A Conflict Minerals Preview?

By Cydney Posner

Someone at the WSJ apparently found a willing leaker with knowledge of the version of the conflict minerals rules currently being circulated among the SEC commissioners. The proposal is scheduled for a vote on August 22.
 
The WSJ characterized the draft as, contrary to some expectations (including my own), tougher than the original proposal: "Compared with the original proposal, a final draft circulated to SEC commissioners would outline a series of items for companies to review before they can assume their goods don't contain minerals from the area, people familiar with the document said. If adopted, the rule could create more costs for companies trying to determine whether they need to submit a ‘conflict-minerals report' to the SEC….The draft tightens the standards for an independent audit that must be conducted on the report and would require top executives to sign off on the report, something companies believe could subject them to greater liability.
 
"Under the draft, the SEC would give companies a two-year transition period to determine if certain goods contain conflict minerals, one of several concessions sought by business groups. The details of the final rule could change ahead of next month's vote, but people familiar with the matter said they didn't expect major negotiations among the SEC's five commissioners."
 
As you may recall, the proposal has been subject to a lot of lobbying on both sides: nonprofits, corporations, legislators and even clergy.  According to the article, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is once again threatening to intercede: "in a July letter to the SEC, [the Chamber] warned the rule could be overturned by the courts if the agency doesn't fix certain flaws. The trade group's letter cast doubt on the SEC's roughly $71 million cost estimate for all U.S. public companies that need to comply with the rule and said the agency needs to include in its estimate the costs for corporate suppliers and vendors."  Remember that that kind of argument was a winner for the Chamber in connection with proxy access.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only, and your access or use of the content does not create an attorney-client relationship between you or your organization and Cooley LLP, Cooley (UK) LLP, or any other affiliated practice or entity (collectively referred to as “Cooley”). By accessing this content, you agree that the information provided does not constitute legal or other professional advice. This content is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and you should not act or refrain from acting based on this content. This content may be changed without notice. It is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up to date, and it may not reflect the most current legal developments. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Do not send any confidential information to Cooley, as we do not have any duty to keep any information you provide to us confidential. This content may be considered Attorney Advertising and is subject to our legal notices.