Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 OCTOBER 2015

Conflict Minerals Rule Developments

A&O Shearman
A&O Shearman
Contributor

A&O Shearman

Introducing A&O Shearman Unparalleled global depth for a changing world. Today more than ever,...

View firm profile
Explore more from A&O Shearman

On 18 August 2015, a divided panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC ("NAM"), upheld its earlier ruling...

United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law

On 18 August 2015, a divided panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC ("NAM"), upheld its earlier ruling that requiring companies to describe their products as having "not been found to be 'Democratic Republic of the Congo ("DRC") conflict free'" is unconstitutional, thereby invalidating a part of the SEC's conflict minerals rule.

This most recent decision means nothing changes for SEC reporting companies that file conflict minerals disclosure on Form SD. Following the D.C. Circuit's initial decision in NAM, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance had issued a statement that it expected reporting companies to continue to comply with the provisions of the conflict minerals rule that were upheld by the court. However, no company is required to describe its products as "DRC conflict free," having "not been found to be 'DRC conflict free,'" or "DRC conflict undeterminable". An independent

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from