Note 1.    Basis of Preparation of Financial Statements

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements and notes to the unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring items and items which are nonrecurring, necessary to present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Hecla Mining Company and its consolidated subsidiaries ("Hecla" or "the Company" or “we” or “our” or “us”).  See Note 4 for information on adjustments which are nonrecurring contained in the accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements. These unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements and related footnotes as set forth in our annual report filed on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, as it may be amended from time to time.

The results of operations for the periods presented may not be indicative of those which may be expected for a full year.  The unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").  Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those rules and regulations, although we believe that the disclosures are adequate for the information not to be misleading.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements, the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period, and the disclosures of contingent liabilities.  Accordingly, ultimate results could differ materially from those estimates.     

Note 2.    Investments and Restricted Cash

Investments

At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the fair value of our non-current investments was $2.1 million and $1.5 million, respectively.  Our non-current investments consist of marketable equity securities which are carried at fair market value, and are primarily classified as “available-for-sale.”  The cost basis of our non-current investments was approximately $3.2 million and $4.0 million at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. During the first quarters of 2016 and 2015, we recognized impairment charges against current earnings of $1.0 million and $2.8 million, respectively, as we determined the impairments to be other-than-temporary.

Restricted Cash and Investments

Various laws, permits, and covenants require that funds be in place for certain environmental and reclamation obligations and other potential liabilities.  We had a current restricted cash balance of $3.9 million as of March 31, 2016 representing funds deposited in escrow to be applied towards a potential settlement of environmental matters for the South Dakota and Colorado Superfund sites related to CoCa Mines, Inc. (see Note 4 for more information). Our non-current restricted investments are used primarily for reclamation funding or for funding surety bonds, and were $1.0 million at each of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. Non-current restricted investments primarily represent investments in money market funds and certificates of deposit.  

Note 3.   Income Taxes

Major components of our income tax provision for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 are as follows (in thousands):

As of March 31, 2016, we have a net deferred tax asset in the U.S. of $42.3 million, a net deferred tax liability in Canada of $127.1 million, and a net deferred tax asset in Mexico of $7.9 million, for a consolidated worldwide net deferred tax liability of $76.9 million. Our ability to utilize our deferred tax assets depends on future taxable income generated from operations. For the three months ended March 31, 2016, there were no circumstances that caused us to change our assessment of the ability to generate sufficient future taxable income to realize the currently recognized deferred tax assets.  At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the balances of the valuation allowances on our deferred tax assets were $113 million and $116 million, respectively, primarily for net operating losses and tax credit carryforwards. The amount of the deferred tax asset considered recoverable, however, could be reduced in the near term if estimates of future taxable income are reduced.

The current income tax provisions for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 vary from the amounts that would have resulted from applying the statutory income tax rate to pre-tax income due primarily to the effects of percentage depletion for all periods presented and the impact of taxation in foreign jurisdictions.

Note 4.    Commitments, Contingencies and Obligations

General

We follow the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") guidance in determining our accruals and disclosures with respect to loss contingencies, and evaluate such accruals and contingencies for each reporting period. Accordingly, estimated losses from loss contingencies are accrued by a charge to income when information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability could be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Legal expenses associated with the contingency are expensed as incurred. If a loss contingency is not probable or reasonably estimable, disclosure of the loss contingency is made in the financial statements when it is at least reasonably possible that a material loss could be incurred.

Rio Grande Silver Guaranty

Our wholly-owned subsidiary, Rio Grande Silver Inc. (“Rio”), is party to a joint venture with Emerald Mining & Leasing, LLC (“EML”) and certain other parties with respect to a land package in the Creede Mining District of Colorado that is adjacent to other land held by Rio. Rio holds a 70% interest in the joint venture. In connection with the joint venture, we are required to guarantee certain environmental remediation-related obligations of EML to a third party up to a maximum liability to us of $2.5 million. As of March 31, 2016, we have not been required to make any payments pursuant to the guaranty. We may be required to make payments in the future, limited to the $2.5 million maximum liability, should EML fail to meet its obligations to the third party. However, to the extent that any payments are made by us under the guaranty, EML, in addition to other parties, has jointly and severally agreed to reimburse and indemnify us for any such payments. We have not recorded a liability relating to the guaranty as of March 31, 2016.

Lucky Friday Water Permit Matters

Over the last several years, the Lucky Friday unit has experienced several regulatory issues relating to its water discharge permits and water management more generally. In December 2013, the EPA issued to Hecla Limited a notice of violation (“2013 NOV”) alleging certain storm water reporting violations under Lucky Friday’s Clean Water Act Multi-Sector General Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activities. The alleged violations were resolved. The 2013 NOV also contained a request for information under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act directing Hecla Limited to undertake a comprehensive groundwater investigation of Lucky Friday’s tailings pond no. 3 to evaluate whether the pond is causing the discharge of pollutants via seepage to groundwater that is discharging to surface water.

We completed the investigation mandated by the EPA and submitted a draft report to the agency in December 2015. We are waiting for the EPA’s response, and until such time as the process is complete, we cannot predict what the impact of the investigation will be.

Hecla Limited strives to maintain its water discharges at the Lucky Friday unit in full compliance with its permits and applicable laws, however, we cannot provide assurance that in the future it will be able to fully comply with the permit limits and other regulatory requirements regarding water management.

Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico

In May 2011, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Johnny M Mine Area near San Mateo, McKinley County, New Mexico, and asserted that Hecla Mining Company may be responsible under CERCLA for environmental remediation and past costs the EPA has incurred at the site. Mining at the Johnny M was conducted for a limited period of time by a predecessor of our subsidiary, Hecla Limited. In August 2012, Hecla Limited and the EPA entered into a Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Consent Order”), pursuant to which Hecla Limited agreed to pay (i) $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs at the site and (ii) any future response costs at the site under the Consent Order, in exchange for a covenant not to sue by the EPA. Hecla Limited paid the approximately $1.1 million to the EPA for its past response costs and in December 2014, submitted to EPA the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (“EE/CA”) for the site. The EE/CA evaluates three alternative response actions: 1) no action, 2) off-site disposal, and 3) on-site disposal. The range in estimated costs of these alternatives is $0 to $221 million. In the EE/CA, Hecla Limited recommended that EPA approve on-site disposal, which is currently estimated to cost $5.6 million, on the basis that it is the most appropriate response action under CERCLA. In June 2015, the EPA approved the EE/CA, with a few minor conditions. The EPA still needs to publish the EE/CA for public notice and comment, and the agency will not make a final decision on the appropriate response action until the public comment process is complete. It is anticipated that Hecla Limited will implement the response action selected by the EPA pursuant to an amendment to the Consent Order or a new order. Based on the foregoing, we believe it is probable that Hecla Limited will incur a liability for remediation at the site, and our best estimate of that liability as of the date of this report is $5.6 million, and we have accrued that amount. There can be no assurance that Hecla Limited’s liability will not be more than $5.6 million, or that its ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on Hecla Limited’s or our results of operations or financial position.

Carpenter Snow Creek Site, Cascade County, Montana

In July 2010, the EPA made a formal request to Hecla Mining Company for information regarding the Carpenter Snow Creek Superfund Site located in Cascade County, Montana. The Carpenter Snow Creek Site is located in a historic mining district, and in the early 1980s Hecla Limited leased 6 mining claims and performed limited exploration activities at the site. Hecla Limited terminated the mining lease in 1988.

In June 2011, the EPA informed Hecla Limited that it believes Hecla Limited, among several other viable companies, may be liable for cleanup of the site or for costs incurred by the EPA in cleaning up the site. The EPA stated in the June 2011 letter that it has incurred approximately $4.5 million in response costs and estimated that total remediation costs may exceed $100 million. Hecla Limited cannot with reasonable certainty estimate the amount or range of liability, if any, relating to this matter because of, among other reasons, the lack of information concerning the site.

South Dakota and Colorado Superfund Sites Related to CoCa Mines, Inc.

In 1991, Hecla Limited acquired all of the outstanding common stock of CoCa Mines, Inc. (“CoCa”).  CoCa is alleged to have held prior property interests and undertaken exploration activities at the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund site in Lawrence County, South Dakota, and to have been engaged in exploration and mining activities at or near the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund site in Creede, Colorado.  The United States and the State of South Dakota have alleged that CoCa, along with other parties, is a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) under CERCLA at the Gilt Edge site.  In addition, the United States and the State of Colorado have alleged that CoCa is a PRP at the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore site. The United States, South Dakota and Colorado base their claims of liability on allegations of CoCa’s historical relationship to each site, and that CoCa has succeeded to the liabilities of one or more predecessor entities that may have held certain property interests at the sites or undertaken certain activities.

The United States alleges that it has, to date, incurred $118 million, plus interest, in response costs at the Gilt Edge site. At the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore site, the EPA alleges that it has, to date, incurred $10 million, plus interest, in response costs.

As a result of ongoing settlement discussions, Consent Decrees were lodged with the United States District Court in Colorado on April 14, 2016, that would settle the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock Pile Superfund site matter, and in South Dakota on April 15, 2016, that would settle the Gilt Edge Superfund site matter.  The Consent Decrees resolve CoCa’s alleged liabilities for past and future response costs with respect to each site, and include combined net payments in the aggregate of $9.9 million by CoCa.  With respect to Gilt Edge, the proposed financial terms require that CoCa pay $3.9 million, as well as up to $700,000 in any proceeds from a lawsuit CoCa has filed against an uncooperative insurer.  The remainder of the settlement amount ($6.4 million) would be paid by insurance companies and another PRP.  With respect to the Nelson Tunnel site, the proposed financial terms require that CoCa pay $6 million.

As a result, in the second quarter of 2015 we accrued $9.9 million by recording a liability for the total amount that would be paid by CoCa and an asset for the estimated amount that would be recovered by CoCa from insurers and the other party to the Gilt Edge settlement.

The Consent Decrees were published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2016, which began a 30-day public comment period for each Consent Decree.  Upon conclusion of the comment period, the United States will evaluate and respond to any public comments received and then is expected to seek Court approval and entry of each Consent Decree. If each Court enters the respective Consent Decree lodged with it, CoCa will have resolved the claims of (i) the United States and the State of South Dakota with respect to the Gilt Edge site, and (ii) the United States and the State of Colorado with respect to the Nelson Tunnel site, in each case under CERCLA and certain relevant state statutes, for all past and future response costs at each site.

There can be no assurance that the Consent Decrees will be entered by the Courts and become final and binding.  Accordingly, in the event these matters are not settled, our accrual could materially change.

Senior Notes

On April 12, 2013, we completed an offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.875% Senior Notes due 2021. The net proceeds from the offering of the Senior Notes were used to partially fund the acquisition of Aurizon Mines Ltd. ("Aurizon") and for general corporate purposes, including expenses related to the Aurizon acquisition. In 2014, we completed additional issuances of our Senior Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $6.5 million, which were contributed to one of our pension plans to satisfy the funding requirement for 2014. Interest on the Senior Notes is payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing November 1, 2013. See Note 9 for more information.

Other Commitments

Our contractual obligations as of March 31, 2016 included approximately $11.7 million for various costs. In addition, our open purchase orders at March 31, 2016 included approximately $1.0 million, $0.7 million and $0.6 million, respectively, for various capital items at the Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi and Greens Creek units, and approximately $0.5 million, $3.6 million, and $2.4 million, respectively, for various non-capital costs at the Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi and Greens Creek units. We also have total commitments of approximately $16.3 million relating to scheduled payments on capital leases, including interest, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units (see Note 9 for more information). As part of our ongoing business and operations, we are required to provide surety bonds, bank letters of credit, and restricted deposits for various purposes, including financial support for environmental reclamation obligations and workers compensation programs. As of March 31, 2016, we had surety bonds totaling $100.5 million in place as financial support for future reclamation and closure costs, self insurance, and employee benefit plans. We also held a $6.5 million restricted deposit at March 31, 2016 as financial support for reclamation of the Troy mine acquired as part of the acquisition of Revett Mining Company, Inc. ("Revett"). The obligations associated with these instruments are generally related to performance requirements that we address through ongoing operations. As the requirements are met, the beneficiary of the associated instruments cancels or returns the instrument to the issuing entity. Certain of these instruments are associated with operating sites with long-lived assets and will remain outstanding until closure of the sites. We believe we are in compliance with all applicable bonding requirements and will be able to satisfy future bonding requirements as they arise.

Other Contingencies

On April 12, 2013, the family of Larry Marek, an employee of Hecla Limited who was fatally injured in an April 2011 accident, filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our officers and employees seeking damages for, among other claims, wrongful death and infliction of emotional distress. No dollar amount of damages is specified in the complaint, which was filed in state court in Idaho (Kootenai County District Court). On April 21, 2015, the judge hearing the case granted Hecla’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter, however, we believe the case is without merit and are vigorously defending this lawsuit.

On December 11, 2013, four employees of Hecla Limited who were injured in a December 2011 rock burst, filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our employees seeking damages for, among other claims, intentional and willful injury and infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $1,000,000, as claimed in the complaint, which was filed in state court in Idaho (Kootenai County District Court). On August 28, 2015, the judge hearing the case granted Hecla’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter, however, we believe the case is without merit and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

We also have certain other contingencies resulting from litigation, claims, EPA investigations, and other commitments and are subject to a variety of environmental and safety laws and regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. We currently expect that the resolution of such contingencies will not materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, in the future, there may be changes to these contingencies, and additional contingencies may occur as well, any of which might result in an accrual or a change in the estimated accruals recorded by us, and there can be no assurance that their ultimate disposition will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 5.    (Loss) Earnings Per Common Share

We are authorized to issue 500,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.25 par value per share. At March 31, 2016, there were 384,557,723 shares of our common stock issued and 3,037,154 shares issued and held in treasury, for a net of 381,520,569 shares outstanding.

Diluted (loss) income per share for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 excludes the potential effects of outstanding shares of our convertible preferred stock, as their conversion would have no effect on the calculation of dilutive shares.

For the three months ended March 31, 2016, all outstanding restricted share units and warrants were excluded from the computation of diluted (loss) earnings per share, as our reported net loss for that period would cause their vesting and exercise to have no effect on the calculation of (loss) earnings per share. For the three-month period ended March 31, 2015, options to purchase 244,342 shares of our common stock were excluded from the computation of diluted (loss) earnings per share, as the exercise price of the options exceeded the average price of our stock during that period and therefore would not affect the calculation of (loss) earnings per share. There were no options outstanding as of March 31, 2016.

Note 6.    Business Segments

We are currently organized and managed in four segments, which represent our operating units: the Greens Creek unit, the Lucky Friday unit, the Casa Berardi unit, and the San Sebastian unit. The San Sebastian unit, a historic operating property for Hecla, resumed commercial production in the fourth quarter of 2015 and was added as a new reporting segment in 2015.

General corporate activities not associated with operating units and their various exploration activities, as well as discontinued operations and idle properties, are presented as “other.”  Interest expense, interest income and income taxes are considered general corporate items, and are not allocated to our segments.

The following tables present information about reportable segments for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 (in thousands):

The following table presents identifiable assets by reportable segment as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 (in thousands):

Note 7.   Employee Benefit Plans

We sponsor defined benefit pension plans covering substantially all U.S. employees.  Net periodic pension cost for the plans consisted of the following for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015 (in thousands):

In February 2016, we contributed approximately $2.6 million in shares of our common stock and cash to our defined benefit plans, with approximately $2.7 million in additional contributions anticipated in 2016. We expect to contribute approximately $0.4 million to our unfunded supplemental executive retirement plan during 2016.

Note 8.    Stockholders’ Equity

Stock-based Compensation Plans

We periodically grant restricted stock unit awards and/or shares of common stock to our employees and directors. We measure compensation cost for restricted stock units and stock grants at the closing price of our stock at the time of grant. Restricted stock unit grants vest after a specified period with compensation cost amortized over that period. Although we have no current plans to issue stock options, we may do so in the future.

In March 2016, the Board of Directors granted 2,335,196 shares of common stock to employees for payment of annual and long-term incentive compensation for the period ended December 31, 2015. The shares were distributed in March 2016, and $5.5 million in expense related to the stock awards was recognized in the periods prior to March 31, 2016.

Stock-based compensation expense for restricted stock unit grants to employees and shares issued to nonemployee directors recorded in the first three months of 2016 totaled $1.2 million, compared to $1.1 million in the same period last year.

In connection with the vesting of restricted stock units and other stock grants, employees have in the past, at their election and when permitted by us, chosen to satisfy their minimum tax withholding obligations through net share settlement, pursuant to which the Company withholds the number of shares necessary to satisfy such withholding obligations.  As a result, in the first three months of 2016 we withheld 532,157 shares valued at approximately $1.3 million, or approximately $2.36 per share. In the first three months of 2015 we withheld 284,243 shares valued at approximately $0.9 million, or approximately $3.31 per share.

Common Stock Dividends

In September 2011 and February 2012, our Board of Directors adopted a common stock dividend policy that has two components: (1) a dividend that links the amount of dividends on our common stock to our average quarterly realized silver price in the preceding quarter, and (2) a minimum annual dividend of $0.01 per share of common stock, in each case, payable quarterly, if and when declared. For illustrative purposes only, the table below summarizes potential per share dividend amounts at different quarterly average realized price levels according to the first component of the policy:

On May 4, 2016, our Board of Directors declared a common stock dividend, pursuant to the minimum annual dividend component of the policy described above, of $0.0025 per share, for a total dividend of approximately $1.0 million payable in June 2016. Because the average realized silver price for the first quarter of 2016 was $14.93 per ounce, below the minimum threshold of $30 according to the policy, no silver-price-linked component was declared or paid. The declaration and payment of common stock dividends is at the sole discretion of our Board of Directors.

At-The-Market Equity Distribution Agreement

Pursuant to an equity distribution agreement dated February 23, 2016, we may issue and sell shares of our common stock from time to time through ordinary broker transactions having an aggregate offering price of up to $75 million, with the net proceeds available for general corporate purposes. The terms of sales transactions under the agreement, including trading day(s), number of shares sold in the aggregate, number of shares sold per trading day, and the floor selling price per share, are proposed by us to the sales agent. Whether or not we engage in sales from time to time may depend on a variety of factors, including share price, our cash resources, customary black-out restrictions, and whether we have any material inside information. The agreement can be terminated by us at any time. The shares issued under the equity distribution agreement are registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, pursuant to our shelf registration statement on Form S-3, which was filed with the SEC on February 23, 2016. As of March 31, 2016, we had sold 737,275 shares under the agreement for total proceeds of approximately $2.1 million, net of commissions of approximately $42 thousand.

Common Stock Repurchase Program

On May 8, 2012, we announced that our Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase program.  Under the program, we are authorized to repurchase up to 20 million shares of our outstanding common stock from time to time in open market or privately negotiated transactions, depending on prevailing market conditions and other factors.  The repurchase program may be modified, suspended or discontinued by us at any time. Whether or not we engage in repurchases from time to time may depend on a variety of factors, including not only price and cash resources, but customary black-out restrictions, whether we have any material inside information, limitations on share repurchases or cash usage that may be imposed by our credit agreement or in connection with issuances of securities, alternative uses for cash, applicable law, and other investment opportunities from time to time. As of March 31, 2016, 934,100 shares have been purchased at an average price of $3.99 per share, leaving approximately 19.1 million shares that may yet be purchased under the program. The closing price of our common stock at May 3, 2016, was $4.05 per share.

Warrants

At December 31, 2015, we had 2,249,550 warrants outstanding, with each warrant exercisable for 0.1622 of a share of our common stock at an exercise price of $6.17 per share. All of the warrants expired in March 2016, and there were no warrants outstanding as of March 31, 2016.

Note 9.    Senior Notes, Credit Facilities and Capital Leases

Senior Notes

On April 12, 2013, we completed an offering of $500 million in aggregate principal amount of our Senior Notes due May 1, 2021 in a private placement conducted pursuant to Rule 144A and Regulation S under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and in 2014, an additional $6.5 million aggregate principal amount of the Senior Notes were issued to one of our pension plans. The Senior Notes were subsequently exchanged for substantially identical Senior Notes registered with the SEC. The Senior Notes are governed by the Indenture, dated as of April 12, 2013, as amended (the "Indenture"), among Hecla Mining Company ("Hecla") and certain of our subsidiaries and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee. The net proceeds from the initial offering of the Senior Notes ($490 million) were used to partially fund the acquisition of Aurizon and for general corporate purposes, including expenses related to the Aurizon acquisition.

The Senior Notes are recorded net of a 2% initial purchaser discount totaling $10 million at the time of the April 2013 issuance and having an unamortized balance of $6.5 million as of March 31, 2016. The Senior Notes bear interest at a rate of 6.875% per year from the date of original issuance or from the most recent payment date on which interest has been paid or provided for.  Interest on the Senior Notes is payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing November 1, 2013. During the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, interest expense related to the Senior Notes and amortization of the initial purchaser discount and fees related to the issuance of the Senior Notes, net of $3.8 million and $3.3 million, respectively, in capitalized interest, totaled $5.2 million and $5.7 million, respectively.

The Senior Notes are guaranteed on a senior unsecured basis by certain of our subsidiaries (the "Guarantors").   The Senior Notes and the guarantees are, respectively, Hecla's and the Guarantors' general senior unsecured obligations and are subordinated to all of Hecla's and the Guarantors' existing and future secured debt to the extent of the assets securing that secured debt.  In addition, the Senior Notes are effectively subordinated to all of the liabilities of Hecla's subsidiaries that are not guaranteeing the Senior Notes, to the extent of the assets of those subsidiaries.

The Senior Notes became redeemable in whole or in part, at any time and from time to time after May 1, 2016, on the redemption dates and at the redemption prices specified in the Indenture, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date of redemption.

Upon the occurrence of a change of control (as defined in the Indenture), each holder of Senior Notes will have the right to require us to purchase all or a portion of such holder's Senior Notes pursuant to a change of control offer (as defined in the Indenture), at a purchase price equal to 101% of the principal amount thereof plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date of purchase, subject to the rights of holders of the Senior Notes on the relevant record date to receive interest due on the relevant interest payment date.

Credit Facilities

In February 2014, we entered into a $100 million senior secured revolving credit facility, which was amended in November 2014 to extend the maturity date to November 18, 2018. The credit facility is collateralized by the shares of common stock held in our material domestic subsidiaries and by our joint venture interests in the Greens Creek mine, all of our rights and interests in the joint venture agreement, and all of our rights and interests in the assets of the joint venture.  This credit facility replaced our previous $100 million credit facility which had the same terms of collateral as described above. Below is information on the interest rates, standby fee, and financial covenant terms under our current credit facility:

⁽¹⁾ The leverage ratio was amended for 2016 to increase to 5.00:1, and will revert back to 4.00:1 in 2017.          

We believe we were substantially in compliance with all covenants under the credit agreement and no amounts were outstanding as of March 31, 2016.  We have not drawn funds on the current revolving credit facility as of the filing date of this report.

Capital Leases

We have entered into various lease agreements, primarily for equipment at our Greens Creek, Lucky Friday and Casa Berardi units, which we have determined to be capital leases.  At March 31, 2016, the total liability associated with the capital leases, including certain purchase option amounts, was $15.6 million, with $8.2 million of the liability classified as current and $7.4 million classified as non-current. At December 31, 2015, the total liability balance associated with capital leases was $17.6 million, with $8.7 million of the liability classified as current and $8.8 million classified as non-current. The total obligation for future minimum lease payments was $16.3 million at March 31, 2016, with $0.7 million attributed to interest.

At March 31, 2016, the annual maturities of capital lease commitments, including interest, were (in thousands):

Note 10.    Developments in Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2014-09 Revenue Recognition, replacing guidance currently codified in Subtopic 605-10 Revenue Recognition-Overall with various SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins providing interpretive guidance. The guidance establishes a new five step principle-based framework in an effort to significantly enhance comparability of revenue recognition practices across entities, industries, jurisdictions, and capital markets. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date. ASU No. 2015-14 defers the effective date of the guidance in ASU No. 2014-09 to annual and interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. We are in the process of evaluating this guidance and our method of adoption.

In April 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-03 Interest - Imputation of Interest (Subtopic 835-30): Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs. The update requires debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability to be presented in the balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of the related debt liability instead of being presented as an asset. Debt disclosures will include the face amount of the debt liability and the effective interest rate. The update requires retrospective application and represents a change in accounting principle. The update is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2015. ASU No. 2015-03 has not had a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In July 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-11 Inventory (Topic 330): Simplifying the Measurement of Inventory. The update provides for inventory to be measured at the lower of cost and net realizable value, and is effective for the fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016. We are currently evaluating the potential impact of implementing this update on our consolidated financial statements.

In September 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-16 Simplifying the Accounting for Measurement-Period Adjustments (Topic 805) which eliminates the requirement for an acquirer to retrospectively adjust the financial statements for measurement-period adjustments that occur in periods after a business combination is consummated. These changes become effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, and as such they are not expected to have a material impact on prior periods.

In November 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-17 Income Taxes - Balance Sheet Classification of Deferred Taxes (Topic 740). The update is designed to reduce complexity of reporting deferred income tax liabilities and assets into current and non-current amounts in a statement of financial position. The FASB has proposed the presentation of deferred income taxes, changes to deferred tax liabilities and assets be classified as non-current in the statement of financial position. The update is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016. ASU No. 2015-17 is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. Our current deferred tax asset balance at March 31, 2016 was $15.3 million.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01 Financial Instruments - Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. The update makes several modifications to Subtopic 825-10, including the elimination of the available-for-sale classification of equity investments, and requires equity investments with readily determinable fair values to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income. The update is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017. We are currently evaluating the impact of the guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02 Leases (Subtopic 842), which will require lessees to recognize assets and liabilities on the balance sheet for the rights and obligations created by most leases. The update is effective for annual and interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. We are currently evaluating the impact of the guidance on our consolidated financial statements.

Note 11.    Derivative Instruments

At times, we may use commodity forward sales commitments, commodity swap contracts and commodity put and call option contracts to manage our exposure to fluctuation in the prices of certain metals which we produce. Contract positions are designed to ensure that we will receive a defined minimum price for certain quantities of our production, thereby partially offsetting our exposure to fluctuations in the market. These instruments do, however, expose us to (i) credit risk in the event of non-performance by counterparties for contracts in which the contract price exceeds the spot price of a commodity and (ii) price risk to the extent that the spot price exceeds the contract price for quantities of our production covered under contract positions.

We are currently using financially-settled forward contracts to manage the exposure to changes in prices of silver, gold, zinc and lead contained in our concentrate shipments between the time of shipment and final settlement. In addition, at times we use financially-settled forward contracts to manage the exposure to changes in prices of zinc and lead (but not silver and gold) contained in our forecasted future concentrate shipments; however, there were no open contracts related to this latter program as of March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015.  These contracts do not qualify for hedge accounting and are marked-to-market through earnings each period.  At March 31, 2016, we recorded a current liability of $0.5 million on the contracts utilized to manage exposure to prices of metals in our concentrate shipments, which is included in other current liabilities.

We recognized a $6.1 million net loss during the first three months of 2016 on the contracts utilized to manage exposure to prices of metals in our concentrate shipments, which is included in sales of products.  The net loss recognized on the contracts offsets gains related to price adjustments on our provisional concentrate sales due to changes to silver, gold, lead and zinc prices between the time of sale and final settlement.

The following tables summarize the quantities of metals committed under forward sales contracts at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015:

Our concentrate sales are based on a provisional sales price containing an embedded derivative that is required to be separated from the host contract for accounting purposes. The host contract is the receivable from the sale of the concentrates at the forward price at the time of the sale. The embedded derivative, which results from changes to silver, gold, lead and zinc prices between the time of sale and final settlement, does not qualify for hedge accounting and is marked-to-market through earnings each period prior to final settlement.

Note 12.    Fair Value Measurement

The table below sets forth our assets and liabilities that were accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis and the fair value calculation input hierarchy level that we have determined applies to each asset and liability category (in thousands).

Cash and cash equivalents consist primarily of money market funds and are valued at cost, which approximates fair value, and a small portion consists of municipal bonds having maturities of less than 90 days, which are recorded at fair value.

Current and non-current restricted cash balances consist primarily of escrow deposits, certificates of deposit and U.S. Treasury securities and are valued at cost, which approximates fair value.

Our current and non-current investments consist of marketable equity securities which are valued using quoted market prices for each security.

Trade accounts receivable include amounts due to us for shipments of concentrates and doré sold to customers.  Revenues and the corresponding accounts receivable for sales of concentrates and doré are recorded when title and risk of loss transfer to the customer (generally at the time of loading on truck or ship).  Sales of concentrates are recorded using estimated forward prices for the anticipated month of settlement applied to our estimate of payable metal quantities contained in each shipment.  Sales are recorded net of estimated treatment and refining charges, which are also impacted by changes in metals prices and quantities of contained metals.  We estimate the prices at which sales of our concentrates will be settled due to the time elapsed between shipment and final settlement with the customer.  Receivables for previously recorded concentrate sales are adjusted to reflect estimated forward metals prices at the end of each period until final settlement by the customer.  We obtain the forward metals prices used each period from a pricing service.  Changes in metals prices between shipment and final settlement result in changes to revenues previously recorded upon shipment.  This embedded derivative contained in our concentrate sales is marked-to-market through earnings each period prior to final settlement.

We utilize financially-settled forward contracts to manage the exposure to changes in prices of silver, gold, zinc and lead contained in our concentrate shipments that have not reached final settlement.  We also utilize financially-settled forward contracts to manage the exposure to changes in prices of zinc and lead contained in our forecasted future concentrate shipments. See Note 11 for more information. These contracts do not qualify for hedge accounting, and are marked-to-market through earnings each period.  The fair value of each contract represents the difference between the forward metal price for the contract settlement period as of the measurement date and the contract settlement metal price, multiplied by the quantity of metal involved in the contract.

Our Senior Notes issued in April 2013, which were recorded at their carrying value of $500.5 million, net of unamortized initial purchaser discount at March 31, 2016, had a fair value of $407.1 million at March 31, 2016. Quoted market prices, which we consider to be Level 1 inputs, are utilized to estimate fair values of the Senior Notes. See Note 9 for more information.

Note 13.   Guarantor Subsidiaries

Presented below are Hecla’s unaudited interim condensed consolidating financial statements as required by Rule 3-10 of Regulation S-X of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, resulting from the guarantees by certain of Hecla's subsidiaries (the "Guarantors") of the Senior Notes (see Note 9 for more information). The Guarantors consist of the following of Hecla's 100%-owned subsidiaries: Hecla Limited; Silver Hunter Mining Company; Rio Grande Silver, Inc.; Hecla MC Subsidiary, LLC; Hecla Silver Valley, Inc.; Burke Trading, Inc.; Hecla Montana, Inc.; Revett Silver Company; RC Resources, Inc.; Troy Mine Inc.; Revett Exploration, Inc.; Revett Holdings, Inc.; Hecla Alaska LLC; Hecla Greens Creek Mining Company; Hecla Admiralty Company; and Hecla Juneau Mining Company. We completed the initial offering of the Senior Notes on April 12, 2013, and a related exchange offer for virtually identical notes registered with the SEC on January 3, 2014.

The unaudited interim condensed consolidating financial statements below have been prepared from our financial information on the same basis of accounting as the unaudited interim consolidated financial statements set forth elsewhere in this Form 10-Q. Investments in the subsidiaries are accounted for under the equity method. Accordingly, the entries necessary to consolidate Hecla, the Guarantors, and Non-Guarantors are reflected in the intercompany eliminations column. In the course of preparing consolidated financial statements, we eliminate the effects of various transactions conducted between Hecla and its subsidiaries and among the subsidiaries. While valid at an individual subsidiary level, such activities are eliminated in consolidation because, when taken as a whole, they do not represent business activity with third-party customers, vendors, and other parties. Examples of such eliminations include the following:

Separate financial statements of the Guarantors are not presented because the guarantees by the Guarantors are joint and several and full and unconditional, except for certain customary release provisions, including: (1) the sale or disposal of all or substantially all of the assets of the Guarantor; (2) the sale or other disposition of the capital stock of the Guarantor; (3) the Guarantor is designated as an unrestricted entity in accordance with the applicable provisions of the indenture; (4) Hecla ceases to be a borrower as defined in the indenture; and (5) upon legal or covenant defeasance or satisfaction and discharge of the indenture.

Effective December 31, 2015, Hecla Limited (our wholly owned subsidiary) sold 100% of its ownership of Hecla Alaska LLC (its wholly owned subsidiary) to Hecla Mining Company for consideration totaling approximately $240.8 million.  The consideration consisted of satisfaction of inter-company debt between Hecla Limited and Hecla Mining Company and an obligation by Hecla Mining Company, under certain circumstances, to fund a limited amount of the capital requirements of Hecla Limited for up to five years.  Hecla Alaska LLC owns a 29.7331% interest in the joint venture which owns the Greens Creek mine.

Unaudited Interim Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheets

Unaudited Interim Condensed Consolidating Statements of Operations

Unaudited Interim Condensed Consolidating Statements of Cash Flows