alerts & publications
DC Circuit Grants SEC’s Petition for Review of SEC Conflict Mineral Ruling11月 24, 2014 | Energy, Natural Resources & Utilities
On November 18, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the “Court”) granted the Securities and Exchange Commission’s petition for rehearing of the Court’s prior decision that invalidated portions of the Dodd-Frank conflicts-mineral rule (“Final Rule”) on First Amendment grounds. The Court has ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs in light of the DC Court’s July 29, 2014 ruling, American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 760 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2014). In that decision, the DC Court applied the “rational basis” test in upholding the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s regulations requiring country-of-origin labeling of meat products sold in the U.S. The Court specifically ordered the parties to address the following issues: (i) the effect of the DC Court’s ruling in American Meat Institute on the First Amendment issue raised regarding the Final Rule; (ii) the meaning of “purely factual and uncontroversial information” as used in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), and American Meat Institute; and (iii) whether the determination of what is “uncontroversial information” is a question of fact. The Court will need to determine whether the phrase “DRC conflict free” in the Final Rule is indeed purely factual and uncontroversial information – in which case the rational-basis test would apply – in order to allow enforcement of the controversial disclosure requirement. No date has been set for the rehearing.
On April 14, 2014, the DC Court issued an opinion1 that unanimously upheld the Final Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, but invalidated the requirement that an issuer provide disclosure of products that have “not been found to be DRC conflict free”: that is, products containing conflicts metals mined in the Congo, or other conflict jurisdictions (see OMM April 24, 2014, Client Alert: DC Circuit Decision Holds Aspect of Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule Violates First Amendment, Creating Uncertainty on Rule Implementation; see also OMM June 3, 2013, Client Alert: SEC Staff Publishes FAQs on Conflict Minerals Disclosure).
On April 29, 2014, the Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement on the DC Court’s decision, implementing a partial stay in regard to those portions of the Final Rule deemed to violate the First Amendment by virtue of the DC Court’s ruling, but leaving in place the June 2, 2014 Form SD filing deadline for issuers (see OMM May 1, 2014, Client Alert: Securities and Exchange Commission Issues Statement on DC Court of Appeals Decision on Conflict Minerals rule).
On May 5, 2014, the National Association of Manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and Business Roundtable (“Petitioners”) filed an Emergency Motion requesting that the DC Court stay the Final Rule, including the June 2, 2014 Form SD filing deadline (see OMM May 12, 2014, Client Alert: Industry Groups File Motion for Full Stay of Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule).
On May 14, 2014, the DC Court denied the Petitioners’ motion in a one-sentence per curiam order, without providing any of the reasoning behind the decision. Therefore, the June 2, 2014 deadline for issuers to file a Form SD remains in effect. To date, an estimated 1,300 filers have provided Final Rule conflict-mineral disclosures, with 1,000 filers providing a Conflict Minerals Report with the Form SD. Such disclosures may need to be revised and new disclosures may be required if the Court reverses its prior determination.
 National Association of Manufacturers et al. v. Securities Exchange Commission, No. 13-5252, available at http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D3B5DAF947A03F2785257CBA0053AEF8/$file/13-5252-1488184.pdf.
This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. Eric Rothenberg, an O'Melveny partner licensed to practice law in Missouri and New York, Ted Kassinger, an O'Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and Georgia, and Jesse Glickstein, an O'Melveny associate licensed to practice law in New Jersey and New York, contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted.
Portions of this communication may contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please direct all inquiries regarding New York's Rules of Professional Conduct to O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square, New York, NY, 10036, Phone:+1-212-326-2000. © 2014 O'Melveny & Myers LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Thank you for your interest. Before you communicate with one of our attorneys, please note: Any comments our attorneys share with you are general information and not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist between you or your business and O’Melveny or any of its attorneys unless conflicts have been cleared, our management has given its approval, and an engagement letter has been signed. Meanwhile, you agree: we have no duty to advise you or provide you with legal assistance; you will not divulge any confidences or send any confidential or sensitive information to our attorneys (we are not in a position to keep it confidential and might be required to convey it to our clients); and, you may not use this contact to attempt to disqualify O’Melveny from representing other clients adverse to you or your business. By clicking "accept" you acknowledge receipt and agree to all of the terms of this paragraph and our Disclaimer.