July 25, 2014

D.C. District Court Vacates SEC’s Resource Extraction Issuer Rule

On July 2, the US District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the resource extraction issuer disclosure rule that the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted last year in accordance with mandates under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Rule 13q-1 under Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the resource extraction issuer rule, would have required an issuer engaged in the commercial development of natural gas, minerals and oil resources to publicly disclose, on new “Form SD,” detailed information about payments made by the issuer, a subsidiary of the issuer or another entity under the issuer’s control to the US federal government or foreign governments in connection with the development of such resources. The Court vacated and remanded the rules to the SEC, which may either appeal the Court’s ruling or promulgate a new rule in accordance with the Court’s ruling.

The Court cited two “substantial errors” by the SEC in making its ruling. First, the Court ruled as erroneous the SEC’s interpretation that Section 13(q) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, required public disclosure of an issuer’s resource extraction payments. Instead, the Court stated that Section 13(q) provided the SEC with discretion as to whether resource extraction payments should be made public, noting that the language of Section 13(q) only required public disclosure of a compilation of such payments “to the extent practicable.” The Court also indicated that the SEC may determine to revise the resource extraction issuer disclosure rules “in light of the flexibility it did not know that it had.”

Second, the Court ruled that the SEC’s failure to create an exemption from the rule relating to countries that prohibit payment disclosure was arbitrary and capricious. Citing the SEC’s statutory authority to make exemptions from certain Exchange Act provisions, the Court noted that the SEC did not properly consider the competitive burdens that the rule would have on issuers operating in countries where disclosure of resource extraction payments is prohibited. The lack of such an exemption, at the SEC’s admission, “drastically increased the Rule’s burden on competition and cost to investors.” By failing to adequately take into account these costs, the Court ruled that the SEC “abdicated its statutory responsibility to investors.”

 Click here for the District Court’s opinion.

©2014 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

About the Author

Mark D. Wood, Energy Attorney, Katten Muchin Law firm

Mark D. Wood is head of Katten's Securities practice and concentrates in corporate and securities law. Mark represents public companies, issuers and investment banks in initial public offerings (IPOs) and other public offerings, private investment in public equity (PIPE) transactions, debt securities and other securities matters.


About the Author

David S. Kravitz, Corporate Attorney, Katten Muchin Law firm

David S. Kravitz concentrates his practice in corporate matters.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email pl