"Investors Disagree with Recent Conflict Mineral Ruling by U.S. Court of Appeals", 18 Sep 2015

As investment professionals, we strongly disagree with the recent decision by [a] US Court of Appeals…on the conflict minerals provision, Section 1502 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act…This misguided ruling rests on a misinterpretation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech that was not advanced by any of the parties, and, in our opinion, lacks a legal basis…Two of the three judges unreasonably and unnecessarily limited government’s ability to compel or regulate commercial speech, based on whether or not such speech is advertising, in the narrow sense of using physical labels on product at the point of sale. This misinterpretation undermines the current U.S. securities disclosure regime, which is premised on the importance of disclosures to investors…The disclosures about companies’ supply chain risk and mitigation efforts are of significant material value to investors…[and] are a valuable tool to assess companies’ social and reputational risks…Assessing these necessary supply chain checks also gives assurance and confidence to a growing number of investors determined to identify and address human rights-related risks in company supply chains.