XML 128 R47.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.4
CONTINGENCIES
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]  
CONTINGENCIES Contingencies
Certain conditions may exist as of the date the financial statements are issued that may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. The impact of any resulting loss from such matters affecting these financial statements and noted below may be material.

Litigation and Claims
In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against us or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company with assistance from its legal counsel, evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought.

Proposed Canadian Securities Class Actions (Pascua-Lama)
Between April and September 2014, eight proposed class actions were commenced against the Company in Canada in connection with the Pascua-Lama project. Four of the proceedings were commenced in Ontario, two were commenced in Alberta, one was commenced in Saskatchewan, and one was commenced in Quebec. The proceedings alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements to the investing public relating to (among other things) capital cost and schedule estimates for the Pascua-Lama project (the “Project”), environmental compliance matters in Chile, as well as alleged internal control failures and certain accounting-related matters.
Two of the Ontario proceedings were subsequently consolidated into one proceeding. That consolidated proceeding and the Quebec proceeding have moved ahead in the manner described below. None of the other five proceedings has been pursued. One was never served, one was dismissed on consent, two were discontinued and one was stayed by Court order.
The Statement of Claim in the remaining Ontario proceeding indicates that the proposed representative plaintiffs purport to seek damages on behalf of any person who acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013. The defendants in this
proceeding are the Company and Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter Kinver (all of whom are former officers of the Company), and the claim for damages is stated to be more than $3 billion. In August 2018, the Company and other defendants delivered their Statement of Defence. In June 2019, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that they are pursuing claims only in respect of the period from July 28, 2011 to November 1, 2013.
The Quebec proceeding purports to be on behalf of any person who resides in Quebec and acquired Barrick securities during the period from May 7, 2009 to November 1, 2013. However, the parties agreed that, by operation of the applicable statute of limitations, statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims could only be pursued in respect of the period from April 30, 2011 to November 1, 2013. The focus of the Quebec proceeding is on allegations concerning the Company’s public disclosures relating to matters of environmental compliance. The defendants are the Company and Messrs. Regent, Sokalsky, Al-Joundi and Kinver, and an unspecified amount of damages is being sought. No Statement of Defence has been filed or is required to be filed at this stage.
In both Ontario and Quebec, the proposed representative plaintiffs have brought motions seeking: (i) leave of the Court to proceed with statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims pursuant to provincial securities legislation; and (ii) orders certifying the actions as class actions, and therefore allowing the proposed representative plaintiffs to pursue statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims and other claims on behalf of the proposed classes.
In the Quebec proceeding, both motions were heard in May 2019 with additional oral submissions in December 2019. In March 2020, the Superior Court of Quebec denied both motions. As a result, subject to appeal, the proposed representative plaintiff cannot pursue the statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims, and can only pursue his other purported claims on an individual basis rather than on behalf of other shareholders. The proposed representative plaintiff has filed an appeal. The hearing of that appeal has not yet been scheduled.
In the Ontario proceeding, the motion for leave to proceed with statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims was heard in July 2019. In October 2019, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed all but one of those claims, and dismissed all of the statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims as against Mr. Regent and Mr. Kinver. With respect to the sole remaining statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim, the Court denied leave to proceed in respect of securityholders other than common shareholders. The sole remaining statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim pertains to a statement concerning the water management system in Chile made by the Company in its Management's Discussion and Analysis for the second quarter of 2012. The Company filed a motion in the Divisional Court for leave to appeal the decision to allow that claim to proceed. The motion for leave to appeal was denied in October 2020. The proposed representative plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in respect of the claims that were dismissed. That appeal was heard over two days in November 2020. The Court has reserved judgment.
The motion for class certification in Ontario has not yet been heard. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has indicated that it currently does not intend to hear that motion until after the Court of Appeal for Ontario has decided the appeal described above.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the remaining proposed Canadian securities class actions. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from any of the proposed class actions, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Pascua-Lama – SMA Regulatory Sanctions
In May 2013, Compañía Minera Nevada (“CMN”), Barrick’s Chilean subsidiary that holds the Chilean portion of the Project, received a Resolution (the “Original Resolution”) from Chile’s environmental regulator (the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente, or “SMA”) that requires CMN to complete the water management system for the Project in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit before resuming construction activities in Chile. The Original Resolution also required CMN to pay an administrative fine of approximately $16 million for deviations from certain requirements of the Project’s Chilean environmental approval, including a series of reporting requirements and instances of non-compliance related to the Project’s water management system. CMN paid the administrative fine in May 2013.
In June 2013, CMN began engineering studies to review the Project’s water management system in accordance with the Original Resolution. The studies were suspended in the second half of 2015 as a result of CMN’s decision to file a temporary and partial closure plan for the Project. The review of the Project’s water management system may require a new environmental approval and the construction of additional water management facilities.
In June 2013, a group of local farmers and indigenous communities challenged the Original Resolution. The challenge, which was brought in the Environmental Court of Santiago, Chile (the “Environmental Court”), claimed that the fine was inadequate and requested more severe sanctions against CMN including the revocation of the Project’s environmental permit. The SMA presented its defense of the Original Resolution in July 2013. On August 2, 2013, CMN joined as a party to this proceeding and vigorously defended the Original Resolution. On March 3, 2014, the Environmental Court annulled the Original Resolution and remanded the matter back to the SMA for
further consideration in accordance with its decision (the “Environmental Court Decision”). In particular, the Environmental Court ordered the SMA to issue a new administrative decision that recalculated the amount of the fine to be paid by CMN using a different methodology and addressed certain other errors it identified in the Original Resolution. The Environmental Court did not annul the portion of the Original Resolution that required the Company to halt construction on the Chilean side of the Project until the water management system is completed in accordance with the Project’s environmental permit. On December 30, 2014, the Chilean Supreme Court declined to consider CMN’s appeal of the Environmental Court Decision on procedural grounds. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, on April 22, 2015, the SMA reopened the administrative proceeding against CMN in accordance with the Environmental Court Decision.
On April 22, 2015, CMN was notified that the SMA had initiated a new administrative proceeding for alleged deviations from certain requirements of the Project’s environmental approval, including with respect to the Project’s environmental impact and a series of monitoring requirements. In May 2015, CMN submitted a compliance program to address certain of the allegations and presented its defense to the remainder of the alleged deviations. The SMA rejected CMN’s proposed compliance program on June 24, 2015, and denied CMN’s administrative appeal of that decision on July 31, 2015. On December 30, 2016, the Environmental Court rejected CMN’s appeal and CMN declined to challenge this decision.
On June 8, 2016, the SMA consolidated the two administrative proceedings against CMN into a single proceeding encompassing both the reconsideration of the Original Resolution in accordance with the decision of the Environmental Court and the alleged deviations from the Project’s environmental approval notified by the SMA in April 2015.
On January 17, 2018, CMN received the revised resolution (the “Revised Resolution”) from the SMA, in which the environmental regulator reduced the original administrative fine from approximately $16 million to $11.5 million and ordered the closure of existing surface facilities on the Chilean side of the Project in addition to certain monitoring activities. The Revised Resolution does not revoke the Project’s environmental approval. CMN filed an appeal of the Revised Resolution on February 3, 2018 with the First Environmental Court of Antofagasta (the “Antofagasta Environmental Court”).
On October 12, 2018, the Antofagasta Environmental Court issued an administrative ruling ordering review of the significant sanctions ordered by the SMA. CMN was not a party to this process. In its ruling, the Antofagasta Environmental Court rejected four of the five closure orders contained in the Revised Resolution and remanded the related environmental infringements back to the SMA for further consideration. A new resolution from the SMA with respect to the sanctions for these four infringements could include a range of potential sanctions, including additional fines, as provided in the Chilean legislation. The Antofagasta Environmental Court upheld the SMA’s decision to order the closure of the Chilean side of the Project for the fifth infringement.
Following the issuance of the Revised Resolution, the Company reversed the estimated amount previously recorded for any additional proposed administrative fines in
this matter. In addition, the Company reclassified Pascua-Lama’s proven and probable gold reserves as measured and indicated resources and recorded a pre-tax impairment of $429 million in the fourth quarter of 2017. No additional amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from the Antofagasta Environmental Court’s October 12, 2018 ruling and subsequent review by the SMA, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses and the SMA has not issued any additional proposed administrative fines.
On March 14, 2019, the Chilean Supreme Court annulled the October 12, 2018 administrative decision of the Antofagasta Environmental Court on procedural grounds and remanded the case back to the Environmental Court for review by a different panel of judges.  The Chilean Supreme Court did not review the merits of the Revised Resolution, which remains in effect.
On September 17, 2020, the Antofagasta Environmental Court issued a ruling in which it upheld the closure order and sanctions imposed on CMN by the SMA in the Revised Resolution from January 2018. As part of its ruling, the Environmental Court also ordered the SMA to reevaluate certain environmental infringements contained in the Revised Resolution which may result in the imposition of additional fines against CMN. The Company confirmed that it will not appeal the Environmental Court’s decision, and the Chilean side of the Pascua-Lama project will now be transitioned to closure in accordance with that ruling.
On October 6, 2020, a group of local farmers challenged the Environmental Court’s decision. The challenge, which was brought before the Chilean Supreme Court, claims that the fines imposed by the SMA were inadequate and seeks to require the SMA to issue additional and more severe sanctions against CMN. The Chilean Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to accept this appeal.

Veladero – September 2015 Release of Cyanide-Bearing Process Solution
San Juan Provincial Regulatory Sanction Proceeding
On September 13, 2015, a valve on a leach pad pipeline at the Company’s Veladero mine in San Juan Province, Argentina failed, resulting in a release of cyanide-bearing process solution into a nearby waterway through a diversion channel gate that was open at the time of the incident. Minera Andina del Sol SRL (formerly, Minera Argentina Gold SRL) (“MAS”), Barrick’s Argentine subsidiary that operates the Veladero mine, notified regulatory authorities of the situation. Environmental monitoring was conducted by MAS and independent third parties following the incident. The Company believes this monitoring demonstrates that the incident posed no risk to human health at downstream communities. A temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the mine’s processing circuit was lifted on September 24, 2015, and mine operations returned to normal. Monitoring and inspection of the mine site continued in accordance with a court order until November 28, 2018 when that order was rescinded.
On October 9, 2015, the San Juan Provincial mining authority initiated an administrative sanction process against MAS for alleged violations of the mining code relating to the valve failure and release of cyanide-bearing process solution. On March 15, 2016, MAS was formally notified of the imposition of an administrative fine in
connection with the solution release. On April 6, 2016, MAS sought reconsideration of certain aspects of the decision but paid the administrative fine of approximately $10 million (at the then-applicable Argentine peso to U.S. dollar exchange rate) while the request for reconsideration was pending. On July 11, 2017, the San Juan government rejected MAS’ administrative appeal of this decision. On September 5, 2017, the Company commenced a legal action to continue challenging certain aspects of the decision before the San Juan courts. MAS has implemented a remedial action plan at Veladero in response to the incident, as required by the San Juan Provincial mining authority.

Criminal Matters
Provincial Action
On March 11, 2016, a San Juan Provincial Court laid criminal charges based on alleged negligence against nine current and former MAS employees in connection with the solution release (the “Provincial Action”). On August 15, 2017, the Court of Appeals confirmed the indictment against eight of the nine individuals that had been charged with alleged negligence in connection with the solution release. MAS is not a party to the Provincial Action. On August 23, 2018, the eight defendants in the Provincial Action were granted probation. The terms of the probation did not require the defendants to recognize any wrongdoing. If the defendants complied with good behavior and community service requirements for one year, the Provincial Action would be dismissed.
All defendants have completed the probationary period for community service and good behavior. Dismissal of the charges in the Provincial Action has been requested.
Federal Investigation
A federal criminal investigation was initiated by a Buenos Aires federal court based on the alleged failure of certain current and former federal and provincial government officials and individual directors of MAS to prevent the 2015 solution release (the “Federal Investigation”). The federal judge overseeing the Federal Investigation admitted a local group in San Juan Province as a party. In March 2016, this group requested an injunction against the operations of the Veladero mine. The federal judge ordered technical studies to assess the solution release and its impact and appointed a committee to conduct a site visit, which occurred in late April 2016.
On May 5, 2016, the National Supreme Court of Argentina limited the scope of the Federal Investigation to the potential criminal liability of the federal government officials, ruling that the Buenos Aires federal court does not have jurisdiction to investigate the solution release. As a result of this decision, the investigation into the incident continued to be conducted by the San Juan Provincial judge in the Provincial Action.
On April 11, 2018, the federal judge indicted three former federal officials alleging breach of duty in connection with their actions and omissions related to the failure to maintain adequate environmental controls. After an appeal process, on July 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals confirmed the indictments. On October 16, 2018, the investigation into the alleged failure of three former federal government officials to maintain adequate environmental controls during 2015 was concluded and the case was sent to trial.
On June 29, 2018, the federal judge ordered additional environmental studies to be conducted in communities downstream from the Veladero mine as part of the investigation into the alleged failure of three former federal government officials to maintain adequate environmental controls. On July 6, 2018, the Province of San Juan challenged this order on jurisdictional grounds. On August 9, 2018, the Federal Court ordered additional studies. One of the defendants appointed an expert to monitor the sampling and analysis required to perform such studies. The Federal Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, which resulted in an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court on August 24, 2018 to adjudicate jurisdiction.
On October 8, 2020, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal filed by the Province of San Juan, finding that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to order additional environmental studies in communities downstream from the Veladero mine as part of its investigation into the alleged failure of three former federal government officials to maintain adequate environmental controls.

Glaciers Investigation
On October 17, 2016, a separate criminal investigation was initiated by the federal judge overseeing the Federal Investigation based on the alleged failure of federal government officials to regulate the Veladero mine under Argentina’s glacier legislation (the “Glacier Investigation”). On June 16, 2017, MAS submitted a motion to challenge the federal judge’s decision to assign this investigation to himself. MAS also requested to be admitted as a party to the proceeding in order to present evidence in support of MAS. On September 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals ordered the federal judge to consolidate the two investigations and allowed MAS to participate in the consolidated Federal Investigation. On November 21, 2017, the Court of Appeals clarified that MAS is not a party to the case and therefore did not have standing to seek the recusal of the federal judge.  The Court recognized MAS’ right to continue to participate in the case without clarifying the scope of those rights.
On November 27, 2017, the federal judge indicted four former federal government officials, alleging abuse of authority in connection with their actions and omissions related to the enforcement of Argentina’s national glacier legislation including the methodology used to complete the national inventory of glaciers, a portion of which was published on October 3, 2016, and also requiring the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development to determine if there has been any environmental damage to glaciers since the glacier law went into effect in light of his decision. On December 12, 2017, the National Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to audit environmental damage to glaciers, as this is the responsibility of the Provincial authorities.
On March 5, 2018, the Court of Appeals confirmed the indictment against the four former federal officials in relation to the Glacier Investigation. On August 6, 2018, the case related to the enforcement of the national glacier legislation was assigned to a federal trial judge.
In total, six former federal officials were indicted under the Federal Investigation and the Glacier Investigation (one of whom has been indicted on two
separate charges) and will face trial. In 2019, the former federal official indicted on separate charges under both the Federal Investigation and the Glacier Investigation passed away. As a result, the charges against him have been dropped.
Due to the Argentine response to Covid-19 and a procedural challenge by one of the former federal officials, the oral arguments originally scheduled for April and May 2020 in this matter have been postponed and have not yet been rescheduled.
No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from these matters, as the Company cannot reasonably predict any potential losses.

Veladero – September 2016 Release of Crushed Ore Saturated with Process Solution
Temporary Suspension of Operations and Regulatory Infringement Proceeding
On September 8, 2016, ice rolling down the slope of the leach pad at the Veladero mine damaged a pipe carrying process solution, causing some material to leave the leach pad. This material, primarily crushed ore saturated with process solution, was contained on the mine site and returned to the leach pad. Extensive water monitoring in the area conducted by MAS has confirmed that the incident did not result in any environmental impacts. A temporary suspension of operations at the Veladero mine was ordered by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a San Juan Provincial court on September 15, 2016 and September 22, 2016, respectively, as a result of this incident. On October 4, 2016, following, among other matters, the completion of certain urgent works required by the San Juan Provincial mining authority and a judicial inspection of the mine, the San Juan Provincial court lifted the suspension of operations and ordered that mining activities be resumed.
On September 14, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority commenced an administrative proceeding in connection with this incident that included, in addition to the issue of the suspension order, an infringement proceeding against MAS. On December 2, 2016, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAS of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code. A new criminal judicial investigation has also been commenced by the Provincial prosecutor’s office in the same San Juan Provincial court that is hearing the Provincial Action. The court in this proceeding issued the orders suspending and resuming the operations at the Veladero mine described above.
On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated the administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAS encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident described below (see “Veladero - March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution” below).
On December 27, 2017, MAS received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident and the March 2017 incident described below. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAS paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority. On March 28, 2018, MAS was notified that the San Juan Provincial mining authority had rejected the
request for reconsideration. A further appeal was filed on April 20, 2018 and will be heard and decided by the Governor of San Juan.

Veladero – Cyanide Leaching Process Civil Action
On December 15, 2016, MAS was served notice of a lawsuit by certain persons who claim to be living in Jachal, Argentina and to be affected by the Veladero mine and, in particular, the Valley Leach Facility (“VLF”). In the lawsuit, which was filed in the San Juan Provincial court, the plaintiffs have requested a court order that MAS cease leaching metals with cyanide solutions, mercury and other similar substances at the Veladero mine and replace that process with one that is free of hazardous substances, that MAS implement a closure and remediation plan for the VLF and surrounding areas, and create a committee to monitor this process. The lawsuit is proceeding as an ordinary civil action. MAS replied to the lawsuit on February 20, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs supplemented their original complaint to allege that the risk of environmental damage had increased as a result of the March 28, 2017 release of gold-bearing process solution incident described below (see “Veladero - March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution” below). The Company responded to the new allegations and intends to continue defending this matter vigorously. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Veladero – March 2017 Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution
Regulatory Infringement Proceeding and Temporary Suspension of Addition of Cyanide
On March 28, 2017, the monitoring system at the Company’s Veladero mine detected a rupture of a pipe carrying gold-bearing process solution on the leach pad. This solution was contained within the operating site; no solution reached any diversion channels or watercourses. All affected soil was promptly excavated and placed on the leach pad. The Company notified regulatory authorities of the situation, and San Juan provincial authorities inspected the site on March 29, 2017.
On March 29, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority issued a violation notice against MAS in connection with the incident and ordered a temporary restriction on the addition of new cyanide to the leach pad until corrective actions on the system were completed. The mining authority lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, following inspection of corrective actions.
On March 30, 2017, the San Juan Mining Minister ordered the commencement of a regulatory infringement proceeding against MAS as well as a comprehensive evaluation of the mine’s operations to be conducted by representatives of the Company and the San Juan provincial authorities. The Company filed its defense to the regulatory infringement proceeding on April 5, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority consolidated this administrative proceeding into a single proceeding against MAS encompassing both the September 2016 incident described above and the March 2017 incident. On October 10, 2017, the San Juan Provincial mining authority notified MAS of two charges under the infringement proceeding for alleged violations of the Mining Code in connection with the March 2017 incident.
On December 27, 2017, MAS received notice of a resolution from the San Juan Provincial mining authority requiring payment of an administrative fine of approximately $5.6 million (calculated at the prevailing exchange rate on December 31, 2017) encompassing both the September 2016 incident described above and the March 2017 incident. On January 23, 2018, in accordance with local requirements, MAS paid the administrative fine and filed a request for reconsideration with the San Juan Provincial mining authority. On March 28, 2018, MAS was notified that the San Juan Provincial mining authority had rejected the request for reconsideration. A further appeal will be heard and decided by the Governor of San Juan.

Provincial Amparo Action
On March 30, 2017, MAS was served notice of a lawsuit, called an “amparo” protection action, filed in the Jachal First Instance Court (the “Jachal Court”) by individuals who claimed to be living in Jachal, Argentina, seeking the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine. The plaintiffs sought an injunction as part of the lawsuit, requesting, among other things, the cessation of all activities at the Veladero mine or, alternatively, a suspension of the leaching process at the mine. On March 30, 2017, the Jachal Court rejected the request for an injunction to cease all activities at the Veladero mine, but ordered, among other things, the suspension of the leaching process at the Veladero mine and for MAS and the San Juan Provincial mining authority to provide additional information to the Jachal Court in connection with the incident.
The Company filed a defense to the provincial amparo action on April 7, 2017. The Jachal Court lifted the suspension on June 15, 2017, after the San Juan Provincial mining authority provided the required information and a hydraulic assessment of the leach pad and process plant was implemented. Further developments in this case are pending a decision by the Argentine Supreme Court as to whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court has jurisdiction to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. On December 26, 2019, the Argentine Supreme Court ruled on the jurisdictional dispute in favor of the Federal Court (see “Veladero - Release of Gold-bearing Process Solution - Federal Amparo Action” below).
No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Federal Amparo Action
On April 4, 2017, the National Minister of Environment of Argentina filed a lawsuit in the Buenos Aires federal court (the “Federal Court”) in connection with the March 2017 incident described above. The amparo protection action sought a court order requiring the cessation and/or suspension of activities at the Veladero mine. MAS submitted extensive information to the Federal Court about the incident, the then-existing administrative and provincial judicial suspensions, the remedial actions taken by the Company and the lifting of the suspensions as described above. MAS also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the standing of the National Minister of Environment of Argentina and requested that the matter be remanded to the Jachal Court. The Province of San Juan also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in this matter. On June 23, 2017, the Federal Court decided that it
was competent to hear the case, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the Federal Court or Provincial Court in the case described above has the authority to assess the merits of the amparo remedy. On July 5, 2017, the Provincial Court issued a request for the Supreme Court of Argentina to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. On July 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals referred the jurisdictional dispute to the Supreme Court. On December 26, 2019, the Argentine Supreme Court ruled on the jurisdictional dispute in favor of the Federal Court. On October 1, 2020, the Company was notified that the National Ministry of the Environment had petitioned the Federal Court to resume the proceedings following the Supreme Court’s decision that it is competent to hear the case.
No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability or asset impairment under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Veladero – Tax Assessment and Criminal Charges
On December 26, 2017, MAS received notice of a tax assessment (the “Tax Assessment”) for 2010 and 2011, amounting to ARS 543 million (approximately $6.5 million at the prevailing exchange rate at December 31, 2020), plus interest and fines. The Tax Assessment primarily claims that certain deductions made by MAS were not properly characterized, including that (i) the interest and foreign exchange on loans borrowed between 2002 and 2006 to fund Veladero’s construction should have been classified as equity contributions, and (ii) fees paid for intercompany services were not for services related to the operation of the Veladero mine.
On June 21, 2018, the Argentinean Federal Tax Authority (“AFIP”) confirmed the Tax Assessment, which MAS appealed to the Federal Tax Court on July 31, 2018. A hearing for the appeal has not yet been scheduled.
In November 2018, MAS received notice that AFIP filed criminal charges against current and former employees serving on its board of directors when the 2010 and 2011 tax returns were filed (the “Criminal Tax Case”).
Hearings for the Criminal Tax case were held between March 25 and March 27, 2019. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, which was granted in part and which has been appealed by the prosecution.
The Company filed Mutual Agreement Procedure applications in Canada on December 21, 2018, and in Argentina on March 29, 2019, pursuant to the Canada-Argentina Income Tax Convention Act (the "Canada-Argentina Tax Treaty") to escalate resolution of the Tax Assessment to the competent authority (as defined in the Canada-Argentina Tax Treaty) in an effort to seek efficient resolution of the matter.
In the Criminal Tax Case, the Argentinean Federal Tax Authority's appeal of the trial court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds was denied. Additional evidence from an Argentine income tax expert will be submitted to the trial court to support the defendants’ arguments.
The Company believes that the Tax Assessment and the Criminal Tax Case are without merit and intends to defend the proceedings vigorously. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from the Tax Assessment or the Criminal Tax Case, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.
Perilla Complaint
In 2009, Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. were purportedly served in Ontario with a complaint filed in November 2008 in the Regional Trial Court of Boac (the “Court”), on the Philippine island of Marinduque, on behalf of two named individuals and purportedly on behalf of the approximately 200,000 residents of Marinduque. The complaint alleges injury to the economy and the ecology of Marinduque as a result of the discharge of mine tailings from the Marcopper mine into Calancan Bay, the Boac River, and the Mogpog River. Placer Dome Inc., which was acquired by the Company in 2006, had been a minority indirect shareholder of the Marcopper mine. The plaintiffs are claiming for abatement of a public nuisance allegedly caused by the tailings discharge and for nominal damages for an alleged violation of their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. In June 2010, Barrick Gold Inc. and Placer Dome Inc. filed a motion to have the Court resolve their unresolved motions to dismiss before considering the plaintiffs' motion to admit an amended complaint and also filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to admit on the same basis. By Order dated November 9, 2011, the Court granted a motion to suspend the proceedings filed by the plaintiffs. It is not known when these motions or the outstanding motions to dismiss will be decided by the Court. To date neither the plaintiffs nor the Company has advised the Court of an intention to resume the proceedings. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this complaint, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Writ of Kalikasan
In February 2011, a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for Temporary Environmental Protection Order was filed in the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (the “Supreme Court”) in Eliza M. Hernandez, Mamerto M. Lanete and Godofredo L. Manoy (the “Petitioners”) versus Placer Dome Inc. and Barrick Gold Corporation. In March 2011, the Supreme Court issued an En Banc Resolution and Writ of Kalikasan, directed service of summons on Placer Dome Inc. (“Placer Dome”) and the Company, ordered Placer Dome and the Company to make a verified return of the Writ within ten (10) days of service and referred the case to the Court of Appeal (the “Court”) for hearing. The Petition alleges that Placer Dome violated the Petitioners’ constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology as a result of, among other things, the discharge of tailings into Calancan Bay, the 1993 Maguila-Guila dam break, the 1996 Boac River tailings spill and failure of Marcopper to properly decommission the Marcopper mine. The Petitioners have pleaded that the Company is liable for the alleged actions and omissions of Placer Dome, which was a minority indirect shareholder of Marcopper at all relevant times, and is seeking orders requiring the Company to environmentally remediate the areas in and around the mine site that are alleged to have sustained environmental impacts. A Writ of Kalikasan brought under the then-new Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases (the “Environmental Rules”) is intended to be a mechanism for speedy relief and the Environmental Rules impose rigid deadlines and other requirements on such proceedings, including that a petitioner file and serve all evidence on which it relies at the outset of the proceeding and a respondent file all evidence
on which it relies within 10 days of being served. While the Company complied with this requirement and filed extensive affidavit evidence, including expert affidavits, at the time it filed its Return Ad Cautelam in April 2011, the Petitioners did not file any affidavits in support of their Writ and the only evidence filed or referenced by the Petitioners was various documents and news articles with no person testifying to their contents. The Company filed a motion challenging the Court’s jurisdiction over both the proceedings and the Company at the outset of the proceedings, and also challenged the constitutionality of the Environmental Rules pursuant to which the Petition was filed.
In October 2011, the proceedings were suspended to permit the Petitioners to explore the possibility of a settlement. Although discussions ended without a resulting settlement by December 2013, with the exception of a few inquiries by the Court as to the status of the settlement and the Petitioners’ intentions, the proceedings remained essentially inactive between October 2011 and September 2018 when the Petitioners sought to have the suspension lifted and the proceedings resume.
In March 2019, the Court lifted the suspension of proceedings. Between March 2019, when the suspension of proceedings was lifted and January 2020, the Court has: (i) rejected the Company’s constitutional objections and held that the Court has jurisdiction based on a “tentative” determination that the Company was doing business in the Philippines made exclusively on the basis of unproved allegations made by the Petitioners in their petition; (ii) directed a court-annexed mediation, which did not result in settlement; (iii) dismissed the Company’s arguments that the proceedings should be dismissed for delay, laches and due process reasons; (iv) conducted a preliminary case conference in January 2020; and (v) permitted the Petitioners to file late two affidavits in September 2019, over the Company’s objections. The Company has consistently challenged all adverse Court decisions, including by way of certiorari to the Supreme Court. In all instances, such attempts have been unsuccessful.
A tentative trial date in March 2020 was postponed due to the Philippine government's response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Subsequently, a September 2020 trial date was set, but later cancelled by the Court because of a late request by Petitioners’ counsel, over the objections of the Company.
Since June 2020, the Petitioners have taken numerous steps to attempt to seek to expand the issues for consideration by the Court in these proceedings beyond the scope of the original Writ and also to supplement the evidentiary record outside the strict limitations of the Environment Rules, including by: (i) filing a motion asking the Court to issue a Temporary Environmental Protection Order on broader grounds than those pleaded in the original Writ; (ii) filing a motion requesting a discovery order for the “ocular inspection” of various physical locations in or around the Marcopper Mine site on the basis of alleged issues not previously pleaded in the original Writ; and (iii) filing a motion days prior to a scheduled trial date seeking to cancel the trial date and revert the proceedings to the preliminary conference stage to allow the Petitioners to file additional evidence, to add additional individuals to their list of witnesses, and to file additional judicial affidavits on behalf of additional witnesses. The Company has objected to such steps in materials filed with the Court.
On October 27, 2020, the Province of Marinduque filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and a Petition in Intervention in the Supreme Court (the “Intervention Motion”). In the Intervention Motion, the Province sought leave to intervene in the case and effectively also sought to expand the scope of relief to include claims regarding alleged maintenance and structural integrity issues of infrastructure at the Marcopper Mine site, amongst other issues not raised in the original Writ of Kalikasan. On November 17, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution referring the Intervention Motion to the Court; however, the Company did not receive notice of this Resolution until January 26, 2021. On January 21, 2021, the Court issued a resolution admitting the Intervention Motion before the Court, granting the Intervention Motion and accepting for filing the Petition in Intervention. The January 21, 2021 Resolution was issued without the Court affording the Company due process and an opportunity to respond to the merits of the Intervention Motion. On February 9, 2021 the Company filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the January 21, 2021 Resolution seeking to set aside the granting of the Intervention Motion by the Court and to have the Intervention Motion dismissed.
On November 25, 2020, the Court set a new trial date of December 2, 2020. The trial began on December 2, 2020, with the Petitioners calling a new witness not disclosed prior to September 2020 and stating their intention to call seven more unspecified witnesses. The Company has made multiple filings and submissions recording its objections to the Petitioners being permitted to call witnesses whose affidavits have been delivered outside the prescribed time requirements and years after the Company has filed its evidence in response to the Petitioners claims.
On January 7, 2021, the Petitioners filed an urgent motion to cancel the second trial date scheduled for January 11, 2021 on the basis that the witness they intended to call would not be able to appear at the hearing. The Company objected. Although the Court issued an order dismissing the Petitioners’ request to cancel the January 11, 2021 hearing date, the Court nevertheless effectively granted the relief sought by the Petitioners by acknowledging that the Petitioners’ next witness could be called instead on the reserved hearing date on January 27, 2021.
On January 21, 2021, the Court ruled on the Company’s objections to the Petitioners being permitted to call witnesses whose affidavits are delivered late and ordered the Petitioners to submit all of their remaining judicial affidavits within a non-extendable 15 days from notice (by February 10, 2021). It is not clear how many additional witnesses the Petitioners intend to call or will be permitted to call. The Company intends to seek reconsideration of this ruling.
The Petitioners called one witness on January 27, 2021. The next reserved hearing date is February 24, 2021.
No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome. The Company intends to continue to defend the action vigorously.

Malian Tax Dispute
Each of Loulo and Gounkoto (which together form the Loulo-Gounkoto complex) and Morila have separate legally binding establishment conventions with the State of Mali, which guarantee fiscal stability, govern applicable taxes and
allow for international arbitration in the event of disputes. Despite these establishment conventions, prior to the Merger, Randgold had received various tax claims from the State of Mali in respect of its Mali operations, which totaled $268 million at January 1, 2019. As at the end of the second quarter of 2019, the total claim for 2018 and prior year periods had risen to $275 million.
During 2016, Randgold received payment demands in respect of certain of these disputed amounts, and consequently, from 2016 up to December 2018, Randgold paid tax advances to the State of Mali to support the resolution of the tax disputes, which after offsetting other tax payments resulted in a receivable being recorded of $41 million. As part of the purchase price allocation for the Merger, the fair value of this receivable was reduced to nil. In July 2019, a further advance of $43 million was paid to the State of Mali as part of a settlement proposal to resolve outstanding assessments with respect to 2016 and prior year periods. In addition, a further $17 million was accrued, bringing the total amount recorded for these events to $60 million at the end of the second quarter of 2019. This additional accrual amount was recorded as a further update to the purchase price allocation, and was paid in the fourth quarter of 2019.
In January 2020, the Government of Mali signed a protocol (the “Malian Protocol”), which set forth the terms of its working relationship with the Company, including an agreement on tax principles that effectively reflects the Company’s tax filings in 2017 and subsequent years.
The Company has settled all of the historic tax disputes, including the reconciliation of VAT balances as at June 30, 2019, with the State of Mali and the matters are now closed. The existing disputes were settled for an amount within the provision recorded for these matters in the Company’s 2019 Annual Financial Statements.
The Malian tax authorities have commenced an audit of Loulo and Gounkoto for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 financial years, in accordance with the principles set out in the Malian Protocol. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability under this matter, as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.

Reko Diq Arbitration
Barrick currently indirectly holds 50% of the shares of Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited (“TCC”), with Antofagasta plc (“Antofagasta”) indirectly holding the other 50%. On November 15, 2011, the Government of the Province of Balochistan notified Tethyan Copper Company Pakistan (Private) Limited (“TCCP”) (the local operating subsidiary of TCC) of the rejection of TCCP’s application for a mining lease for the Reko Diq project, to which TCCP was lawfully entitled subject only to "routine" government requirements. On November 28, 2011, TCC filed a request for international arbitration against the Government of Pakistan (“GOP”) with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) asserting breaches of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Australia (where TCC is incorporated) and Pakistan.
On March 20, 2017, the Tribunal issued its decision, rejecting the GOP’s position. In March 2019, ICSID closed the record in the arbitration.
In July 2019, ICSID awarded $5.84 billion in damages to TCC in relation to the arbitration claims and unlawful denial of a mining lease for the Reko Diq project (the “ICSID Award”). Damages include compensation of
$4.087 billion in relation to the fair market value of the Reko Diq project at the time the mining lease was denied, and interest until the date of the ICSID Award of $1.753 billion. Compound interest continues to apply at a rate of US Prime +1% per annum until the ICSID Award is paid.
In November 2019, the GOP applied to annul TCC’s damages award, which resulted in an automatic stay on TCC from pursuing enforcement action.  ICSID has constituted a committee (the “Annulment Committee”) to hear the annulment application, consisting of a president from South Korea and additional members from Mexico and Finland.
On September 17, 2020, with respect to the automatic stay of enforcement of the July 12, 2019 ICSID Award, the Annulment Committee ruled that: (i) the stay of enforcement of the ICSID Award would be continued on a conditional basis; (ii) Pakistan shall provide an unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantee or letter of credit for 25% of the ICSID Award, plus accrued interest as of the date of the decision, from a reputable international bank based outside of Pakistan, pledged in favor of TCC and to be released on the order of the Committee; (iii) Pakistan shall provide the Annulment Committee with a letter signed by Pakistan’s Minister of Finance or the official having full authority to bind Pakistan that, to the extent the ICSID Award is not annulled, it undertakes to recognize and pay the ICSID Award in compliance with its obligations under the ICSID convention; and (iv) should Pakistan not furnish the security and undertaking in the terms as set out above, to the satisfaction of the Annulment Committee, within 30 days after notification of the decision, the stay of enforcement in the amount of 50% of the ICSID Award, plus accrued interest as of the date of the decision, shall be lifted.
If Pakistan does not satisfy its security and undertaking obligation, in order to commence collection TCC must within 30 days satisfy two conditions: (1) establish an escrow account under the sole control of an international escrow agent and under the direction of the Annulment Committee into which any collected amounts will be placed; and (2) provide “an undertaking, to the satisfaction of the Annulment Committee, that, if the ICSID Award is annulled, TCC will pay any amounts that Pakistan cannot recover from the escrow account that will hold assets obtained from enforcement, excluding those amounts due to Pakistan’s third-party creditors.” To date, Pakistan has not posted the surety or undertaking.
On November 20, 2020, TCC commenced collection actions in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI"). On December 3, 2020, the BVI Court recognized the ICSID Award, issued a provisional charging order against shares of PIA Investments, Minhal Inc. and PIA Hotels, companies TCC alleges to be assets of the GOP, injunctions against dissipation of value and or redomiciling those companies, and receivership over the assets of those companies. The GOP is opposing those orders and seeking to have them dissolved.
The Company cannot reasonably estimate the financial effect of the ICSID Award. No amounts have been recognized at this time.

Porgera Special Mining Lease Extension
Porgera's Special Mining Lease (“SML”) terminated on August 16, 2019. The Company applied for a 20-year extension of the SML in June 2017 and has been engaging
with the Government of Papua New Guinea on this matter since then. On August 2, 2019, the National Court of Papua New Guinea ruled that the provisions of the country’s 1992 Mining Act applied to the Porgera gold mine, thus allowing it to continue operating while the application to extend its SML was being considered. Also in 2019, in response to a request from Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Marape, the Company proposed a benefit-sharing arrangement that would deliver more than half the economic benefits from the Porgera mine to Papua New Guinea stakeholders, including the Government, for the remainder of the life of mine, estimated at 20 years.
On April 24, 2020, Barrick Niugini Limited (“BNL”), the majority owner and operator of the Porgera joint venture, received a communication from the Government of Papua New Guinea that the SML would not be extended. The Company believes the Government’s decision not to extend the SML is tantamount to nationalization without due process and in violation of the Government’s legal obligations to BNL. The Company has been engaged in ongoing discussions with Prime Minister Marape and his Government in light of the potentially catastrophic impact of this decision for the communities at Porgera and in Enga Province, and for the country as a whole. On October 15, 2020, BNL and Prime Minister Marape issued a joint press release indicating that they had productive discussions toward mutually acceptable arrangements for a new Porgera partnership to reopen and operate the mine going forward. It further indicated that the parties had agreed in principle that Papua New Guinea will take a major share of equity under the new arrangements and BNL will retain operatorship and there will be a fair sharing of the economic benefits. Efforts to reach a memorandum of agreement to make these concepts and additional points binding are underway. In the meantime, all legal proceedings continue as discussed below.
BNL has been pursuing and will pursue all legal avenues to challenge the Government’s decision and to recover any damages that BNL may suffer as a result of the Government’s decision. Based on the communication received from the Government of Papua New Guinea that the SML would not be extended, Porgera was placed on temporary care and maintenance on April 25, 2020 to ensure the safety and security of our employees and communities. BNL remains in possession of the mine to conduct care and maintenance.
On April 28, 2020, BNL filed a Judicial Review action against the Government of Papua New Guinea in the Papua New Guinea National Court of Justice. Judicial Review is a proceeding that challenges the procedural and constitutional adequacy of government administrative actions. The Judicial Review action seeks to quash the decision not to extend the SML on the grounds that the Government did not comply with the applicable legal standards and processes.
Trial was set to commence in the Judicial Review action on August 12, 2020. BNL sought leave to appeal two procedural rulings of the National Court that would affect the trial to the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea. The Government of Papua New Guinea then asked the National Court to dismiss the Judicial Review action on purely procedural grounds. On September 1, 2020, the Court granted the Government’s request and dismissed the Judicial Review action. BNL appealed that decision to the Supreme Court on September 7, 2020.
On October 1 and 6, 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the National Court's decision and granted BNL’s appeals of the two procedural rulings. The Supreme Court has not yet heard BNL’s appeal of the National Court’s dismissal of the Judicial Review action.
On August 25, 2020, the Government of Papua New Guinea purported to grant a new special mining lease covering the Porgera Mine to Kumul Mineral Holdings Limited (“Kumul”), the state-owned mining company. BNL immediately took administrative steps seeking to force the Government of Papua New Guinea to delay or withdraw the issuance of the special mining lease to Kumul. These administrative steps were not successful and on September 24, 2020, BNL commenced another Judicial Review action seeking to quash the decision to issue the special mining lease to Kumul. On January 26, 2021, the National Court granted BNL leave for the Judicial Review. In its decision, the Court declared itself satisfied that there was an arguable case that warrants the grant of the leave.
On July 9, 2020, BNL initiated conciliation proceedings before the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). Through this conciliation, BNL seeks to reach an agreement for the extension of the SML on terms that will be mutually beneficial to the Company and to all Papua New Guinea stakeholders.
Simultaneously with BNL initiating the conciliation proceedings, Barrick (PD) Australia Pty Limited (“Barrick PD”), the Company’s subsidiary and an investor in the Porgera mine, has given notice to the Government of Papua New Guinea that a dispute has arisen under the Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Papua New Guinea and Australia, and has referred the dispute to arbitration before the ICSID. Barrick PD seeks to recover damages it has already suffered and damages it may suffer in the future by virtue of the Government’s wrongful refusal to grant an extension of the SML. The dispute notice expressly invites the Government to engage in consultations and negotiations in an attempt to resolve the investment treaty dispute.

Porgera Tax Audits
In April 2020, BNL received a position paper from the Internal Revenue Commission ("IRC") in Papua New Guinea asserting various proposed adjustments and other tax liabilities amounting to $131 million (not including penalties, based on the kina foreign exchange rate as at December 31, 2020) arising from tax audits of BNL conducted for 2006 through 2015. BNL responded to the position paper on June 30, 2020. On October 2, 2020, BNL received amended assessments from the IRC which increased the amount of proposed adjustments and other taxes to $485 million (including penalties, based on the kina foreign exchange rate as at December 31, 2020). The Company has reviewed the amended assessments and concluded that there is no merit to the IRC’s tax audit adjustments, except for certain immaterial items for which a provision had already been made. BNL filed objections to the amended assessments on November 30, 2020 in accordance with the Papua New Guinea Income Tax Act.
The Company intends to defend its position vigorously and has not recorded any additional estimated amounts for the potential liability arising from the amended assessments as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.
Tanzania – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes
On March 3, 2017, the GoT announced a general ban on the export of metallic mineral concentrates (the "Ban") following a directive made by the President to promote the creation of a domestic smelting industry. Following the directive, Acacia ceased all exports of its gold/copper concentrate (“concentrate”) including containers previously approved for export prior to the Ban located at the port in Dar es Salaam.
During the second quarter of 2017, the GoT initiated investigations which resulted in allegations of historical undeclared revenue and unpaid taxes by Acacia and its predecessor companies. Acacia subsequently received adjusted assessments for the tax years 2000-2017 from the Tanzania Revenue Authority for a total amount of approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. In addition, following the end of the third quarter of 2017, Acacia was served with notices of conflicting adjusted corporate income tax and withholding tax assessments for tax years 2005 to 2011 with respect to Acacia’s former Tulawaka joint venture, and demands for payment, for a total amount of approximately $3 billion. Acacia disputed these assessments through arbitration and the Tanzanian tax appeals process, respectively.
In addition to the Ban, new and amended legislation was passed in Tanzania in early July 2017, including various amendments to the 2010 Mining Act and a new Finance Act. The amendments to the 2010 Mining Act increased the royalty rate applicable to metallic minerals such as gold, copper and silver to 6% (from 4%), and the new Finance Act imposes a 1% clearing fee on the value of all minerals exported from Tanzania from July 1, 2017. In January 2018, new Mining Regulations were announced by the GoT introducing, among other things, local content requirements, export regulations and mineral rights regulations, the scope and effect of which remain under review. Barrick continues to monitor the impact of all new legislation in light of Acacia's Mineral Development Agreements with the GoT.
On October 19, 2017, Barrick announced that it had agreed with the GoT on a proposed framework for a new partnership between Acacia and the GoT. Acacia did not participate directly in these discussions as the GoT had informed Barrick that it wished to continue dialogue solely with Barrick. Barrick and the GoT also agreed to form a working group that would focus on the resolution of outstanding tax claims against Acacia. Key terms of the proposed framework announced by Barrick and the GoT included (i) the creation of a new Tanzanian company to provide management services to Acacia’s Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara mines and all future operations in the country with key officers located in Tanzania and Tanzanian representation on the board of directors; (ii) maximization of local employment of Tanzanians and procurement of goods and services within Tanzania; (iii) economic benefits from Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara to be shared on a 50/50 basis, with the GoT’s share delivered in the form of royalties, taxes and a 16% free carry interest in Acacia’s Tanzanian operations; and (iv) in support of the working group’s ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding tax claims, Acacia would make a payment of $300 million to the GoT, staged over time, on terms to be settled by the working group. Barrick and the GoT also reviewed the conditions for the lifting of the Ban.
On February 20, 2019, Barrick announced that it had arrived at a proposal with the GoT that set forth the commercial terms to resolve outstanding disputes concerning Acacia’s operations in Tanzania.
On May 19, 2019, the GoT Negotiating Team wrote to Acacia’s three Tanzanian operating companies (the “TMCs”) to indicate that the GoT had resolved not to proceed to execute final agreements for the resolution of Acacia’s disputes if Acacia was one of the counterparties to the agreements.
On July 12, 2019, Acacia’s North Mara mine received a letter from the Mining Commission of the Tanzanian Ministry of Minerals informing it that the Mining Commission is soon to conduct an inspection of North Mara's gold production (the "No Export Letter"). The No Export Letter stated that export permits for gold shipments from North Mara would be issued following completion of this inspection.
Following an investigation conducted by the Mining Commission on July 30 and 31, 2019, the North Mara mine received a letter from the Mining Commission (the “Inspection Findings Letter”) stating that it believes that certain provisions of the Mining Regulations, 2010 were violated and directing the North Mara mine to submit a feasibility study report and current mine plan for its approval by August 16, 2019. The Inspection Findings Letter also authorized the resumption of gold exports from North Mara subject to its adherence to the export procedure.
On July 19, 2019, the Acacia Transaction Committee Directors and Barrick published a firm offer announcement pursuant to Rule 2.7 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (“Rule 2.7 Announcement”) announcing that they had reached agreement on the terms of a recommended final offer by Barrick for the ordinary share capital of Acacia that Barrick did not already own (see “Key Business Developments - Acacia Mining plc”), with the belief that the recommended final offer would enable Barrick to finalize the terms of a full, final and comprehensive settlement of all of Acacia’s existing disputes with the GoT. To facilitate this and in anticipation of the Rule 2.7 Announcement, on July 17, 2019, Acacia announced that Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Limited and Pangea Minerals Limited would immediately seek a stay of their international arbitration proceedings with the GoT.
On September 12, 2019, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales made an order sanctioning the scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (the "Scheme"), and on September 17, 2019, Barrick completed the acquisition of all of the shares of Acacia that the Company did not already own pursuant to the Scheme. Acacia ceased trading on the London Stock Exchange and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Barrick called Barrick TZ Limited.
On October 20, 2019, Barrick announced that it had reached an agreement with the GoT to settle all disputes between the GoT and the mining companies formerly operated by Acacia but now managed by Barrick.  The final agreements were submitted to the Tanzanian Attorney General for review and legalization.
The terms of the signed agreement are consistent with those previously announced, including the payment of $300 million to settle all outstanding tax and other disputes (the “Settlement Payment”); the lifting of the concentrate export ban; the sharing of future economic benefits from the mines on a 50/50 basis; and a dispute resolution
mechanism that provides for binding international arbitration. The 50/50 division of economic benefits will be maintained through an annual true-up mechanism, which will not account for the Settlement Payment.
The Settlement Payment will be paid in installments, with an initial payment of $100 million which was paid to the GoT following the resumption of mineral concentrate exports. Five subsequent annual payments of $40 million each will be made, starting on the first anniversary of the fulfillment of all conditions of the signed agreement, subject to certain cash flow conditions.
On January 24, 2020, Barrick announced that the Company had ratified the creation of Twiga (“Twiga”) at a signing ceremony with the President of Tanzania, formalizing the establishment of a joint venture between Barrick and the GoT and resolution of all outstanding disputes between Barrick and the GoT, including the lifting of the previous concentrate export ban, effective immediately. The GoT received a free carried shareholding of 16% in each of the Tanzania mines (Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara), a 16% interest in the shareholder loans owed by the operating companies and will receive its half of the economic benefits from taxes, royalties, clearing fees and participation in all cash distributions made by the mines and Twiga, after the recoupment of capital investments. Twiga will provide management services to the mines.
In October 2020, Twiga paid a maiden interim cash dividend of $250 million, of which $40 million was paid to the GoT.
Barrick and the GoT continue efforts to fulfill their respective obligations to satisfy all conditions of the signed agreement, primarily with respect to the execution and delivery of formal termination documents for the settlement of all outstanding disputes between the two parties.
See note 21 of these Financial Statements for impairment losses/reversals arising from these matters.

Tanzanian Revenue Authority Assessments
The Tanzanian Revenue Authority (“TRA”) issued a number of tax assessments to Acacia related to past taxation years from 2002 onwards. Acacia believed that the majority of these assessments were incorrect and filed objections and appeals accordingly in an attempt to resolve these matters by means of discussions with the TRA or through the Tanzanian appeals process. Overall, it was Acacia’s assessment that the relevant assessments and claims by the TRA were without merit.
The claims include an assessment issued to Acacia in the amount of $41.3 million for withholding tax on certain historic offshore dividend payments paid by Acacia (then African Barrick Gold plc) to its shareholders from 2010 to 2013. Acacia appealed this assessment on the substantive grounds that, as an English incorporated company, it was not resident in Tanzania for taxation purposes. In August 2020, the Tanzanian Court of Appeal found African Barrick Gold plc (now called Barrick TZ Limited) to be tax resident in Tanzania upholding an earlier decision from the Tanzania Revenue Authority, and that as a result, withholding tax was payable on the dividends of $41.3 million, plus accrued interest, previously declared and paid between 2010 to 2013, inclusive. During October 2020, Barrick TZ Limited filed a motion for the Court of Appeal to review this decision with written submissions following in December 2020. No date has been set for the Court of Appeal to review its decision.
Further TRA assessments were issued to Acacia in January 2016 in the amount of $500.7 million, based on an allegation that Acacia was resident in Tanzania for corporate and dividend withholding tax purposes. The corporate tax assessments were levied on certain of Acacia’s net profits before tax. Acacia appealed these assessments at the TRA Board level. Acacia’s substantive grounds of appeal were based on the correct interpretation of Tanzanian permanent establishment principles and law, relevant to a non-resident English incorporated company.
In addition, the TRA issued adjusted tax assessments totaling approximately $190 billion for alleged unpaid taxes, interest and penalties, apparently issued in respect of alleged and disputed under-declared export revenues, and appearing to follow on from the announced findings of the First and Second Presidential Committees. For more information about these adjusted tax assessments, see “Acacia Mining plc - Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes” above.
On October 20, 2019, Barrick announced that it had reached an agreement with the GoT to settle all disputes between the GoT and the mining companies formerly operated by Acacia but now managed by Barrick.  The final agreements were submitted to the Tanzanian Attorney General for review and legalization.
On January 24, 2020, Barrick announced that the Company had ratified the creation of Twiga Minerals Corporation at a signing ceremony with the President of Tanzania, formalizing the establishment of a joint venture between Barrick and the Government of Tanzania (“GoT”) and resolution of all outstanding disputes between Barrick and the GoT, including the lifting of the previous concentrate export ban, effective immediately. The GoT will receive a free carried shareholding of 16% in each of the former Acacia mines (Bulyanhulu, Buzwagi and North Mara), and will receive its half of the economic benefits from taxes, royalties, clearing fees and participation in all cash distributions made by the mines and Twiga, after the recoupment of capital investments. 
The terms of the signed agreement are consistent with those previously announced, including the Settlement Payment; the lifting of the concentrate export ban; the sharing of future economic benefits from the mines on a 50/50 basis; and a dispute resolution mechanism that provides for binding international arbitration. The 50/50 division of economic benefits will be maintained through an annual true-up mechanism, which will not account for the Settlement Payment.
The Settlement Payment will be paid in installments, with an initial payment of $100 million which was paid to the GoT following the resumption of mineral concentrate exports. Five subsequent annual payments of $40 million each will be made, starting on the first anniversary of the fulfillment of all conditions of the signed agreement, subject to certain cash flow conditions.
All of the tax disputes with the TRA were considered resolved as part of the settlement with the GoT described above under "Tanzania – Concentrate Export Ban and Related Disputes." As noted above, Barrick and the GoT continue efforts to fulfill their respective obligations to satisfy all conditions of the signed agreement, primarily with respect to the execution and delivery of formal termination documents for the settlement of all outstanding disputes between the two parties.

Zaldívar Chilean Tax Assessment
On August 28, 2019, Barrick's Chilean subsidiary that holds the Company's interest in the Zaldívar mine, Compañía Minera Zaldívar Limitada ("CMZ"), received notice of a tax assessment from the Chilean Internal Revenue Service ("Chilean IRS") amounting to approximately $1 billion in outstanding taxes, including interest and penalties (the "Zaldívar Tax Assessment"). The Zaldívar Tax Assessment primarily claims that CMZ improperly claimed a deduction relating to a loss on an intercompany transaction prior to recognizing and offsetting a capital gain on the sale of a 50% interest by CMZ in the Zaldívar mine to Antofagasta in 2015. CMZ filed an administrative appeal with the Chilean IRS on October 14, 2019. Following initial meetings with CMZ, the Chilean IRS agreed with CMZ’s position and reduced the Assessment to $575 million including interest and penalties. CMZ will continue discussions with the Chilean IRS, prior to the authority's final decision.
On March 17, 2020, Compañía Minera Zaldívar Limitada ("CMZ"), Barrick’s Chilean subsidiary that holds the Company’s interest in the Zaldívar mine, filed a claim against the Chilean IRS at the Tax Court of Coquimbo (the “Tax Court”) to nullify the tax assessment relating to the sale of a 50% interest by CMZ in the Zaldívar mine to Antofagasta in 2015 (the “2015 Tax Assessment”). The Chilean IRS filed their response to CMZ’s claim on April 13, 2020.
On May 22, 2020, the Tax Court held a conciliation hearing which did not result in the resolution of the matter. The Tax Court then granted a joint proposal from CMZ and the Chilean IRS to suspend the legal case until October 2020 while settlement discussions continue.
In April 2020, the Chilean IRS initiated an audit of CMZ for 2016 relating to the same claims included in the 2015 Tax Assessment. This audit resulted in a new tax assessment against CMZ (the “2016 Tax Assessment”). On September 9, 2020, CMZ filed a claim at the Tax Court to nullify the 2016 Tax Assessment and the Chilean IRS filed its response on October 7, 2020.
On September 29, 2020, the Tax Court approved CMZ's request to consolidate its challenges to the 2015 and 2016 Tax Assessments (collectively, the “Zaldívar Tax Assessments”) in a single proceeding. Court proceedings have been delayed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, but are expected to commence in March 2021.
The Company believes that the Zaldívar Tax Assessments are without merit and intends to vigorously defend its position. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from the Zaldívar Tax Assessment as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.
Massawa Senegalese Tax Dispute The Company received a Notice for Reassessment, dated May 7, 2020, from the Senegalese Tax Authority (“SRA”) asserting capital gains and withholding tax liabilities and penalties of approximately $228 million (as calculated at December 31, 2020) arising from the disposal of the subsidiary that held the Company’s interest in the Massawa project in March 2020. The amount was subsequently reduced to $216 million (as calculated at December 31, 2020) in a Confirmation of Reassessment dated July 13, 2020. The Company has reviewed the Notice for Reassessment and the Confirmation of Reassessment and has concluded that the proposed tax claims are without merit as Massawa’s mining convention with the State of Senegal specifically precludes them. The Company submitted its responses to the SRA on June 5, 2020 and September 2, 2020, and intends to vigorously defend its position. Discussions with the SRA are ongoing. No amounts have been recorded for any potential liability arising from the Notice for Reassessment or the Confirmation of Reassessment as the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome.