The out-of-pocket costs of compliance with the SEC conflict minerals rule have been lower than those originally estimated by industry and by the SEC. But, it’s not because the original estimates were over-stated or inflated. And, these lower than expected out-of-pocket costs don’t mean that business’ concerns about compliance were misplaced. These lower costs have resulted mostly (but … Continue Reading
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
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
January 31, 2014 – February 7, 2014 The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Sanders (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 … Continue Reading
January 3, 2014 – January 10, 2014 The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Sanders (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 … Continue Reading
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in the challenge to the conflict minerals rule. Those attending the arguments observed the court’s skepticism with the rule, specifically from the two conservative judges on the panel, David Sentelle and A. Raymond Randolph, appointees of … Continue Reading
In response to the motion for expedited review, yesterday, August 15, 2013, the US Court of Appeals has set the following briefing schedule for NAM v SEC. NAM’s first filing must be made by September 11th. SEC’s reply is due by November 13th. Brief for Appellants September 11, 2013 Appendix September 11, 2013 Brief for Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants September 18,2013 Brief … Continue Reading
On July 23rd, the U.S. District Court rejected the National Association of Manufacturers’ legal challenge to the conflict minerals rule. After months of pleadings and procedural activity, the district court in NAM v SEC rejected the petitioners’ claims that elements of the conflict minerals rule were arbitrary and capricious and that the rule violated the … Continue Reading
In a decision that has surprised some observers, on July 23rd, the U.S. District Court rejected the National Association of Manufacturers’ legal challenge to the conflict minerals rule. After months of pleadings and procedural activity, the district court in NAM v SEC rejected the petitioners’ claims that elements of the conflict minerals rule were arbitrary … 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
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
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
On October 22, 2012, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (Petitioners) filed an Amended Petition for Review with the US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. The Petitioners requested that the new Conflict Minerals Rule be modified or set aside in whole or in part. After the initial … Continue Reading
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
Background On October 22, 2012, the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (Petitioners) filed an Amended Petition for Review with the US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. The Petitioners requested that the new Conflict Minerals Rule be modified or set aside in whole or in part. Since then, the … Continue Reading
