Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 MAY 2017

Conflict Minerals Rule Update

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 31 January 2017, SEC Acting Chairman Michael S. Piwowar issued a statement directing the SEC's staff to consider whether the 2014 guidance on the conflict minerals rule is still appropriate...

United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law

On 31 January 2017, SEC Acting Chairman Michael S. Piwowar issued a statement directing the SEC's staff to consider whether the 2014 guidance on the conflict minerals rule is still appropriate and if any relief of the rule is appropriate. The current conflict minerals rule requires companies that manufacture or contract to manufacture products containing tantalum, tin, tungsten or gold to conduct due diligence on their supply chains regarding such minerals in order to provide greater transparency on responsible sourcing.

Acting Chairman Piwowar noted that the conflict minerals rule may have had the unintended consequence of provoking a de facto boycott of minerals from portions of Africa, given the cost to companies of complying with the supply chain due diligence and disclosure requirements, and he questioned whether the rule has had any effect in reducing the influence of armed groups or in easing human suffering in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

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