Stay current on changes and developments in corporate law with a wide variety of resources and tools.
By Yin Wilczek
Aug. 29 — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has indicated its interest in rehearing a recent decision that parts of the Securities and Exchange Commission's conflict minerals rule violated the First Amendment.
In late May, the SEC and intervenor Amnesty International separately petitioned the full court to rehear the case in light of a then-pending ruling in an unrelated action—American Meat Institute. v. USDA—that they argued could have significant bearing on its conflict minerals decision.
In an Aug. 28 order, the D.C. Circuit directed the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable—the three business groups that challenged the SEC rule—to file a joint response to the petitions for rehearing en banc within 15 days of its order.
Julie Murray, a Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney who represents Amnesty in the case, Aug. 29 told Bloomberg BNA that the court order indicates that the D.C. Circuit is “seriously considering” the SEC and Amnesty's petitions.
“The conflict minerals rule is a commonsense disclosure requirement that provides investors and consumers with key factual information,” Murray said. “Companies do not have a First Amendment right to keep the public in the dark with respect to this kind of factual information about their products.”
The SEC and representatives from the three business groups did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
However, the groups previously said in a joint statement that they do not believe the American Meat Institute ruling should change the outcome of the conflict minerals decision.
The SEC rule—1934 Securities Exchange Act Rule 13p-1—requires companies and foreign private issuers in the U.S. to disclose their use of so-called “conflict minerals”—gold, tantalum, tin and tungsten from the Democratic Republic of Congo and adjacent countries—if those minerals are “necessary” to a product made by the companies.
In an April 14 decision, a split D.C. Circuit panel found that the rule ran afoul of the First Amendment to the extent it requires issuers to report to the commission and to state on their website that any of their products have not been found to be “DRC conflict free”.
At the time, Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote separately that the majority should have withheld its decision on the constitutional issue pending a ruling by the full D.C. Circuit in American Meat Institute, which involved First Amendment claims filed in connection with a Department of Agriculture rule requiring country-of-origin labeling.
The SEC has since implemented other parts of the rule not implicated by the court's decision.
On July 29, the D.C. Circuit ruled in American Meat Institute that it may apply “rational basis review”—a lower standard of scrutiny—to compelled disclosures even in cases not involving consumer deception.
In the wake of the decision, Amnesty in mid-August urged the D.C. Circuit to rehear its conflict minerals ruling. The group said in a supplemental brief that the American Meat Institute decision “expressly overruled a portion of the panel's First Amendment opinion in this case.”
“As we argued in the supplemental brief, in light of AMI, the panel's decision here requires revision, either by the panel itself or the full D.C. Circuit,” Murray told Bloomberg BNA.
To contact the reporter on this story: Yin Wilczek in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Phyllis Diamond at mailto:%firstname.lastname@example.org
The conflict minerals decision is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/NATIONAL_ASSOCIATION_OF_MANUFACTURERS_ET_AL_APPELLANTS_v_SECURITI.
The court's Aug. 28 order is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Natl_Assoc_of_Manufacturers_et_al_v_SEC_et_al_Docket_No_1305252_D/17.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)