October 2, 2015 marked another step in the continuing legal challenge of the conflict minerals rule. The SEC and Amnesty International filed petitions requesting an en banc rehearing of the April 2014 and the August 2015 D.C. Court of Appeals panel decisions, in an effort to reverse the ruling that struck down portions of the … Continue Reading
Many lawyers and supply chain managers (and reporters) have focused on the Court of Appeals’ August 18, 2015 decision confirming the court’s prior ruling that the Conflict Minerals Rule violates the First Amendment to the extent that it requires reporting companies to report that any of their products have “not been found to be ‘DRC conflict free.’” … Continue Reading
Since December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has been considering (again) the decision it reached previously about the constitutionality of the Conflict Minerals Rule. In an August 18, 2015 order, the Court of Appeals confirmed its earlier ruling that the Conflict Minerals Rule violates the First Amendment to … Continue Reading
On May 20, the European Parliament voted to reject the proposal of the European Commission and the Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) for a voluntary system of self-certification for importers of conflict minerals into the EU. The amended draft regulation marks a significant departure from the proposed draft regulation, calling for mandatory compliance by … Continue Reading
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
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
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
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
In our Weekly Recap #6, we called your attention to a conflict minerals article in Forbes Magazine that described what it called a “loophole” in the Conflict Minerals Rule. After the article was published, the author engaged in a long online discussion about his perhaps wishful, perhaps misguided conclusions. While the author might have been advocating a position that he would like to take, it is clear … Continue Reading
