October 17, 2014 – October 24, 2014
The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Patton Boggs (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.

Catholic Leaders Call on European Union to Make Due Diligence System Mandatory

The International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity (CIDSE), “an international alliance of Catholic development agencies working together for global justice,” released a statement on conflict minerals signed by several bishops and leaders of the Catholic church throughout the world.

The statement, among other things, calls for the EU to adopt a mandatory due diligence system. The Catholic leaders reason, “[a]s many of us are first-hand witnesses to the powerful dynamics in regions affected by conflict, having engaged in dialogue with all involved, we can assure that nothing less will be able to change the behavior of companies and other actors.”

The Catholic leaders also call on the EU to increase the scope of the natural resources covered by the proposed regulation and ensure that there is shared responsibility across the supply chain.

TheRaceToTheBottom.org Comments on Tulane University’s Survey

Back in Conflict Minerals Weekly Recap #82, we brought to your attention Tulane University’s conflict minerals survey, which analyzed the reports filed in the 2014 conflict minerals season.

TheRacetoTheBottom.org, a collaborative blog, analyzed Tulane University’s study and made a few comments that we want to bring to your attention:

  • In referencing the total cost of compliance in Tulane University’s study (approx. $710 million), the blog comments, “it appears that despite the allegation made in the original suit challenge the SEC’s conflict minerals rule that the agency failed to conduct an appropriate cost-benefit analysis, the SEC actually came quite close.” The author of the blog post further comments, “regardless, it cannot be denied that the aggregate cost is large…”
  • The blog also notes the survey results of whether issuers would like to see the conflict minerals rule or Section 1502 amended: 65% said yes, 4% said no and 31% had no comment.