Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Royalty Agreements

The Company has minimum royalty obligations with certain of its mineral properties and leases. For most of the mineral properties and leases, the Company is subject to a range of royalty obligations once production commences. These royalties range from 0.5% to 5% of net smelter revenues ("NSR") from minerals produced on the properties, with the majority being under 3%. Some of the factors that will influence the amount of the royalties include ounces extracted and the price of gold.

Regulatory Compliance

The Company’s mining and exploration activities are subject to various laws and regulations for protecting the environment. These laws and regulations are continually changing and are generally becoming more restrictive. The Company believes its operations are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations in all material respects. The Company has made and expects to continue making expenditures to comply with such laws and regulations, but cannot fully predict such future expenditures.

Comstock Residents Association

On January 31, 2014, the Comstock Residents Association (the “CRA”) and two of its members filed a civil action in the Third Judicial District Court in Lyon County, Nevada (the “District Court”) against the Lyon County Board of Commissioners (the “Commissioners”) and the Company, asking the District Court to reverse the Commissioners’ decision to grant an application for master plan amendment and zone change submitted and approved by the Commissioners in 2014 (the “Application”).

Prior to the approval of the Application, the master plan designation and zoning precluded mining on certain property of the Company in the area of Silver City, Nevada. In April 2015, the District Court ruled in favor of the Company and the Commissioners. The written Order Denying Petition for Judicial Review was filed and mailed to all parties on June 15, 2015. On July 14, 2015, the CRA and one individual (together “Appellants”) filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court Order, appealing the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. On December 9, 2015, Appellants filed their Opening Brief in the Nevada Supreme Court, generally repeating the arguments that were made at the District Court. On January 15, 2016, the Company and the Commissioners jointly filed an Answering Brief. Briefing in the Nevada Supreme Court was completed with the Appellants’ filing of a Reply Brief on March 3, 2016. Oral arguments before a three-judge panel took place on September 14, 2016.

On December 2, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court entered an order affirming all three of the District Court’s decisions associated with 1) the Commissioners’ discretion and authority for changing master plans and zoning, 2) their compliance with Nevada’s Open Meeting Law and 3) their compliance with Nevada statutory provisions. Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s conclusions that Lyon County did not abuse its discretion and that it acted with substantial evidence in support of their decision, that the County did not violate Nevada’s Open Meeting Law or any other statutes.

The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of CRA’s claim of a due process violation, concluding that this claim should not have been dismissed and that further proceedings are necessary in the District Court on this single claim.  The District Court concluded that the Supreme Court's reversal of CRA's due process claim required that CRA be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery and allowed CRA the time to conduct discovery on its due process claim. The Company responded to the CRA discovery request on February 20, 2018, and the District Court held a hearing on April 23, 2018. Additional discovery was also allowed by the District Court. On May 14, 2019, the Court held a hearing on CRA’s due process claim and issued its ruling from the bench. The Court concluded that CRA, having been afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery, was unable to meet its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Lyon County had denied CRA of its due process rights. The Court, therefore, denied CRA's due process claim. On July 11, 2019, the Court issued and filed a formal judgment in favor of Lyon County and Comstock Mining. The Company and Lyon County have filed a motion to recover attorney's fees and costs from the CRA.

On August 14, 2019, the CRA filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the judgment to the Nevada Supreme Court. CRA filed their Opening Brief on January 24, 2020. The Company’s Answering Brief was filed on March 25, 2020.  The appellate briefing was completed with the filing of CRA’s Reply Brief on May 8, 2020.  To date, the Nevada Supreme Court has taken no action.

OSHA Complaint

On or about February 27, 2020, the Company received notice that three former employees had filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor - Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) regarding alleged wrongful termination of employment in 2019, seeking backpay, frontpay and other compensatory damages, including interest and legal costs. On April 10, 2020, the Company filed its reply to the complaint, and believes that those terminations were appropriate and lawful and intends to vigorously defend the complaint.

From time to time, we are involved in claims, investigations and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. There are no other matters pending that we expect to have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.