Follow Schulte Roth & Zabel on Twitter Connect with Schulte Roth & Zabel on LinkedIn


Court Upholds Conflict Minerals Rule — Is Your Compliance Program on Track?

July 23, 2013

This afternoon, the D.C. District Court rendered its decision in the Conflict Minerals Rule case. Rejecting all of the plaintiffs’ claims, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted the SEC’s summary judgment motion. The Conflict Minerals Rule therefore continues in effect as adopted. Accordingly, there continues to not be a de minimis exception under the rule. In addition, retailers and other companies that only contract to manufacture products remain subject to the rule.

The plaintiffs may ultimately decide to appeal the decision. Although the court of appeals could disagree with the district court and vacate the rule on appeal, companies are unlikely to have enough of a cushion to wait for an appellate court decision before implementing their compliance programs. 

The first report under the Conflict Minerals Rule is due on May 31, 2014. Although still slightly more than 10 months away, given the complexities of, and time required for, scope determinations, vendor outreach, data review and the development and implementation of policies, procedures and frameworks to comply with the Conflict Minerals Rule and to conform to the OECD’s Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, now is the time for companies that have been taking a wait-and-see approach to begin their compliance efforts in earnest. 

For a copy of the D.C. District Court’s decision, click here. 

Authored by Michael R. Littenberg, and Cecilia Wang. 

This information has been prepared by Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (“SRZ”) for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and is presented without any representation or warranty as to its accuracy, completeness or timeliness. Transmission or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship with SRZ. Electronic mail or other communications with SRZ cannot be guaranteed to be confidential and will not (without SRZ agreement) create an attorney-client relationship with SRZ. Parties seeking advice should consult with legal counsel familiar with their particular circumstances. The contents of these materials may constitute attorney advertising under the regulations of various jurisdictions.