Tag Archives: conflict minerals

EU’s Proposed Regulation on Conflict Minerals – Part II

Editors Note: A prior version of this blog post incorrectly attributed the sentence in bold below. We sincerely apologize for any confusion this may have caused. This version has now been corrected.  Views on the Draft Regulation The draft EU conflict minerals regulation is a voluntary system of certification, which covers imports of the minerals … Continue Reading

EU’s Proposed Regulation on Conflict Minerals – Part I

The European Union (EU) is considering legislation that would regulate the importation of conflict minerals into the EU. The European Commission announced its proposed regulation on March 5, 2014. The draft regulation contains proposals for a voluntary self-certification process for importers of conflict minerals (tin, tantalum, and tungsten and gold) into the EU from anywhere … Continue Reading

Conflict Minerals Rule – Complying With The Rule In The Meantime

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

Rehearing of NAM v. SEC — Part 3 (Brief of NAM)

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

Rehearing of NAM v. SEC — Part 2 (Briefs of SEC, Amnesty International, Global Witness and Free Speech for People)

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

Conflict Minerals Rule Case To Be Reheard

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

Conflict Minerals Legal Challenge — SEC, NAM, Industry Coalition and Amnesty International Briefs Filed

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

URGENT — SEC Releases Statement on Conflict Minerals Rule

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

SEC Commissioners Issue Joint Statement on Conflict Minerals Rule

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

Delay in the EU Initiative on Conflict Minerals

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

European Commissioner Confirms EU Focus Only on 3TG – Proposal Now Expected by Late October

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

SEC’s Guidance on Conflict Minerals — Not Just the FAQs

In the last two weeks, there have been more than a few articles and law firm memos written on the SEC’s FAQs relating to the Conflict Minerals Rule. Many of the articles and memos recite the FAQs. Others provide a brief discussion of them. Most are calling the FAQs the only guidance from the SEC since the Release last August. But, a … Continue Reading

Additional Guidance via FAQs from the SEC

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

Challenging the Conflict Minerals Rule — A Review of the Docket — Activity in the District Court

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

Challenging the Conflict Minerals Rule — A Review of the Docket – NAM v SEC Decision to be Delayed

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

Challenging the Conflict Minerals Rule — Will the Court of Appeals Decide?

If you were waiting to implement your compliance program until after the court reached a decision in NAM v. SEC, you may want to reconsider that strategy. Over the last six months, the petitioners have challenged the SEC’s cost/benefit analysis of the conflict minerals rule and argued that the SEC failed to consider alternative provisions of the rule that could have reduced the burden … Continue Reading

Unintended Consequences of the Conflict Minerals Rule?

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

Challenging the Conflict Minerals Rule — Action on the Docket (January 16, 2013)

As contemplated by the briefing schedule, on January 16, 2013, the Petitioners filed their Opening Brief in their bid for a review of the SEC’s conflict minerals rule.  In their 198-page brief, the Petitioners (Business Roundtable, US Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers) addressed each of the grounds for review that they … Continue Reading

Not a Loophole — Reaction to the Forbes article

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
LexBlog