Corporate & Securities Blog

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.