On April 3, 2017, the D.C. District Court affirmed the 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, striking down part of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) conflict minerals rules that require publicly-traded companies to disclose whether their products contain certain minerals from certain central African countries.
Pursuant to Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC promulgated new disclosure and reporting requirements concerning the use of certain conflict minerals (tantalum, tin, tungsten and gold) originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and certain adjoining countries (each a “Covered Country”). The new rule requires reporting companies to disclose whether conflict minerals are present in their products, whether they originated in a Covered Country, and the extent of the company’s due diligence effort with respect to the inquiries made and the measurers taken to determine the origin of the minerals and whether the products are conflict free. Reporting companies must file their annual Form SD and, depending upon the outcome of the due diligence, a Conflict Minerals Report, by the June 1, 2015 deadline. As companies prepare for the second year of filings, and in light of the pending litigation challenging the rule, many companies are looking for guidance.
On April 14, 2014 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down part of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) controversial new “Conflict Minerals Rules” requiring publicly-traded companies to disclose whether their products contain certain minerals from certain central African countries. Despite this decision, until further notice public companies should continue to carry out efforts to comply with the SEC’s rules.
Topics/Tags
Select- Securities Law
- SEC
- Securities Regulation
- Corporate Law
- Clawback Rules
- SEC Enforcement
- Nasdaq
- Coronavirus
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Dodd-Frank
- Tax Planning
- Economic Sanctions
- IRS
- Ohio LLC Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Corporate Tax
- JOBS Act
- FAST Act
- Proxy Access Rules
- Securities Litigation
- Corporate Governance
- Consumer Protection Act
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Crowdfunding
- Cryptocurrency
- Hedging
- Conflict Minerals
- Real Estate Law
- Emerging Growth Companies
- Investors
- Taxation
- Private Offerings
- Pay Ratio Disclosure
- Whistleblower
- Intellectual Property
- Technology
- Opportunity Zone
- LIBOR
- Accredited Investors
- Sales Tax
- United States Supreme Court
- Online Trading Platforms
- Executive Compensation
- Health Care Act
- IPO
- Registration Statement
- Wall Street Reform
- Annual Reports
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Director Compensation
- Family-Controlled Entities
- Gift and Estate Transfers
- Board of Directors
- Director Independence
- Total Shareholder Return
- Cyber Insurance
- Data Breach
- Lenders
- Receivership Statute
- Regulation A
- Regulation D
- Compensation Committee Certification
- CDEs
- CDFI Fund
- Community Development Entities
- Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
- Government Shutdown
- New Markets Tax Credit
- NMTC
- NMTC Financing
- Regulation Fair Disclosure
- Social Media
- Marketing
- Benefits
- Healthcare Reform
- Litigation
- Public Company Transition Rules
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Tax Credit
Recent Posts
- Effective Date of SEC Clawback Rule Finally In Sight
- SEC Sued Over Newly Adopted Share Repurchase Rules
- SEC Extends Period to Act on Exchange Clawback Rules
- SEC Charges Public Company for Misleading Non-GAAP Disclosures
- NYSE and Nasdaq Propose Clawback Listing Standards: What You Need to Know
- Corporate Transparency Act Update – FinCEN Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
- SEC Amends Insider Trading Rules: New Conditions, Requirements, and Related Disclosures
- SEC Reopens Comment Period for 11 Proposed Rules Due to Technological Error
- Corporate Transparency Act Update—FinCEN Issues Final Rule
- SEC Provides Sample Guidance on Disclosure of Russia-Ukraine Invasion