abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

5 Oct 2015

Author:
Cydney Posner, Cooley LLP (USA)

No Surprise Here: SEC And Amnesty File Petitions For En Banc Rehearing In The Conflict Minerals Case

To no one’s surprise, on Friday, the SEC and Amnesty International filed petitions for en banc rehearing in the conflict minerals case, National Association of Manufacturers, Inc. v. SEC.  That case, decided two-to-one in August of this year by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, reaffirmed that Court’s initial judgment that the requirement in the conflict minerals rule to disclose whether companies’ products were “not found to be DRC conflict free” amounted to “compelled speech” in violation of companies’ First Amendment rights. The filing of the petitions does not, by itself, have any impact on the current state of play regarding conflict minerals compliance.

Part of the following timelines

US court voids rule requiring companies to state whether minerals in supply chain are "conflict-free" - finds rule violates corporate "free speech" rights

USA: Securities & Exchange Commission, Amnesty Intl. ask federal court to rehear conflict minerals case