49 for the entire three year period fair value of

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: (7.9) $ (2.6) (95.5) Contingent Liability The Company is obligated to pay $20.0 million to Barrick Gold Corporation (“Barrick”) when a production decision is made relating to the Cerro Casale project. Other legal matters The Company is from time to time involved in legal proceedings, arising in the ordinary course of its business. Typically, and currently, except in the case of the actions described below, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to these actions will not, in the opinion of management, materially affect Kinross' financial position, results of operations or cash flows. A putative securities class action complaint was filed on February 16, 2012 (the “U.S. Complaint”), entitled Bo Young Cha v. Kinross Gold Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”). The U.S. Complaint named as defendants the Company, Tye Burt, former President and CEO, Paul Barry, former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Glen Masterman, Senior Vice President, Exploration and Kenneth Thomas, former Senior Vice President, Projects. On May 31, 2012, the Court selected the City of Austin Police Retirement System (“City of Austin”) to be lead plaintiff. Pursuant to an order of the Court, City of Austin filed an amended Complaint on July 23, 2012 (the “Amended U.S. Complaint”). The Amended U.S. Complaint alleges among other things, that, between August 2, 2010 and January 17, 2012, the Defendants inflated Kinross’ share price by knowingly or recklessly making material misrepresentations concerning (i) the extent and quality of the due diligence Kinross performed prior to its acquisition of Red Back and (ii) Kinross’ schedule for developing the Tasiast mine. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended U.S. Complaint on September 7, 2012 and oral argument on the motion to dismiss took place on November 30, 2012. The parties are awaiting the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, which Kinross expects to take place during the first half of 2013. Defendants intend to MDA40 KINROSS GOLD 2012 ANNUAL REPORT vigorously defend against the Amended U.S. Complaint and believe it is without merit. A notice of action in a...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/30/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online