Advertisement

April 18, 2014

SEC Rejects Motion to Stay Resource Extraction Disclosure Rules

On November 8, the Securities and Exchange Commission denied a motion to stay the effective date of the recently enacted resource extraction disclosure rules. These rules, adopted by the SEC on August 22, require public companies that are engaged in the development of oil, natural gas or minerals to publicly disclose each payment of more than $100,000 made to any foreign government or the US federal government for each “project” related to extractive industries. Various trade associations and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed the motion to stay on October 25 in connection with their lawsuit challenging the resource extraction disclosure rules, which they filed on October 10. Click here to view a Katten Corporate & Financial Weekly Digest article discussing the resource extraction disclosure rules, and here to view a Katten Corporate & Financial Weekly Digest article discussing the lawsuit.

The SEC ruled that the movants failed to show that implementation of the resource extraction disclosure rules as scheduled would cause “imminent, irreparable harm.” In doing so, the SEC noted that a determination in the lawsuit could come as soon as the spring of 2013. The resource extraction disclosure rules do not require a company to file a Form SD until 150 days after the first fiscal year ending after September 30, 2013, at which point the lawsuit will likely have been determined. The SEC found that initial compliance costs that companies may incur to prepare for the rules would not constitute irreparable harm.

The SEC also found that the movants did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, noting that the adopting release for the rules contained strong explanations regarding the validity of the rules and an appropriately thorough economic analysis. The SEC was also not persuaded that a stay would serve the public interest.

In contrast to this ruling, in 2010 the SEC granted a request to stay the effective date of the proxy access rules implemented by Exchange Act Rule 14a-11 pending judicial review. The SEC noted that the stay would avoid potentially unnecessary costs, regulatory uncertainty, and disruption that could occur if the proxy access rules were to become effective during the pendency of a challenge to their validity. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated Rule 14a-11 in 2011.

Click here to view the SEC’s order denying the stay.

©2014 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

About the Author

Robert L. Kohl, Entertainment Law, Katten Muchin law firm
Partner

Robert Kohl concentrates his practice in public company representation, including corporate financing matters, as well as partnership, limited liability company and securities law. Robert has extensive experience in all phases of business structuring and financing, including registered public offerings (initial public offerings and secondary offerings) and private placements (including Rule 144A debt offerings), acquisitions, dispositions, leveraged buy-outs, securities regulations and venture capital financings. He represents corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies,...

212.940.6380

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 www.NatLawReview.com 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 www.NatLawReview.com  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 please click here.