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.
The D.C. Circuit held that the rules unconstitutionally sought to compel speech by requiring public companies to disclose their use of conflict minerals. The majority opinion stated that the requirement to disclose this information goes beyond disclosure that is merely factual and non-ideological and “requires an issuer to tell consumers that its products are ethically tainted,” and leaves a company unable to use its free speech right to dispute that assessment by remaining silent. The opinion continued by stating that the rule interferes with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech “by compelling an issuer to confess blood on its hands.” The dispute will now be sent back to the district court for further proceedings.
Despite its ruling, the D.C. Circuit stopped short of broadly invalidating the rule, upholding such requirements as having companies investigate whether their products include conflict minerals and file public reports on their investigations beginning in June. Companies will no longer, however, be required to list the specific products that might contain these minerals.
The SEC has estimated that compliance costs for the final rule would be $3 to $4 billion initially and $207 to $609 million annually thereafter. The rule has been opposed by pro-business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which groups issued a statement that they were “pleased” with the ruling.
The case is National Association of Manufacturers v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 13-5252, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia (Washington).
- Partner
As a partner in the firm’s Business Representation & Transactions Group, Allie Westfall’s insight and proven analytical skills help translate the complexities of the often-challenging securities laws. Allie’s counsel ...
- Partner
Mark Reuter advocates for business clients in transactions, proceedings and conflicts regulated by federal and state securities laws and stock exchange rules. A partner in the firm’s Business Representation & Transactions ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Corporate Transparency Act
- SEC
- Securities Law
- Nasdaq
- Securities Regulation
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- EDGAR
- EDGAR Next
- Corporate Law
- IRS
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Tax Planning
- Coronavirus
- Clawback Rules
- SEC Enforcement
- Taxation
- Dodd-Frank
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Paycheck Protection Program
- JOBS Act
- Corporate Tax
- Corporate Governance
- FAST Act
- Economic Sanctions
- Ohio LLC Act
- Consumer Protection Act
- Proxy Access Rules
- Securities Litigation
- Crowdfunding
- Conflict Minerals
- Cryptocurrency
- Hedging
- Real Estate Law
- Emerging Growth Companies
- Investors
- Pay Ratio Disclosure
- Whistleblower
- Private Offerings
- Intellectual Property
- Technology
- Opportunity Zone
- LIBOR
- Executive Compensation
- Health Care Act
- Accredited Investors
- Sales Tax
- United States Supreme Court
- Online Trading Platforms
- Wall Street Reform
- IPO
- Registration Statement
- Annual Reports
- Family-Controlled Entities
- Gift and Estate Transfers
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Director Compensation
- Board of Directors
- Director Independence
- Total Shareholder Return
- Cyber Insurance
- Data Breach
- Lenders
- Receivership Statute
- Regulation A
- Regulation D
- CDEs
- CDFI Fund
- Community Development Entities
- Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
- Compensation Committee Certification
- Government Shutdown
- New Markets Tax Credit
- NMTC
- NMTC Financing
- Regulation Fair Disclosure
- Social Media
- Benefits
- Healthcare Reform
- Litigation
- Marketing
- Public Company Transition Rules
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Tax Credit
Recent Posts
- Corporate Transparency Act Update: FinCEN Eliminates Reporting Obligations for U.S. Companies and U.S. Persons
- Corporate Transparency Act Update: FinCEN Will Not Enforce the CTA Until Interim Rule is Effective
- Corporate Transparency Act Update: Injunction Lifted - Corporate Transparency Act Back in Effect
- Corporate Transparency Act Update: FinCEN Says Reporting Obligations Remain On Hold
- Next Up in 2025: EDGAR Next
- Corporate Transparency Act Update: Supreme Court Stays Nationwide Injunction – CTA Reporting Obligations Back in Effect
- Corporate Transparency Act Updates: Fifth Circuit Vacates the Stay and Preliminary Injunction Reinstated
- Corporate Transparency Act Reporting Deadline Back in Effect; FinCEN Grants Deadline Extension
- Fifth Circuit Nixes Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules
- Corporate Transparency Act Update: Texas Federal Court Issues Nationwide Injunction