For purposes of the conflict minerals rule, conflict minerals that are sourced from recycled or scrap materials are deemed to be “DRC conflict free” and require disclosure only about the inquiry that led the reporting company to conclude that they were from those recycled or scrap sources. That means that for products whose conflict minerals … Continue Reading
Companies are unsure of how to prepare for the year 2 filings while the legal challenge is still pending and there is uncertainty about exactly what the reporting requirements will be when the filing deadline finally arrives. Legal Challenge to the Conflict Minerals Rule In the last few posts, we’ve discussed the legal challenge to the conflict … Continue Reading
As required by the November 18, 2014 order, NAM filed its Supplemental Brief on December 29, 2014, arguing that the April 2014 decision by the Court of Appeals should be upheld and that the product description required by the conflict minerals rule violates the First Amendment. Brief of NAM NAM argues that the product description required … Continue Reading
As required by the November 18, 2014 order, the parties in NAM v. SEC filed briefs responding to questions about the First Amendment issue that were posed by the Court of Appeals. This post summarizes the briefs filed by the parties that want the product description requirements of the conflict minerals rule to be upheld. … Continue Reading
The SEC, Amnesty International, Global Witness, Free Speech for People, and the National Association of Manufacturers have all filed their briefs, and we are now waiting for the decision on the rehearing — do portions of the SEC’s conflict minerals rule violate the First Amendment? What follows is an introduction to what is being considered. As you may recall, on April … 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
In a ruling today, May 14, the Court of Appeals denied the emergency motion to stay the Conflict Minerals Rule. So, companies should complete their analysis and, if necessary, their drafting of Form SDs and Conflict Minerals Reports to be ready to file by the June 2 deadline. However, remember that on May 2, the SEC issued a partial … Continue Reading
Between May 8 and May 13, briefs on the trade associations’ emergency motion for stay were filed by the SEC, the trade association petitioners, an industry coalition, and Amnesty International. Two steps remain — First, the oral argument in American Meat Institute, which is set for May 19. American Meat Institute is a case involving a First Amendment … Continue Reading
Today, Monday May 12, the second Form SD and Conflict Minerals Report was filed with the SEC by Affymetrix, Inc. Affymetrix described itself as a “provider of life science products and molecular diagnostic products.” Consistent with our usual practice, we will not provide a critique of the filing here. However, it is worth noting that, like … Continue Reading
On May 2, the SEC issued a partial stay of the Conflict Minerals Rule. This partial stay implements the substance of the statement of the Director of Corporation Finance that was released on Tuesday, April 29th. Our blog post of April 29th summarizes the SEC Statement. As they indicated they would, the trade groups that challenged the Conflict Minerals Rule filed a … Continue Reading
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Keith Higgins, the Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, released an eagerly awaited statement on the effect of the Court of Appeals decision on the conflict minerals rule. Two weeks ago, the Court of Appeals found that the conflict minerals rule violated the First Amendment when it required reporting … Continue Reading
Today, two SEC Commissioners issued a joint statement indicating that they believe that the effectiveness of the conflict minerals rule should be stayed pending the final outcome of the legal challenge because they believe that the district court could conclude that the entire conflict minerals rule is invalid. In part, they said: “The First Amendment concerns permeate … Continue Reading
Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. is the first company to file a Form SD, with a filing in the early morning hours of April 24, 2014. A Conflict Minerals Report is filed as an exhibit to the Form SD. The company files under the “seminconductors and related devices” SIC code. According to the company, no independent … Continue Reading
Last week, on April 14, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in the legal challenge of the conflict minerals rule and affirmed most of the provisions of the rule, but it found that portions of the SEC’s conflict minerals rule violated the First Amendment when they required that reporting companies report to the SEC and … Continue Reading
On April 7, 2014, the SEC issued a second set of FAQs on the conflict minerals rule which is presented as Frequently Asked Questions 13-21. Most of the new FAQs provide guidance on the Independent Private Sector Audit (IPSA), which very few companies will be required to provide for this first reporting year. But, a couple … Continue Reading
Summary of EU Conflict Minerals Regulation: Focuses on upstream portion of supply chain, specifically the more than 400 importers of minerals into the EU Creates new, voluntary EU system for supply chain due diligence self-certification Offers incentives to companies that undertake the due diligence steps Defines “Conflict Minerals” as tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold (same as … Continue Reading
The European Commission’s legislative proposal for a European approach on conflict minerals has been delayed. The EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht had, earlier this year, promised a proposal for an “effective but reasonable” EU system to encourage responsible sourcing of minerals produced in what he called “conflict areas” before the end of the year. … Continue Reading
On Tuesday, September 17th, EU Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, spoke at a Public Hearing of the Committee on Development in Brussels. He spoke about the role of extractive industries in developing countries in promoting development through responsible business practices. In that speech, de Gucht confirmed that the EU approach to conflict minerals is … Continue Reading
On September 5, 2013, Responsible Sourcing Network and the Enough Project published a paper detailing certain stakeholders’ expectations about the form and content of a company’s Form SD and Conflict Minerals Report. The authors fire a warning shot to reporting companies – telling them what components certain observers deem important and urging companies to report additional factors that … Continue Reading
The EU Trade Commissioner Speaks Take-aways from the event: We can expect a clear idea of the EU strategy by the end of the year. The geographic scope of an EU rule will almost certainly include Latin America. Minerals to be covered by an EU rule not likely to be expanded beyond the 3TG covered … 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
The US House of Representatives has announced that this afternoon (Tuesday the 21st), the Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade will hold a hearing on “The Unintended Consequences of Dodd-Frank’s Conflict Minerals Provision.” The hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. Eastern time. The following witnesses are scheduled to testify: David Aronson, Freelance Writer, … Continue Reading
Here’s an update on the state of play in the legal challenge to the conflict minerals rule: On May 2, 2013, the US Court of Appeals granted the petitioners’ motion to transfer the case challenging the conflict minerals rule to the US District Court for the District of Columbia. On May 6, 2013, the District … Continue Reading
There can hardly be any disagreement with the stated goal of the SEC’s Conflict Minerals Rule. Congress directed the SEC to enact rules requiring disclosure about the use of conflict minerals because it believed that the exploitation and trade of conflict minerals from the DRC were helping to finance armed conflict there — conflict characterized … Continue Reading
