Gold Fields (GFIOF) Risk Analysis

The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) allows native title holders (i.e. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have secured a determination of native title) to seek compensation for any extinguishment or impairment of their native title rights and interests which occurred following the commencement of the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) (Cth). The Commonwealth of Australia, its states and territories are generally responsible for any native title compensation for acts (such as the granting of land and mining tenure) attributable to them. However, this liability may be passed on to third parties (including the holders and former holders of mining tenure) either contractually or by legislation. A number of compensation claims in various states and territories across Australia have resulted following the High Court’s decision in 2019 to award compensation of approximately A$2.5 million to native title holders in Timber Creek in the Northern Territory (Timber Creek Decision). However, the Timber Creek Decision did not address how compensation was to be assessed where the impact on native title is caused by interests (such as mining leases) which impair native title rights without extinguishing them. With respect to the lands related to Gold Fields’ mines, native title has been recognised in part or in whole over the St. Ives, Gruyere and Agnew mines. Consequently, the native title holders for each of these areas are entitled to commence compensation claims (to the extent that such rights have not been waived). Accordingly, in June 2020, the Tjiwarl People, who have native title claims over part of the lands upon which the Agnew mine is situated, brought two compensation claims against the state of Western Australia for damage and loss of access to land (Tjiwarl Claims). Unlike the Timber Creek Decision, this claim (if not settled by the parties) may address issues such as the “pass on” provisions contained in the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (through which the State of Western Australia seeks to pass on any compensation liability to mining tenure holders), and the assessment of compensation payable in relation to the grant of resources interests. Gold Fields has joined as a party to the proceedings to preserve the ability to participate to the extent its interests are potentially impacted, but the state of Western Australia may seek to apply to remove Gold Fields as a party if it finds that Gold Fields does not have sufficient interest to justify its participation. Furthermore, in 2020, some members of the broader Yilka and Sullivan Edwards group commenced a native title compensation claim in the Federal Court, although it is anticipated that the claim will likely be dismissed or withdrawn. Aside from the Tjiwarl People and the Yilka and Sullivan Edwards group, the remaining determined native title holders have not yet commenced compensation claims, but there is a reasonable prospect that they will occur in the future. Similarly, if the native title claims that are currently progressing through the determination process in the Federal Court in relation to the Granny Smith mine and part of the St. Ives mine are determined, or if further claims are made over areas that are yet undetermined (for example over part of the Agnew operations), and those claimants achieve a determination of their native title rights, those native title holders would obtain a right to commence a compensation claim. To the extent that it is ultimately determined that the compensation liability of the State of Western Australia may be passed on to Gold Fields as a holder (or former holder) of mining tenure in a determined native title claim area, and Gold Fields does not have the benefit or a release from liability in any contractual agreement, Gold Fields may be liable for any native title compensation determined in relation to those tenements. However, until a sufficient body of compensation claims have worked their way through the Australian courts, the allocation, quantum and timing of this liability will remain uncertain. Gold Fields is monitoring this issue and the various compensation claims being brought by native title holders, including the Tjiwarl Claims, and will assess any potential risks associated as the claims are resolved in the various courts.

Gold Fields operates globally in multiple jurisdictions and with numerous and complex legal frameworks, applicable rules, codes and standards, and its governance and compliance framework and implemented processes may not prevent potential breaches of law or accounting or other governance practices. Gold Fields’ operating and ethical codes facilitate the reporting of internal and external fraudulent behaviour and dishonesty. Dedicated reporting mechanisms relating to fraud, bribery and corruption pivot on a Group Whistle Blower line, under the ambit of a Group Whistle Blower Policy, and an internal Grievance mechanism within the Human Resources discipline. Gold Fields’ operating and ethical codes, among other rules, codes, standards and guidance, may not prevent instances of fraudulent behaviour and dishonesty, (internally or by associated third parties), nor guarantee compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. To the extent that Gold Fields suffers from any actual or alleged breach or breaches of relevant laws, including South African anti-bribery and corruption legislation or the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (the FCPA) under any circumstances, they may lead to investigations and examinations, regulatory and civil penalties, fines and/or sanctions, litigation, public and private censure and loss of operating licences or permits and may impact negatively upon our empowerment status and may damage Gold Fields’ reputation. The occurrence of any of these events could have a material adverse effect on Gold Fields’ business, operating results and financial condition.

Securities laws of certain jurisdictions may restrict Gold Fields’ ability to allow participation by certain shareholders in future issues of securities (including ordinary shares) carried out by or on behalf of Gold Fields. In particular, holders of Gold Fields securities who are located in the United States (including those who hold ordinary shares or ADSs) may not be able to participate in securities offerings by or on behalf of Gold Fields unless a registration statement under the Securities Act is effective with respect to such securities or an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act is available thereunder. Securities laws of certain other jurisdictions may also restrict Gold Fields’ ability to allow the participation of all holders in such jurisdictions in future issues of securities carried out by Gold Fields. Holders who have a registered address or are resident in, or who are citizens of, countries other than South Africa should consult their professional advisers as to whether they require any governmental or other consents or approvals or need to observe any other formalities to enable them to participate in any offering of Gold Fields securities.

Gold Fields is incorporated in South Africa as a public company. All of Gold Fields’ directors and executive officers reside outside the United States, and the majority of (i) Gold Fields' assets and (ii) the Gold Fields directors’ personal assets are located outside the United States. Accordingly, investors that obtain judgments in the United States or other foreign jurisdictions may face obstacles to enforcing foreign judgments in South Africa. There are several conditions to be met for a foreign judgment to be enforced. In particular, South African courts will: •not enforce foreign revenue laws or claims for punitive, multiple or penal damages; •not enforce judgments (i) repugnant to then prevailing public policy, or (ii) obtained by fraudulent or similar means; and •only enforce final judgments by a court or body having competence to decide the matter in the foreign jurisdiction. South African courts will apply their own procedural rules and the capacity of parties to contract will be determined in accordance with South African law. Moreover, a plaintiff who is not resident in South Africa may be required to provide security for costs in the event of proceedings being initiated in South Africa and the Rules of the High Court of South Africa require that documents executed outside South Africa must be authenticated for the purpose of use in South Africa.