Note 4 - Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations General We follow GAAP guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss 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 loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred. Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters In December 2013, the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no. 3 to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water. We completed the investigation mandated by the EPA and submitted a draft report to the agency in December 2015. We are waiting for the EPA’s response and we cannot predict what further action, if any, the agency may take. Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County and San Mateo Creek Basin, New Mexico In May 2011, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company may be responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M Mine was conducted for a limited period of time by a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In August 2012, Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Order”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i) $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site under the Consent Order, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs and in December 2014 submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates three alternative response actions: 1) no action, 2) off-site disposal, and 3) on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is $0 to $221 million. In the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommended that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost $5.6 million, on the basis that it is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. In June 2015, the EPA approved the EE/CA, with a few minor conditions. The EPA must still publish the EE/CA for public notice and comment, and the agency will not make a final decision on the appropriate response action until the public comment process is complete. It is anticipated that Hecla Limited will implement the response action selected by the EPA pursuant to an amendment to the Consent Order or a new order. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we accrued $5.6 million, which continues to be our best estimate of that liability as of the date of this report. There can be no assurance that Hecla Limited’s liability will not be more than $5.6 million, or that its ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results of operations or financial position. The Johnny M Mine is in an area known as the San Mateo Creek Basin (“SMCB”), which is an approximately 321 square mile area in New Mexico that contains numerous legacy uranium mines and mills. In addition to Johnny M, Hecla Limited's predecessor was involved at other mining sites within the SMCB. The EPA is considering listing the entire SMCB on CERCLA’s National Priorities List in order to address perceived groundwater issues within the SMCB. The EE/CA discussed above relates primarily to contaminated rock and soil, not groundwater. In the event that the SMCB is listed as a Superfund site, or for other reasons, it is possible that Hecla Limited’s liability at the Johnny M Site, and for any other mine site within the SMCB at which Hecla Limited's predecessor may have operated, will be greater than our current accrual of $5.6 million due to the increased scope of required remediation. In July 2018, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it and several other potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated it has incurred approximately $9.6 million in response costs to date. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site, including the relative contributions of contamination by the various PRPs. Carpenter Snow Creek and Barker-Hughesville Sites in Montana In July 2010, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early 1980s Hecla Limited leased 6 mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in 1988. In June 2011, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, among several other viable companies, may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the letter that it has incurred approximately $4.5 million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs may exceed $100 million. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site, including the relative contributions of contamination by various other PRPs. In February 2017, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Barker-Hughesville Mining District Superfund site located in Judith Basin and Cascade Counties, Montana. Hecla Limited submitted a response in April 2017. The Barker-Hughesville site is located in a historic mining district, and between approximately June and December 1983, Hecla Limited was party to an agreement with another mining company under which limited exploration activities occurred at or near the site. In August 2018, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it and several other PRPs may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA did not include an amount of its alleged response costs to date. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning past or anticipated future costs at the site and the relative contributions of contamination by various other PRPs. Potential Claim for Indemnification Against CoCa Mines, Inc. In 1991, Hecla Limited acquired CoCa Mines, Inc. (“CoCa”) and its subsidiary Creede Resources, Inc. (“CRI”). CoCa and CRI previously operated in the State of Colorado, but presently have limited assets and operations. Beginning in 2014, and most recently in January 2019, a third party has alleged that CoCa and CRI are required by a 1989 agreement to indemnify it for certain environmental costs and liabilities it may incur with respect to the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund site in Creede, Colorado. To date, no claim for indemnification has been made against CoCa or CRI; however, in January 2019, the party alleged that it may soon reach a settlement with the EPA under CERCLA with respect to the site, at which point it would then seek reimbursement from CoCa and CRI of all amounts paid to the EPA, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Until any such claim is made, we cannot predict whether a liability will be incurred or the amount of any such liability; however, as noted above, both CoCa and CRI have limited assets with which to satisfy any claim. Montanore Project In October 2018, a court in Lincoln County, Montana found that the adit (which is an underground tunnel) which we had intended to use to develop the Montanore project trespassed on certain unpatented mining claims we do not own, but through which the adit passes. In the case, which dates back to 2008, the jury delivered a verdict against certain of our subsidiaries for $3,325,000. The subsidiaries appealed the finding of trespass and the award of damages to the Montana Supreme Court, and we believe there are strong arguments for reversal. There can be no assurance that the appeal will succeed. Further, on May 6, 2019, one of the subsidiaries received a letter from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") questioning the validity of its operating permit at Montanore in light of the trespass finding. Our subsidiary responded by explaining that we do not believe the two issues are related. There has been no response to date from DEQ. Finally, on July 24, 2019, a Montana state court issued an order vacating Montanore's water discharge permit, which was renewed effective as of May 1, 2014, and remanded the matter back to DEQ. As of June 30, 2019, we have accrued $1.1 million for estimated future reclamation costs at the Montanore project, and have surety bonding in place for that amount. Litigation Related to Klondex Acquisition Following the announcement of our proposed acquisition of Klondex, Klondex and members of the Klondex board of directors were named as defendants in several putative stockholder class actions brought by purported stockholders of Klondex challenging the proposed merger. The lawsuits were all filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On December 18, 2018, the remaining three cases were consolidated into a single case, Lawson v. Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284 (D. Nev. June 15, 2018). The plaintiffs generally claim that Klondex issued a proxy statement that included misstatements or omissions, in violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to obtain rescissory damages and recover attorneys’ fees and costs. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation matters with certainty, each of Klondex and its directors believe that each of the lawsuits are without merit, and the parties intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted. On September 11, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court of Justice by Waterton Nevada Splitter LLC against Hecla Mining Company, our subsidiary Klondex Mines Unlimited Liability Company and Havilah Mining Corporation, an entity that was formed to own the Canadian assets of Klondex that we did not acquire as part of the Klondex acquisition, and of which we own approximately 13%. The lawsuit alleges that Hecla and Havilah are in breach of contract in connection with the issuance to Waterton of warrants to purchase Hecla common stock and Havilah common shares to replace warrants to purchase Klondex common shares that Waterton owned prior to the July 2018 acquisition. The lawsuit claims Hecla and Havilah issued warrants to Waterton valued at $3.7 million but that Waterton was entitled to warrants valued at $8.9 million. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend it. On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Hecla and certain of our executive officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018, through and including May 8, 2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain false and misleading statements and allegedly omitted certain material information regarding Hecla’s Nevada Operations unit. The complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually identical claims. We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. Related to the above described class action lawsuits, Hecla has been named as a nominal defendant in two shareholder derivative lawsuits which name as defendants members of Hecla’s board of directors and certain officers. The cases were filed on July 12 and August 2, 2019, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In general terms, the suits allege (i) violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and seek damages, purportedly on behalf of Hecla. Debt As discussed in Note 9, on April 12, 2013, we completed an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes. The net proceeds from the offering of the Senior Notes were used to partially fund the acquisition of Aurizon Mines Ltd. ("Aurizon") and for general corporate purposes, including expenses related to the Aurizon acquisition. Through the acquisition of Aurizon, we acquired our Casa Berardi mine and other interests in Quebec, Canada. In 2014, we completed additional issuances of our Senior Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $6.5 million, which were contributed to one of our pension plans to satisfy the funding requirement for 2014. Interest on the Senior Notes is payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing November 1, 2013. On March 5, 2018, we entered into a note purchase agreement pursuant to which we issued CAD$40 million (approximately USD$30.8 million at the time of the transaction) in aggregate principal amount of our Series 2018-A Senior Notes due May 1, 2021 (the “Notes”) to Ressources Québec, a subsidiary of Investissment Québec, a financing arm of the Québec government. The Notes were issued at a discount of 0.58%, and bear interest at a rate of 4.68% per year, payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing May 1, 2018. The Notes are senior and unsecured and are pari passu in all material respects with the Senior Notes, including with respect to guarantees of the Notes by certain of our subsidiaries. The net proceeds from the Notes are required to be used for development and expansion of our Casa Berardi mine. See Note 9 for more information. Other Commitments Our contractual obligations as of June 30, 2019 included approximately $2.5 million for various costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at June 30, 2019 included approximately $1.6 million, $0.4 million, $4.4 million and $0.8 million for various capital and non-capital items at the Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi, Greens Creek and Nevada Operations units, respectively. We also have total commitments of approximately $14.3 million relating to scheduled payments on finance leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi and Nevada Operations units and total commitments of approximately $19.2 million on operating leases (see Note 9 for more information). As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit, and restricted deposits for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of June 30, 2019, we had surety bonds totaling $191.8 million and letters of credit totaling $3.0 million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure costs, self-insurance, and employee benefit plans. Subsequent to June 30, 2019, we increased our letters of credit to a total of $23.0 million as of the date of this report. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels 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 of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding requirements and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise. Other Contingencies We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently have no basis to conclude that any or all of such contingencies will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there may be changes to these contingencies, or additional contingencies may occur, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in current accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 4 - Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

Note 4. Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations

General

We follow GAAP guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss 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 loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred.

Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters

In December 2013, the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no. 3 to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water. We completed the investigation mandated by the EPA and submitted a draft report to the agency in December 2015. We are waiting for the EPA’s response and we cannot predict what further action, if any, the agency may take.

Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County and San Mateo Creek Basin, New Mexico

In May 2011, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company may be responsible under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M Mine was conducted for a limited period of time by a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In August 2012, Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Order”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i) $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site under the Consent Order, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs and in December 2014 submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates three alternative response actions: 1) no action, 2) off-site disposal, and 3) on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is $0 to $221 million. In the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommended that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost $5.6 million, on the basis that it is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. In June 2015, the EPA approved the EE/CA, with a few minor conditions. The EPA must still publish the EE/CA for public notice and comment, and the agency will not make a final decision on the appropriate response action until the public comment process is complete. It is anticipated that Hecla Limited will implement the response action selected by the EPA pursuant to an amendment to the Consent Order or a new order. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we accrued $5.6 million, which continues to be our best estimate of that liability as of the date of this report. There can be no assurance that Hecla Limited’s liability will not be more than $5.6 million, or that its ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results of operations or financial position.

The Johnny M Mine is in an area known as the San Mateo Creek Basin (“SMCB”), which is an approximately 321 square mile area in New Mexico that contains numerous legacy uranium mines and mills. In addition to Johnny M, Hecla Limited's predecessor was involved at other mining sites within the SMCB. The EPA is considering listing the entire SMCB on CERCLA’s National Priorities List in order to address perceived groundwater issues within the SMCB. The EE/CA discussed above relates primarily to contaminated rock and soil, not groundwater. In the event that the SMCB is listed as a Superfund site, or for other reasons, it is possible that Hecla Limited’s liability at the Johnny M Site, and for any other mine site within the SMCB at which Hecla Limited's predecessor may have operated, will be greater than our current accrual of $5.6 million due to the increased scope of required remediation.

In July 2018, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it and several other potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated it has incurred approximately $9.6 million in response costs to date. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site, including the relative contributions of contamination by the various PRPs.

Carpenter Snow Creek and Barker-Hughesville Sites in Montana

In July 2010, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early 1980s Hecla Limited leased 6 mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in 1988.

In June 2011, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, among several other viable companies, may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the letter that it has incurred approximately $4.5 million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs may exceed $100 million. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site, including the relative contributions of contamination by various other PRPs.

In February 2017, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Barker-Hughesville Mining District Superfund site located in Judith Basin and Cascade Counties, Montana. Hecla Limited submitted a response in April 2017. The Barker-Hughesville site is located in a historic mining district, and between approximately June and December 1983, Hecla Limited was party to an agreement with another mining company under which limited exploration activities occurred at or near the site.

In August 2018, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it and several other PRPs may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA did not include an amount of its alleged response costs to date. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning past or anticipated future costs at the site and the relative contributions of contamination by various other PRPs.

Potential Claim for Indemnification Against CoCa Mines, Inc.

In 1991, Hecla Limited acquired CoCa Mines, Inc. (“CoCa”) and its subsidiary Creede Resources, Inc. (“CRI”). CoCa and CRI previously operated in the State of Colorado, but presently have limited assets and operations. Beginning in 2014, and most recently in January 2019, a third party has alleged that CoCa and CRI are required by a 1989 agreement to indemnify it for certain environmental costs and liabilities it may incur with respect to the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund site in Creede, Colorado. To date, no claim for indemnification has been made against CoCa or CRI; however, in January 2019, the party alleged that it may soon reach a settlement with the EPA under CERCLA with respect to the site, at which point it would then seek reimbursement from CoCa and CRI of all amounts paid to the EPA, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Until any such claim is made, we cannot predict whether a liability will be incurred or the amount of any such liability; however, as noted above, both CoCa and CRI have limited assets with which to satisfy any claim.

Montanore Project

In October 2018, a court in Lincoln County, Montana found that the adit (which is an underground tunnel) which we had intended to use to develop the Montanore project trespassed on certain unpatented mining claims we do not own, but through which the adit passes. In the case, which dates back to 2008, the jury delivered a verdict against certain of our subsidiaries for $3,325,000. The subsidiaries appealed the finding of trespass and the award of damages to the Montana Supreme Court, and we believe there are strong arguments for reversal. There can be no assurance that the appeal will succeed. Further, on May 6, 2019, one of the subsidiaries received a letter from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") questioning the validity of its operating permit at Montanore in light of the trespass finding. Our subsidiary responded by explaining that we do not believe the two issues are related. There has been no response to date from DEQ. Finally, on July 24, 2019, a Montana state court issued an order vacating Montanore's water discharge permit, which was renewed effective as of May 1, 2014, and remanded the matter back to DEQ. As of June 30, 2019, we have accrued $1.1 million for estimated future reclamation costs at the Montanore project, and have surety bonding in place for that amount.

Litigation Related to Klondex Acquisition

Following the announcement of our proposed acquisition of Klondex, Klondex and members of the Klondex board of directors were named as defendants in several putative stockholder class actions brought by purported stockholders of Klondex challenging the proposed merger. The lawsuits were all filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On December 18, 2018, the remaining three cases were consolidated into a single case, Lawson v. Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284 (D. Nev. June 15, 2018).

The plaintiffs generally claim that Klondex issued a proxy statement that included misstatements or omissions, in violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to obtain rescissory damages and recover attorneys’ fees and costs.

Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation matters with certainty, each of Klondex and its directors believe that each of the lawsuits are without merit, and the parties intend to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.

On September 11, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court of Justice by Waterton Nevada Splitter LLC against Hecla Mining Company, our subsidiary Klondex Mines Unlimited Liability Company and Havilah Mining Corporation, an entity that was formed to own the Canadian assets of Klondex that we did not acquire as part of the Klondex acquisition, and of which we own approximately 13%. The lawsuit alleges that Hecla and Havilah are in breach of contract in connection with the issuance to Waterton of warrants to purchase Hecla common stock and Havilah common shares to replace warrants to purchase Klondex common shares that Waterton owned prior to the July 2018 acquisition. The lawsuit claims Hecla and Havilah issued warrants to Waterton valued at $3.7 million but that Waterton was entitled to warrants valued at $8.9 million. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend it.

On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Hecla and certain of our executive officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018, through and including May 8, 2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain false and misleading statements and allegedly omitted certain material information regarding Hecla’s Nevada Operations unit. The complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually identical claims. We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.

Related to the above described class action lawsuits, Hecla has been named as a nominal defendant in two shareholder derivative lawsuits which name as defendants members of Hecla’s board of directors and certain officers. The cases were filed on July 12 and August 2, 2019, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In general terms, the suits allege (i) violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and seek damages, purportedly on behalf of Hecla.

Debt

As discussed in Note 9, on April 12, 2013, we completed an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes. The net proceeds from the offering of the Senior Notes were used to partially fund the acquisition of Aurizon Mines Ltd. ("Aurizon") and for general corporate purposes, including expenses related to the Aurizon acquisition. Through the acquisition of Aurizon, we acquired our Casa Berardi mine and other interests in Quebec, Canada. In 2014, we completed additional issuances of our Senior Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $6.5 million, which were contributed to one of our pension plans to satisfy the funding requirement for 2014. Interest on the Senior Notes is payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing November 1, 2013.

On March 5, 2018, we entered into a note purchase agreement pursuant to which we issued CAD$40 million (approximately USD$30.8 million at the time of the transaction) in aggregate principal amount of our Series 2018-A Senior Notes due May 1, 2021 (the “Notes”) to Ressources Québec, a subsidiary of Investissment Québec, a financing arm of the Québec government. The Notes were issued at a discount of 0.58%, and bear interest at a rate of 4.68% per year, payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing May 1, 2018. The Notes are senior and unsecured and are pari passu in all material respects with the Senior Notes, including with respect to guarantees of the Notes by certain of our subsidiaries. The net proceeds from the Notes are required to be used for development and expansion of our Casa Berardi mine.

See Note 9 for more information.

Other Commitments

Our contractual obligations as of June 30, 2019 included approximately $2.5 million for various costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at June 30, 2019 included approximately $1.6 million, $0.4 million, $4.4 million and $0.8 million for various capital and non-capital items at the Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi, Greens Creek and Nevada Operations units, respectively. We also have total commitments of approximately $14.3 million relating to scheduled payments on finance leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi and Nevada Operations units and total commitments of approximately $19.2 million on operating leases (see Note 9 for more information). As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit, and restricted deposits for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of June 30, 2019, we had surety bonds totaling $191.8 million and letters of credit totaling $3.0 million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure costs, self-insurance, and employee benefit plans. Subsequent to June 30, 2019, we increased our letters of credit to a total of $23.0 million as of the date of this report. The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels 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 of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding requirements and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise.

Other Contingencies

We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently have no basis to conclude that any or all of such contingencies will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there may be changes to these contingencies, or additional contingencies may occur, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in current accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.