Skip to content
KStart free
AI InfrastructureDefenseQuantumAll studies →

Bunker Hill Mining Corp. BHLL US Equity

Materials · CIK 1407583 · FY ends Dec 31
$3.45
-0.09 (-2.54%)
USD · as of 2026-08-28 · marketstack
1 vendor bar left out of the 52-week range — 2026-03-11: the high/low contradict the close on the same bar.

Bunker Hill Mining Corp. (OTC: BHLL), an SEC filer in Metal Mining, closed at $3.45, -2.5%, on 2026-08-28, with a market cap of $167M as of 2026-08-27. Institutional ownership, earnings history and filed financials are on the tabs below.

Legal & controls

5 of 5 annual reports readable here

Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”

Fiscal yearFiledItem 3ICFRdisclosure controlsmaterial weaknessFiling
2025-12-312026-03-06described hereeffectiveeffectivenone in Item 9AEDGAR

Item 3 · Other than as described below, neither the Company nor its property is the subject of any pending legal proceedings. The Company is not aware of any other legal proceedings in which any director, officer or affiliate of the Company, any owner of record or beneficially of more than 5% of any class of the Company’s voting securities, or any associate of any such director, officer, affiliate or security holder of the Company, is a party adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries. Crescent Mining Litigation On July 28, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho brought by Crescent Mining, LLC (“Crescent”). The named defendants include Placer Mining, Robert Hopper Jr., and the Company. The lawsuit alleges that Placer Mining and Robert Hopper Jr. intentionally flooded the Crescent Mine during the period from 1991 and 1994, and that the Company is jointly and severally liable with the other defendants for unspecified past and future costs associated with the presence of acid mine drainage in the Crescent Mine. The plaintiff has requested unspecified damages. On September…

Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, the Company’s CEO and CFO have concluded that the internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025.

Item 9A · disclosure controls · This evaluation resulted in the conclusion that the design and operation of the disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2025.

2024-12-312025-03-28described hereeffectiveeffectivenone in Item 9AEDGAR

Item 3 · Other than as described below, neither the Company nor its property is the subject of any pending legal proceedings. The Company is not aware of any other legal proceedings in which any director, officer or affiliate of the Company, any owner of record or beneficially of more than 5% of any class of the Company’s voting securities, or any associate of any such director, officer, affiliate or security holder of the Company, is a party adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries. Crescent Mining Litigation On July 28, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho brought by Crescent Mining, LLC (“Crescent”). The named defendants include Placer Mining, Robert Hopper Jr., and the Company. The lawsuit alleges that Placer Mining and Robert Hopper Jr. intentionally flooded the Crescent Mine during the period from 1991 and 1994, and that the Company is jointly and severally liable with the other defendants for unspecified past and future costs associated with the presence of acid mine drainage in the Crescent Mine. The plaintiff has requested unspecified damages. On September…

Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, the Company’s CEO and CFO have concluded that the internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024.

Item 9A · disclosure controls · This evaluation resulted in the conclusion that the design and operation of the disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2024.

2023-12-312024-03-12described hereeffectiveeffectiveremediated (prior year)EDGAR

Item 3 · Other than as described below, neither the Company nor its property is the subject of any current, pending, or threatened legal proceedings. The Company is not aware of any other legal proceedings in which any director, officer or affiliate of the Company, any owner of record or beneficially of more than 5% of any class of the Company’s voting securities, or any associate of any such director, officer, affiliate or security holder of the Company, is a party adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries. On July 28, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho brought by Crescent Mining, LLC (“Crescent”). The named defendants include Placer Mining, Robert Hopper Jr., and the Company. The lawsuit alleges that Placer Mining and Robert Hopper Jr. intentionally flooded the Crescent Mine during the period from 1991 and 1994, and that the Company is jointly and severally liable with the other defendants for unspecified past and future costs associated with the presence of acid mine drainage (AMD) in the Crescent Mine. The plaintiff has requested unspecified damages. On Septem…

Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, the Company’s CEO and CFO have concluded that the internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2023.

Item 9A · disclosure controls · This evaluation resulted in the conclusion that the design and operation of the disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2023.

Item 9A · material weakness · Changes in Disclosure Controls and Procedures and Internal Control Over Financial Reporting There has been no change in the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, other than the remediation of the material weakness described below that materially affected or was reasonably likely to materially affect the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting.

2022-12-312023-04-17described hereeffectiveeffectiveremediated (prior year)EDGAR

Item 3 · Other than as described below, neither the Company nor its property is the subject of any current, pending, or threatened legal proceedings. The Company is not aware of any other legal proceedings in which any director, officer or affiliate of the Company, any owner of record or beneficially of more than 5% of any class of the Company’s voting securities, or any associate of any such director, officer, affiliate or security holder of the Company, is a party adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries. On July 28, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Idaho brought by Crescent Mining, LLC (“Crescent”). The named defendants include Placer Mining, Robert Hopper Jr., and the Company. The lawsuit alleges that Placer Mining and Robert Hopper Jr. intentionally flooded the Crescent Mine during the period from 1991 and 1994, and that the Company is jointly and severally liable with the other defendants for unspecified past and future costs associated with the presence of AMD in the Crescent Mine. The plaintiff has requested unspecified damages. On September 20, 2021, the Compa…

Item 9A · ICFR · Based on that evaluation, the Company’s CEO and CFO have concluded that the internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2022.

Item 9A · disclosure controls · This evaluation resulted in the conclusion that the design and operation of the disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2022.

Item 9A · material weakness · Changes in Disclosure Controls and Procedures and Internal Control Over Financial Reporting There has been no change in the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, other than the remediation of the material weakness described below that materially affected or was reasonably likely to materially affect the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting.

2021-12-312022-03-31described herenot extractednot extracteddisclosedEDGAR

Item 3 · Other than as described below, neither the Company nor its property is the subject of any current, pending, or threatened legal proceedings. The Company is not aware of any other legal proceedings in which any director, officer or affiliate of the Company, any owner of record or beneficially of more than 5% of any class of the Company’s voting securities, or any associate of any such director, officer, affiliate or security holder of the Company, is a party adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries or has a material interest adverse to the Company or any of its subsidiaries. On or about June 14, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Idaho brought by a purported personal representative of the estate of a minority shareholder of Placer Mining. The named defendants include Placer Mining, certain of Placer Mining’s shareholders, the Company, and certain of the Company’s shareholders. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on February 8, 2022 by Chief US District Court Judge, David C. Nye. On July 28, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Idaho brought by Crescent Mining, LLC (“Crescent”). The named defendants i…

Item 9A · material weakness · Based on the context in which the individual deficiencies occurred, management has concluded that these significant deficiencies, in combination, represent a material weakness.

5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.

  • Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
  • A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
  • An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
  • When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
  • Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.