquegua, filed a lawsuit against SCC’s Peruvian Branch alleging property rights over a certain area used by the Peruvian Branch and seeking the demolition of the tailings dam where SCC’s Peruvian Branch has deposited its tailings from the Toquepala and Cuajone operations since 1995. The Peruvian Branch has had title to use the area in question since 1960 and has constructed and operated the tailing dams with proper governmental authorization, since 1995. SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against the lawsuit.

Mexican Operations

Pasta de Conchos Accident:

On February 19, 2010, three widows of miners, who perished in the 2006 Pasta de Conchos accident, filed a complaint for damages in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the defendants, Grupo Mexico, AMC and SCC. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ purported failure to maintain a safe working environment at the mine amounted to a violation of several laws and treaties. The Company considers that the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims and will defend itself vigorously. On April 13, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. On March 29, 2011, the District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On April 5, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in this case. On November 7, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Unites States District Court of the District of Arizona, which had dismissed in its entirety the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs can seek review of the decision before the Supreme Court.

Labor matters:

Peru

Approximately 63% of the Company’s 4,566 Peruvian employees were unionized at December 31, 2012, represented by eight separate unions. Three of these unions, one at each major production area, represent 2,202 workers. Also, there are five smaller unions, representing the balance of workers. The Company conducted negotiations with the eight unions whose collective bargaining agreements expired in 2012. During the first two months of 2013, the Company has signed three-year agreements with all the unions. The agreements include, among other things, annual salary increases of 6.5%, 5% and 5% for each of the three years, respectively, for all workers.

There were no strikes during 2011 and 2010. On December 24 and 25, 2012 the three major unions held a two-day illegal work stoppage which did not have a material impact on production.

Mexico

In recent years, the Mexican operations have experienced a positive improvement of their labor environment, as our workers, in a free decision, opted to change their affiliation from the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores Mineros, Metalúrgicos y Similares de la Republica Mexicana (National Union of Mine and Metal Workers and Similar Activities of the Mexican Republic or the “National Mining Union”) to other unions. In 2006, workers of our Mexicana del Cobre mining complex and IMMSA joined the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Exploración, Explotación y Beneficio de Minas en la Republica Mexicana, (National Union of Workers Engaged in Exploration, Exploitation and Processing of Mines in the Mexican Republic ), and the Mexicana del Cobre metallurgical workers joined the Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Industria Minero Metalurgica (Union of Workers of the Mine and Metals Industry or the “CTM”). Finally, in 2011 our Buenavista del Cobre workers joined the CTM. This positive labor environment allows us to increase our productivity and to develop our capital expansion programs.

The workers of the San Martin and Taxco mines, still under the National Mining Union, have been on strike since July 2007. On December 10, 2009, a federal court confirmed the legality of the San Martin strike. In order to recover the control of the San Martin mine and resume operations, on January 27, 2011, the Company filed a court petition requesting that the court, among other things define the termination payment for each unionized worker. The court denied the petition alleging that, according to federal labor law, the union was the only legitimate party to file such petition. On appeal by the Company, on May 13, 2011, the Mexican federal tribunal accepted the petition. In July 2011, the National Mining Union appealed the favorable court decision before the Supreme Court. On November 7, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the federal tribunal. The Company filed a new proceeding before the labor court on the basis of the Supreme Court decision, which recognized the right of the labor court to define responsibility for the strike and the termination payment for each unionized worker. A favorable decision of the labor court in this new proceeding would have the effect of terminating the protracted strike at San Martin.

In July 2012, Minera Krypton, a Mexican mining company, not affiliated with Grupo Mexico or the Company, hired 130 workers for the rehabilitation of its mining unit at Chalchihuites, Zacatecas. Most of these workers, which are or were workers of the San Martin mine, in order to work for Minera Krypton joined a new union called, the Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Industria Minera y Similares de la Republica Mexicana (Union of Workers of the Mine and Metals Industry and Similar Activities of the Mexican Republic or the “Union of Mexican Mine and Metal Workers”). On August, 31 2012, the Union of Mexican Mine and Metal Workers filed a petition with the labor authorities to replace the existing union at the San Martin mine. On September 1, 2012, the workers affiliated with the Union of Mexican Mine and Metal Workers took over the San Martin mine evicting the workers on strike. Several hearings took place during September 2012 with the federal labor authorities. On October 12, 2012, the federal labor court ordered and enforced a recount in order to establish which union will hold the collective bargaining agreement. The Union of Mexican Mine and Metal Workers lost the recount. The result of the recount was challenged by the Union of Mexican Mine and Metal Workers and is pending resolution.

In the case of the Taxco mine, following the workers refusal to allow exploration of new reserves, the Company commenced litigation seeking to terminate the labor relationship with workers of the Taxco mine (including the related collective bargaining agreement). On September 1, 2010, the federal labor court issued a ruling approving the termination of the collective bargaining agreement and all the individual labor contracts of the workers affiliated with the Mexican mining union at the Taxco mine. The ruling was based upon the resistance of the mining union to allow the Company search for reserves at the Taxco mine. The mining union appealed the labor court ruling before a federal court. In September 2011, the federal court accepted the union’s appeal and requested that the federal labor court review the procedure and take into account all the evidence to issue a new resolution. On January 3, 2012, the federal labor court issued a new resolution, approving the termination of the collective bargaining agreement and all the individual labor contracts of the workers affiliated with the National Mining Union at the Taxco mine. On January 25, 2012, the National Mining Union appealed the resolution before the federal court. On June 14, 2012, the federal court accepted the union’s appeal and requested that the federal labor court issue a new resolution, taking into account all the evidence submitted by the parties. On August 6, 2012, the federal labor court issued a new decision disapproving the termination of the collective bargaining agreement and the individual labor contracts of the workers affiliated with the National Mining Union at the Taxco mine. On August 29, 2012, the Company filed a proceeding seeking relief from the decision before a federal court. As of December 31, 2012, resolution of the relief proceeding was pending.

It is expected that operations at these mines will remain suspended until these labor issues are resolved.

Other legal matters:

Class actions

For the resolution of the three purported class action derivative lawsuits, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (New Castle County) late in December 2004 and early January 2005 relating to the proposed merger transaction between the Company and Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V., which was completed effective April 1, 2005. (see Note 14 “Stockholders’ Equity”).

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to its operations, but the Company does not believe that decisions adverse to it in any such proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Other Contingencies:

Tia Maria:

Tia Maria, an over $1.0 billion Peruvian investment project, was suspended by governmental action in April 2011 in light of protests and disruptions carried out by a small group of activists who alleged, among other things, that the project would result in severe environmental contamination and the diversion of agricultural water resources.

The Company is preparing a new EIA study that we believe will take into account local community concerns and new government guidance. The Company considers that this new EIA process will alleviate all the concerns previously raised by the Tia Maria project’s neighboring communities, provide them with an independent source of information and reaffirm the validity of the Company’s assessment of the project. The Company is confident that this initiative will have a positive effect on its stakeholders and will allow the Company to obtain the approval for the development of the 120,000 ton annual production copper project. In view of the delays, the mining operations for the project have been rescheduled to start-up in 2016, contingent upon receiving all required governmental approvals in the time frame provided by law. No assurances can be given as to the specific timing of each such approval.

The Company has legal and valid title to the Tia Maria mining concessions and the over-lapping surface land in the area. None of above noted activities have in any way challenged, revoked, impaired or annulled the Company´s legal rights to the Tia Maria mining concessions and/or the over-lapping surface land titles acquired in the past. All the Company’s property rights on these areas are in full force.

In view of the suspension of this project, the Company has reviewed the carrying value of this asset to ascertain whether impairment exists. Total spending on the project, through December 31, 2012, was $480.7 million of which $176.7 million of Tia Maria equipment has been reassigned to other Company operations. As the project is currently on hold, some of the equipment has been transferred to other Company operations in Mexico and Peru. Should the Tia Maria project not be restarted, the Company is confident that most of the project equipment will continue to be used productively, through reassignment to other mine locations operated by the Company. The Company believes that an impairment loss, if any, will not be material.

Other commitments:

Power purchase agreement

In 1997, SCC sold its Ilo power plant to an independent power company, Enersur S.A. (“Enersur”). In connection with the sale, a power purchase agreement (“PPA”) was also completed under which SCC agreed to purchase all of its power needs for its current Peruvian operations from Enersur for twenty years, commencing in 1997.

The Company signed in 2009 a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Enersur regarding its PPA. The MOU contains new economic terms that the Company believes better reflects current economic conditions in the power industry in Peru. The new economic conditions agreed to in the MOU have been applied by Enersur to its invoices to the Company since May 2009. Additionally, the MOU includes an option for providing power for the Tia Maria project. However, due to the delay at the Tia Maria project the final agreement was put on hold, see caption “Tia Maria” above.

Tax contingency matters:

Tax contingencies are provided for under ASC 740-10-50-15 Uncertain tax position (see Note 7, “Income taxes”).