compliance with the 2012 Mexican Climate Change Law, Grupo Mexico’s GHG emissions are reported and verified independently. On October 18, 2017, Grupo Mexico was selected to join the S&P Sustainability Indices MILA Pacific Alliance (DJSI MILA). In 2017, this regional sustainability index included 42 leading companies in sustainability from the countries that form part of the Pacific Alliance: Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Peru. As indicated above, the Grupo Mexico 2020 report is aligned with the reporting standards of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and, for the first time, also adheres to the frameworks of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.
The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with applicable environmental, mining and other applicable laws and regulations. The Company also believes that continued compliance with environmental laws of Mexico and Peru will have no material adverse effects on the Company’s business, properties, or operating results.
Litigation matters:
Peruvian operations
The Tia Maria Mining Project
There are five lawsuits filed against the Peruvian Branch of the Company related to the Tia Maria project. The lawsuits seek (i) to declare null and void the resolution that approved the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project; (ii) the cancellation of the project and the withdrawal of mining activities in the area; (iii) to declare null and void the mining concession application for the Tia Maria project; and (iv) to declare null and void the resolution that approved the construction license. The lawsuits were filed by Messrs. Jorge Isaac del Carpio Lazo (filed May 22, 2015), Ernesto Mendoza Padilla (filed May 26, 2015), Juan Alberto Guillen Lopez (filed June 18, 2015), Junta de Usuarios del Valle del Tambo (filed April 30, 2015), and Gobierno Regional de Arequipa (filed December 16, 2019).
The del Carpio Lazio case was rejected by the court of first instance on November 14, 2016. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Superior Court on January 3, 2017. On January 9, 2018, the lawyers of both parties presented their respective positions before the Appellate Court. On March 8, 2018, the Appellate Court issued its final decision, which upheld the first instance ruling. On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed an extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court. As of June 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution.
The Mendoza Padilla case was initially rejected by the lower court on July 8, 2015. This ruling was confirmed by the Superior Court on June 14, 2016. On July 12, 2016, the case was appealed before the Constitutional Court. On November 20, 2018, the Constitutional Court reversed the previous decisions and remanded the case to the lower court for further action. In the third quarter of 2020, the Company was notified that the complaint had been reinstated. The Company answered the complaint on September 15, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the lower court issued a resolution, considering the complaint answered. As of June 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution.
The Guillen Lopez case is currently before the lower court. On July 19, 2019, the oral arguments took place. On January 7, 2020, the Judge decided to suspend the proceeding until the del Carpio Lazio case is concluded. Therefore, as of June 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution.
The Junta de Usuarios del Valle del Tambo case is currently before the lower court. On May 2016, the Company was included in the process, after the Ministry of Energy and Mines filed a civil complaint. On March 6, 2019, the Company was formally notified of the lawsuit and answered the complaint on March 20, 2019. On July 8, 2019, the Company requested the suspension of the proceeding until the del Carpio Lazio case is concluded. As of June 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution.
The Gobierno Regional de Arequipa case is currently before the lower court and the Company answered the complaint on September 15, 2020. As of June 30, 2021, the case remains pending resolution.