April 11, 2014 – April 18, 2014

The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Sanders (US) LLP and should not be deemed to be endorsements of them. The Recap is intended to be a compilation of articles and events to encourage discussion within the conflict minerals community and to keep our readers updated on the most recent developments.

U.S. Court of Appeals: Conflict Minerals Rule Violates First Amendment

Last week, in a 2-1 decision, a U.S. appeals court struck down part of the conflict minerals rule, specifically, the requirement that reporting companies report to the SEC and state on their websites that any of their products have “not been found to be ‘DRC conflict free.” Other portions of the conflict minerals rule remain intact, including requiring reporting companies to carry out due diligence measures on certain products.

For more information and insight into the ruling, see Dynda’s blog post about the U.S. appeals court ruling, as well as our conflict minerals rule update.

WorldECR: EU Proposed Conflict Minerals Regulation Envisions Voluntary Scheme

Dynda and I, along with Katherine Llewellyn, an occasional contributor to the blog and an Associate in Squire Sanders’ Brussels office, had the opportunity to write about last month’s proposed EU conflict minerals Regulation in WorldECR, a journal of export controls and sanctions.

The article, titled European Commission’s Proposal For a Conflict Minerals Regulation Envisions Voluntary Scheme, summarizes the proposed Regulation, highlights the differences between the EU proposed Regulation and the U.S. conflict minerals rule, and examines the EU’s legislative process in regards to the proposed Regulation.