Not satisfied by the partial reprieve from conflict minerals disclosures the Securities and Exchange Commission provided last week, three business groups are making one last push in court to halt its implementation entirely. Their claim: the rule, stripped of its central disclosure requirement, is now meaningless.
By June 2 public companies are required to commence with their first filings to satisfy disclosure rules for the use of so-called conflict minerals (tantalum, tin, gold, and tungsten) in their products that may benefit violent militia groups in the Congo. In April, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit found a requirement that companies reveal not just their supply chain due diligence, but whether or not their products are “conflict free” was a violation of free speech protections. That decision, which upheld the rest of the rule, settled a lawsuit brought against the SEC by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and Business Roundtable. As part of the decision, the case was remanded back to the district court for a more in-depth evaluation of constitutional issues.
