Advertisement

April 19, 2014

U.S. District Court Vacates SEC Rule on Extractive Industries Disclosure Requirements; Issuers Await Decision on Conflict Minerals Rule

Rule 13q-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) in August 2012 as part of the Dodd-Frank mandate, was vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 2nd, 2013. The rule imposes annual reporting requirements on “resource extraction issuers” relating to payments made to a foreign government or to the U.S. federal government in connection with the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, The American Petroleum Institute and others, determining that “the Commission misread the statute to mandate public disclosure” and the Commission’s decision not to allow exemptions for foreign law disclosure prohibitions “was, given the limited explanation provided, arbitrary and capricious.” In particular, the court questioned the public disclosure requirements contained in the Rule, leaving room for the Commission to adopt a revised requirement limiting detailed disclosure to be submitted confidentially rather than filed publicly on EDGAR.

As a result of the court’s decision, the rule is now void and issuers have no obligation to comply with Section 13(q) of the Exchange Act until a new rule is adopted by the Commission.  The Commission has not yet announced whether it intends to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. However, we anticipate that the Commission will not seek an appeal, but rather will devote its resources to proposing a new rule that addresses the deficiencies noted in the court’s ruling and enables it to fulfill its mandate under Dodd-Frank.

This decision does not impact disclosure requirements relating to conflict minerals under Rule 13p-1 under the Exchange Act, also adopted by the SEC under Dodd-Frank. The conflict minerals rule is subject to a similar challenge in the district court by the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. At oral arguments held on July 1st, 2013, the judge questioned whether the Commission properly used its powers to minimize any negative impacts when drafting the rule by not adopting a de minimis exception. This is similar to the challenge to the Commission’s refusal to use its exemptive authority in the resource extraction rules.  In light of the ruling on extractive industries disclosures, issuers affected by the conflict minerals rule (together with the broader supply stream) may have additional reason to be hopeful that the rule will be struck down, at least in part, to lessen the anticipated high cost and burden of compliance.

A copy of the district court’s opinion can be found here.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Barbara A. Jones, Greenberg Traurig law firm, Securities Attorney
Shareholder

Barbara Jones is a shareholder in Greenberg Traurig’s Corporate and Securities practice group and a member of the Global practice group and the Emerging Technologies Team. Barbara maintains a diverse corporate and securities law practice across industry groups, emphasizing complex international and domestic transactions, including private and public financings, IPOs, secondary offerings, PIPEs, alternative exit strategies, dual listings, mergers and acquisitions and licensing transactions. Her work extends to complex regulatory reporting and compliance issues arising in connection...

617.310.6064

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.