Panthera Resources arbitration advances towards December 2026 hearing

Panthera Resources (AIM: PAT) has completed the latest scheduled step in its US$1.58 billion arbitration claim against the Republic of India.

Its Australian subsidiary, Indo Gold Pty Ltd (IGPL), filed its Reply on Merits and Principles of Compensation and Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction and Admissibility on 17 July 2026. That was the deadline set by the Arbitral Tribunal.

This is a procedural update rather than a ruling on whether Panthera's claim will succeed. Still, it confirms that the case remains on schedule and is moving towards a hearing in December 2026.

What has Panthera Resources announced?

IGPL has now completed its written case on the merits of the dispute and the principles that should govern compensation.

In plain English, the merits concern whether India breached its obligations under the relevant investment treaty. Jurisdiction and admissibility concern whether the tribunal has the authority to hear the claim and whether the claim can properly proceed.

The filing forms part of Phase One of the arbitration, which covers:

• Jurisdiction
• Admissibility
• Merits
• Principles of compensation

The precise calculation of any damages has been reserved for Phase Two. That second phase will only take place if the tribunal determines that IGPL has succeeded in Phase One.

Panthera said it anticipates that the claim will be updated in Phase Two, if the case reaches that stage.

The arbitration timetable

The next major written submission is India's Rejoinder on Merits and Principles of Compensation, due on 23 October 2026.

Procedural step	Party	Deadline
IGPL's reply and counter-memorial	Claimant	17 July 2026
Rejoinder on merits and compensation principles	India	23 October 2026
Hearing	All parties	14-19 December 2026
Oral closing submissions	All parties	11 January 2027

Panthera said both parties have met every deadline since the procedural calendar was issued in October 2025.

The legal seat of the arbitration is London. The hearings are scheduled to take place at the Peace Palace in The Hague, at the premises of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which administers the case.

Why this update matters to Panthera investors

The main positive is straightforward: the claim is progressing according to the tribunal's timetable.

Panthera has delivered the claimant's latest submission on time, while the hearing now has a defined window in December 2026. That reduces uncertainty around the immediate procedural schedule, although it says nothing about the eventual outcome.

The US$1.58 billion headline claim is substantial, but investors should not treat that figure as an expected recovery. Phase One does not decide the precise quantum, meaning the detailed calculation of damages. It first determines whether the claim can proceed and whether IGPL succeeds on jurisdiction, admissibility, merits and compensation principles.

There is also no decision timetable disclosed for when the tribunal might issue its ruling after oral closing submissions on 11 January 2027.

In short, Panthera has cleared another procedural checkpoint. It has not secured a favourable judgment, established a recoverable damages figure or received any cash.

What is the dispute about?

The arbitration relates to legal rights connected with the Bhukia gold project in Rajasthan.

Panthera holds those rights through IGPL, which owns Metal Mining Pvt Ltd. Metal Mining lodged a Prospecting Licence Application covering the relevant area, but that application was rejected.

Panthera said its initial investment in Bhukia was made in or around 2004. IGPL subsequently provided substantial funding and managed joint venture exploration programmes.

IGPL alleges that its right to receive a Prospecting Licence through its joint venture holding was denied and frustrated over an extended period by the Government of Rajasthan.

In 2021, India amended its mining legislation. Panthera says Clause 13 of the amended legislation eliminated the preferential right to a Prospecting Licence and Mining Lease.

IGPL alleges that India's actions resulted in the total loss of its investment and breached the 1999 investment treaty between Australia and India. The alleged breaches include provisions covering the promotion and protection of investments, alongside expropriation and nationalisation.

The claim was submitted on 16 May 2025.

The scale of the Bhukia project

Panthera's argument sits against the background of a potentially significant mineral resource, although the figures cited in the announcement were prepared under different reporting frameworks.

IGPL drilled 20 holes between 2005 and 2006. It reported a JORC-compliant resource estimate of 38.5 million tonnes at 1.4 grammes per tonne of gold, containing approximately 1.74 million ounces. The estimate used a cut-off grade of 0.5 grammes per tonne and was updated in 2017 to comply with the 2012 JORC Code.

The Geological Survey of India later reported an indicated and inferred estimate of 6.7 million ounces of gold following more than 150 drill holes. Panthera said that estimate was prepared according to the United Nations Framework Classification code.

More recently, the Government of Rajasthan issued a gazette notification containing an updated estimate of 113.52 million tonnes at 1.96 grammes per tonne of gold and 0.14% copper. That amounts to 7.2 million ounces of gold plus copper credits, with accessory nickel and cobalt.

These project figures help explain the scale of the dispute, but they do not determine the arbitration outcome or guarantee the amount of compensation.

The risks remain considerable

Panthera explicitly states that there can be no certainty over the outcome of the treaty claims.

Litigation is unpredictable and includes the risk of total loss. Even if IGPL wins, further proceedings could follow, while enforcement risks and collateral litigation may complicate or delay any recovery.

The company also cautions that litigation disputes often resolve for considerably less than the amount claimed or even less than the value of a judgment. Any settlement discussions may remain confidential until they conclude.

The US$1.58 billion claim should therefore be viewed as the amount being sought, not a forecast of proceeds.

The investor takeaway

This announcement is evidence of procedural progress, not evidence that Panthera is winning the arbitration.

IGPL has filed its response on time, the parties have so far met the tribunal's deadlines and the case is scheduled to reach a hearing from 14 to 19 December 2026. The next visible milestone is India's rejoinder on 23 October.

For investors, the key distinction is between momentum and outcome. The timetable is advancing, but jurisdiction, admissibility, liability and compensation principles all remain undecided. Precise damages would only be considered in Phase Two if IGPL first succeeds in Phase One.