About Us  |   Contact Us  |   Register  | Login  |   

Follow HedgeWorld on Twitter HedgeWorld on LinkedIn

Search the News
Advanced News Search
HedgeWorld News by Region
United States / Americas
Asia / Australia
HedgeWorld News Sections
Managed Futures & Derivatives
Daily News
Other News Features
Most Popular
LexisNexis Headlines
Reuters Headlines
The HedgeWorld Blog
Alternative Advantage Daily Newsletter
RSS Service
Sign Up For Email News Alerts

UPDATE 1-U.S. appeals court denies request to delay conflict minerals rule
05/14/2014 Email this story  |  Printable Version

(Adds background on rule, opposition)

By Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON, May 14 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday denied a request by industry groups to delay the implementation of a new rule that requires companies to determine if their products may contain "conflict minerals" from a war-torn part of Africa.

Wednesday's decision means that companies will have to start complying with parts of the Securities and Exchange Commission's new rule on June 2.

It also marks a blow to the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, the three groups that had challenged the rule and most recently sought to have it delayed.

The SEC's conflict minerals rule is a requirement from the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law.

It requires publicly traded manufacturers to determine if any tantalum, tin, gold or tungsten used in their products may have originated from the conflict-ridden Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and disclose the findings to investors.

In April, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia struck down a narrow part of the rule on free speech grounds, saying companies should not be forced to say that their products are not "conflict free."

The rest of the rule, however, was left intact.

In recent guidance released by the SEC, the agency said it expects companies to continue to conduct the proper due diligence to determine the origin of the minerals and file the reports with the commission.

However, companies will be relieved from certain audit requirements in the rule and also will not be forced to state whether or not the products are conflict free.

The trade groups that challenged the rule had hoped the court would agree to stay the rule, and argued the SEC should not proceed with implementing part of the "costly" measure without first seeking public input. (Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Steve Orlofsky and Dan Grebler)

Email This Story to a Friend   |   Display Printable Version of This Story

Story Copyright © 1999-2014 Reuters HedgeWorld All rights reserved.

HedgeWorld News is sponsored by:

Lipper    Privacy   User Policy  Legal Disclosure Copyright/DMCA  Site Map    FAQ    Glossary  Thomson Reuters for Hedge Funds
All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of HedgeWorld content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. HedgeWorld is a registered trademark of Thomson Reuters.