We are pleased to announce the launch of our EU Conflict Minerals Regulation Flowchart, which promises to be a valuable tool for those charged with compliance with the EU conflict minerals regulation. In 2017, the EU adopted its conflict minerals regulation, which is intended to help businesses identify and address the risk that 3TGs (tin, tantalum, … Continue Reading
The out-of-pocket costs of compliance with the SEC conflict minerals rule have been lower than those originally estimated by industry and by the SEC. But, it’s not because the original estimates were over-stated or inflated. And, these lower than expected out-of-pocket costs don’t mean that business’ concerns about compliance were misplaced. These lower costs have resulted mostly (but … Continue Reading
Today, on June 8, 2017, the US House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act by a vote of 233 to 186. The bill was sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas). The headline of the bill is that it would reverse much of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection … Continue Reading
Today, April 3, 2017, the European Council took the last procedural step and approved the EU conflict minerals regulation. Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union will be the next and final step of the process. The publication could occur in 3 to 6 weeks. Here is the text of the official EU Conflict Minerals … Continue Reading
The proposed EU conflict minerals regulation has almost reached the last step before becoming an official EU regulation. On March 16, 2017, the European Parliament voted to approve the regulation, and the Council of the EU is expected to formally approve it in the weeks to come. The Council’s vote will be the last step … Continue Reading
“Hear ye, Hear ye.” The parties to the legal challenge of the SECs conflict minerals rule have agreed that no further court proceedings are necessary and have requested that the US District Court enter a judgment in accordance with the decisions of the Court of Appeals — that is, that certain elements of the rule violated reporting entities’ First … Continue Reading
You may have read that President Trump signed an executive order repealing or waiving the SEC conflict minerals rule. Not true — at least not yet. As of February 14th, no executive order relating to the conflict minerals rule had been signed. But, a leaked draft of an executive order and rumors about a plan … Continue Reading
Almost two months after the negotiations of the EU conflict minerals regulation were concluded, there has been some movement towards the end of the European legislative cycle. On January 24, 2017, the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee approved the text of the conflict minerals regulation submitted following the three-way trilogue negotiations that were completed on … Continue Reading
It’s January 2017, and some believe it will be the last year for the SECs conflict minerals rule. Political and Legislative Environment President Trump’s inclination to roll back regulation reduces or even eliminates the likelihood of a Presidential veto of any Congressional action to repeal Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the SECs conflict minerals … Continue Reading
Since the US Presidential Election 2 weeks ago, some have been looking forward to a possible repeal of the US conflict minerals rule by a newly-elected Trump Administration. But, the completion of the negotiations on the new EU conflict minerals regulation makes it clear that companies should not slow their due diligence efforts on the … Continue Reading
What Just Happened? April 7, 2016 was the deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court seeking a review of the court of appeals’ decision on the conflict minerals rule. The SEC did not file the petition, and Amnesty International (the intervenor in the case) did not make the … Continue Reading
The next and last step of the legal challenge of the SEC’s 2012 conflict minerals rule would be for the SEC to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U. S. Supreme Court. The deadline for making that filing has been extended again, this time from March 9th to April 7th, 2016.… Continue Reading
Companies and industry groups have been working for over 3 years on investigation and due diligence processes to determine the source and chain of custody of the tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold (3TG) in their products. But, there could now be pressure to add to the list of conflict minerals. Compliance Week raised this question last week in … Continue Reading
We’ve been waiting for months. And now, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has granted the SEC’s petition for rehearing of the court’s April 2014 decision that found that certain disclosure requirements of the conflict minerals rule violated the First Amendment. The parties have been ordered to file supplemental briefs to discuss: The effect of … Continue Reading
September 27, 2013 – October 4, 2013 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 … Continue Reading
For months, many have been pressing for additional guidance from the SEC on the conflict minerals rule. Finally, on May 30, 2013, the SEC staff provided a bit of that guidance. The FAQs cover some of the questions that have been raised almost continuously since the rule was issued last August. But, the guidance is limited to only 12 questions and, for the … Continue Reading
On April 29th, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit canceled oral arguments scheduled in the National Association of Manufacturer’s (NAM) challenge to the conflict minerals rule. Following the court’s dismissal of the American Petroleum Institute’s case challenging the resource extraction rule, NAM filed a motion on April 30th to transfer its conflict minerals case to district court. The case will be heard … Continue Reading
On October 22, 2012, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (Petitioners) filed an Amended Petition for Review with the US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. The Petitioners requested that the new Conflict Minerals Rule be modified or set aside in whole or in part. After the initial … Continue Reading
February 15, 2013 – February 22, 2013 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 … Continue Reading
