Background to the Arbitration

In April 2015, an ejido community (“Ejido”) filed a lawsuit (“Lawsuit”) against Mexico (the President, Congress, Ministry of Economy, Directorate of Mines, Mining Registry Office), claiming that Mexico’s mineral title system was unconstitutional because Indigenous consultation was not required before the granting of mineral title. Under Mexican law, an ejido refers to a form of communal land tenure where a group of individuals, known as ejidatarios, collectively own and manage agricultural land.

The Ejido in question is a small, remote mountain village of approximately 150 residents, located at an altitude of 2,569 meters, a higher elevation than the Project. It is situated entirely outside the Project’s “area of influence” as defined in the Company’s environmental permit application of February 2019, approximately 45 minutes to an hour by car from the Project site. The Ejido lands cover an area of approximately 330 hectares, in the southeastern portion of the mineral concessions which were owned by the Company and which underpinned the Project. The Lawsuit was supported by internationally funded non-governmental organizations.

Upon learning of the Lawsuit, Almaden immediately sought to relinquish approximately 7,000 hectares of its mineral title area including the portion overlapping with the Ejido lands, believing that this would address the Ejido’s concerns. The reduced title area was confirmed by the Mexican mining authorities in 2017. However, the Ejido appealed this reduction, and in late 2020 the Mexican courts confirmed that the Company was obligated to continue in its possession of the larger title area.

In 2018, President Lopez-Obrador (“AMLO”) came into power in Mexico. The AMLO regime is widely recognized as having been hostile to the mining industry, in particular foreign mining companies that owned or sought to develop mining projects in Mexico.

In 2022, Mexico’s Supreme Court (“SCJN”) ruled on the Lawsuit. In effect, the SCJN ruling concluded that the Mexican mining law was not unconstitutional, but that the Mexican mining authority (“Economia”) had improperly issued the Claimants’ mineral titles as it had not incorporated Mexico’s Indigenous consultation obligations into the mineral title issuance procedures. The SCJN required that the Company’s two mineral titles be suspended, in order that the Company’s mineral title applications, originally made in 2002 and 2008 and approved in 2003 and 2009, could be reissued by Economia after it complied with its Indigenous consultation obligations.

The rights endowed by the Company’s mineral titles were suspended in June, 2022, and the Company began working cooperatively with Economia to facilitate what it thought would be the first ever Indigenous consultation in Mexico in respect of the granting of mineral titles. In October, 2022 however, the head of Economia was replaced and the Company’s access to Economia ceased.

In February 2023, Economia filed a notice with the courts charged with implementing the SCJN decision, seeking to deny the two mineral title applications retroactively. The notice claimed that the applications contained alleged de minimis technical faults, despite Economia’s acceptance of the mineral title applications and grant of the mineral titles in 2003 and 2009. By alleging such de minimis technical faults in the mineral title applications, Economia breached Mexican domestic law and international law to deny arbitrarily and pre-emptively the grant of the mineral titles and thereby avoid the Indigenous consultation ordered by the SCJN. Such consultation would have been welcomed by both the Company and community members living in the area of influence of the Project.

Despite the legal appeals of the Company and surrounding community members that Indigenous consultation should proceed, the Mexican courts endorsed Economia’s position. Therefore, the mineral rights underpinning the Project were definitively cancelled and reverted to the Government of Mexico, and Indigenous consultation never occurred.

In December 2023, Almaden delivered to Mexico a Request for Consultations in accordance with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (“CPTPP”) relating to an investment dispute (the “Claim”).

The December filing initiated the six-month consultation period required under the CPTPP. Mexico agreed to hold one consultation meeting, which took place on May 30, 2024, but it did not result in an amicable resolution of the dispute. The Company filed notice of its intention to submit the Claim to arbitration on March 14, 2024, triggering a 90-day notice period prior to filing, and announced the filing of its Request for Arbitration with ICSID on June 17, 2024.

On March 20, 2025, the Company filed its memorial submission (“Memorial”) relating to the Claim, which is being prosecuted pursuant to the established and enforceable legal framework of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

As further explained in the Company’s June 27, 2024 press release, Almaden is pursuing this Claim together with Almadex Minerals Ltd. (“Almadex”), on behalf of themselves and their Mexican subsidiaries (the “Claimants”). Prior to the illegal acts of Mexico which resulted in the complete loss of the investment, Almaden held 100% of the Ixtaca precious metals project (the “Project”), while Almadex held a 2.0% NSR royalty on the Project.

The Memorial outlines how Mexico breached its obligations under the CPTPP through actions which blocked the development of the Ixtaca project and ultimately retroactively and arbitrarily terminated the Company’s mineral concessions. Specifically, the Memorial demonstrates how Mexico (i) unlawfully expropriated the Claimants’ protected investments without any compensation; (ii) failed to accord the Claimants’ protected investments fair and equitable treatment; and (iii) unlawfully discriminated against the Claimants and their protected investments.

Based on a valuation by an independent quantum expert, the Claimants are seeking damages of US$1.06 billion, in the aggregate. This number will be further updated as the Claim proceeds, to reflect future movements in precious metal prices, exchange rates, interest rates, and other factors.

The Claimants’ legal counsel for this arbitration are Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP, and RíosFerrer + Gutiérrez, S.C.

On June 27, 2024, the Company announced that it had agreed with Almadex and its Mexican subsidiary to streamline the management of the arbitration proceedings by entering into a Litigation Management Agreement (“LMA”).  Under the LMA, Almaden will bear the up-front costs of the arbitration and provide overall direction to the arbitration process for itself and its subsidiaries, as well as Almadex and its subsidiaries, with certain limitations.  Almadex will remain a party to the arbitration and continue in its cooperation and support of the process.

Should the Claim result in an award of damages (“Claim Proceeds”), the pro rata portion of the Claim Proceeds, if any, which may be attributable to Almadex from the 2.0% NSR royalty it held on the Project will be determined. Almadex’s award will consist of this pro rata portion, less its pro rata share of the costs of pursuing the Claims, including the financing costs (the “Almadex Award”). Almadex will compensate Almaden in the amount of 10% of the Almadex Award in exchange for managing the Claims.

Coincidental with announcing the LMA, Almaden entered into a litigation funding agreement (the “LFA”) with a leading legal finance provider (the “Funder”). The LFA provides up to US$9.5 million in non-recourse funding for the Company to pursue the Claims. This funding is expected to cover all legal, tribunal and external expert costs of the Claims, as well as some corporate operating expenses as may be required. The funding is repayable in the event that Claim Proceeds are recovered from Mexico, with such repayment being a contingent entitlement to the Claim Proceeds.

Finally, also on June 27, 2024, Almaden announced that it had agreed with Almadex to extend the maturity of the gold loan (see press release of May 14, 2019) from March 31, 2026 to the earlier of March 31, 2030, or the receipt by Almaden or its subsidiary of any Claim Proceeds.

In return for this amendment, in addition to its obligation to repay the gold loan, Almaden agreed to pay Almadex 2.0% of the gross amount of any Claim Proceeds that Almaden may receive as a result of the Claims, such repayment to be subordinate to amounts due under the LFA, and any additional legal and management costs.

On May 22, 2025, Almaden announced that had notified Almadex of its intention to repay the gold loan following receipt by Almaden of the final payment relating to the sale of its Rock Creek mill, which was announced by the Company on March 3, 2025. This final payment is expected to be occur or before August 31, 2025.

Further information regarding the investment dispute is available in the Company’s recent news releases.