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
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
