Regulatory: Answering FAQs about disclosing the use of conflict minerals
Public companies engaged in manufacturing or contracting to manufacture products will now need to assess, and potentially disclosure, the use of four specific minerals and their origin.
August 29, 2012 at 05:30 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Public companies engaged in manufacturing or contracting to manufacture products will now need to assess, and potentially disclosure, the use of four specific minerals and their origin.
On Aug. 22, the SEC adopted a disclosure requirement unlike any other in the federal securities laws. A new Form SD will require that public companies evaluate the use of certain mineralscolumbine-tantalite, cassiterite, gold, wolframite or their derivativesand make specific disclosures regarding the use and origin of these minerals (referred to collectively as “conflict minerals”).
This new requirement, mandated by Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is not driven by a belief that this information is material to investors, but rather seeks to promote transparency and consumer awareness about the use of minerals that may originate from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and surrounding countries (the covered countries). Because these minerals have been used to finance armed conflict, legislators believe that public disclosure will provide a means to draw attention to the humanitarian crisis caused by fighting in the region. With the advent of these rules, we see an unprecedented use of the public company reporting regime as a means to address specific public policy interests that are not material to investors.
When must a company disclose the use of conflict minerals?
Public companies must now evaluate if conflict minerals are “necessary to the functionality or production” of a product that the company manufactures or contracts with others to manufacture. There is no di minimis standard in the rule, so public companies will need to evaluate the entirety of their operations to determine whether conflict minerals may be used as part of a product or in the process of manufacturing a product. The conflict minerals, which are also referred to by the SEC as tantalum, tin, gold and tungsten, are widely used in electronics, jewelry, wires, lighting, welding, heating and many other applications.
If a company uses conflict minerals, how does it determine where they came from?
Any public company that uses these minerals must conduct a reasonable country of origin inquiry to determine whether the minerals originated in the covered countries, or whether the minerals originated from scrap or recycled sources.
What must a company disclose?
If a company knows that the minerals did not originate in the covered countries or are from scrap or recycled materials, or the company has no reason to believe that the minerals may have originated in the covered countries or may not be from scrap or recycled sources, then the company must disclose its determination and a brief description of the country of origin inquiry and the results of that inquiry in Form SD and on its website.
If, after inquiry, the company knows or has reason to believe that the minerals may have originated in the covered countries, or if the company knows or has reason to know that the minerals may not be from scrap or recycled sources, then the company must perform further due diligence on the source and chain of custody of the minerals, and file a Conflict Minerals Report as an exhibit to the Form SD. The Conflict Minerals Report also must be posted on the company's website.
What must a Conflict Minerals Report say?
If a company determines that its products originate from the covered countries but do not finance or benefit armed groups (referred to as “DRC conflict free”), then the company must also obtain an audit of the Conflict Minerals Report, certify that the audit has been obtained, include the audit report and identify the auditor. If, by contrast, the company does not find that its products are DRC conflict free then, in addition to these requirements, the company must make very specific disclosures about the products using conflict minerals, the origin of those minerals and the efforts to pinpoint that origin. For a limited time (four years for “smaller reporting companies” and two years for all other companies), a company may reach the conclusion of “DRC conflict undeterminable” and provide specific disclosure about the products using the minerals and the origin of the minerals.
What must be done now?
Even though the deadline for the first Form SD is May 31, 2014, those companies engaged in manufacturing or contracting to manufacture products should immediately begin their efforts to identify any conflict minerals used and conduct due diligence on where those minerals come from. The costs of complying with Form SD are expected to be high for public companies, and it will be important to start early in creating a robust process for evaluating the use and origin of conflict minerals.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
Trending Stories
- 1Can The Threat of a Bar Complaint Be a Settlement Tool?
- 2Sentencing Commission Addresses Inconsistent Definitions of “Loss”
- 3What Are Forbidden Sexual Relations With Clients?
- 4AEDI Takeaways: Demystifying Hype, Changing Caselaw & Harvey’s CEO Talks State of Industry
- 5New England Law | Boston Announces New Dean
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250