It’s Inauguration Day in the US, and it’s likely to be a new day for the US conflict minerals rule. Where have we been and where are we going? 2012 – 2016 Pursuant to Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the SEC issued its conflict minerals rule in 2012, requiring reporting companies to … Continue Reading
As we discussed in a previous post, early in 2019, some companies were expressing concern that, because of the impacts of the shut-downs associated with COVID-19, certain of their suppliers might not be able to provide responses to their conflict minerals inquiries in a timely manner. They worried that their conflict minerals disclosures for calendar … Continue Reading
You will recall that on March 25, 2020, to address certain challenges created by COVID-19, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued the Order that extended the filing periods for certain public company reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act. The relief granted by the Order applied to specific Securities Exchange Act reporting requirements. However, … Continue Reading
Today, on June 8, 2017, the US House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act by a vote of 233 to 186. The bill was sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas). The headline of the bill is that it would reverse much of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection … Continue Reading
Those hoping for updated SEC guidance that would relieve or reduce companies’ conflict minerals diligence and disclosure obligations for calendar year 2016 got only a fraction of what they wanted. Last Friday, April 7, 2017, the SECs Acting Chair Michael Piwowar issued a statement that said “it is difficult to conceive of a circumstance that … Continue Reading
“Hear ye, Hear ye.” The parties to the legal challenge of the SECs conflict minerals rule have agreed that no further court proceedings are necessary and have requested that the US District Court enter a judgment in accordance with the decisions of the Court of Appeals — that is, that certain elements of the rule violated reporting entities’ First … Continue Reading
You may have read that President Trump signed an executive order repealing or waiving the SEC conflict minerals rule. Not true — at least not yet. As of February 14th, no executive order relating to the conflict minerals rule had been signed. But, a leaked draft of an executive order and rumors about a plan … Continue Reading
Since the US Presidential Election 2 weeks ago, some have been looking forward to a possible repeal of the US conflict minerals rule by a newly-elected Trump Administration. But, the completion of the negotiations on the new EU conflict minerals regulation makes it clear that companies should not slow their due diligence efforts on the … Continue Reading
What Just Happened? April 7, 2016 was the deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court seeking a review of the court of appeals’ decision on the conflict minerals rule. The SEC did not file the petition, and Amnesty International (the intervenor in the case) did not make the … Continue Reading
The next and last step of the legal challenge of the SEC’s 2012 conflict minerals rule would be for the SEC to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U. S. Supreme Court. The deadline for making that filing has been extended again, this time from March 9th to April 7th, 2016.… Continue Reading
In a January 21, 2016 release titled Extension of Comment Period for Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers, the Securities and Exchange Commission extended the comment periods for the revised proposed Rule 13q-1 (and the related amendment to Form SD). That proposed rule relates to the disclosure of payments by resource extraction issuers in connection with the commercial development of … Continue Reading
When the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s conflict minerals rule was issued in 2012, US reporting companies (and their suppliers) developed and implemented conflict minerals compliance programs. Companies have continued to enhance and beef up their programs since then. Now, companies should be supplementing their compliance programs to be ready to address the requirements of … Continue Reading
As we discussed in posts on September 3, 2015 and on October 2, 2015, Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act required the SEC to issue resource extraction payment rules. The purpose of those rules was to promote the federal government’s desire for transparency about resource extraction payments made by commercial entities to governments around the world. The initial … 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
In a previous post, we provided a summary of both the maneuverings of the SEC’s resource extraction rule after it was issued and Oxfam’s suit to speed up the SEC’s development of a revised rule after it was vacated. As a reminder, on September 2, 2015 (nearly a year after the Oxfam case was filed), a federal judge gave the SEC a … Continue Reading
On September 2, 2015, a federal judge ordered the SEC to file, by October 2, 2015, an “expedited schedule” for issuing the final resource extraction payment rule (which was required by Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank). This order is added to an already complicated setting of: increased regulation from the US, states and other countries requiring … Continue Reading
March 20, 2015 – March 27, 2015 The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Patton Boggs (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 … Continue Reading
March 13, 2015 – March 20, 2015 The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Patton Boggs (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 … Continue Reading
February 27, 2015 – March 6, 2015 The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Patton Boggs (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 … Continue Reading
January 9, 2015 – January 16, 2015 The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Patton Boggs (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 … 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
