January 2, 2015 – January 9, 2015
The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP and should not be deemed to be endorsements of them. The Recap is intended to be a compilation of articles and events to encourage discussion within the conflict minerals community and to keep our readers updated on the most recent developments.
TheCorporateCounsel.net: EDGAR Is Fixed for Form SD Exhibits
As you may remember, in our May 29, 2014 blog post, we confirmed that there was a glitch in the EDGAR filing system and that EDGAR was not accepting EX-1.01 to the Form SD but was accepting EX-1.02 despite the instructions to the Form SD.
This glitch has now been resolved. The SEC states, “Exhibit type EX-1.02, which was previously allowed on an SD and SD/A submission, will no longer be available on EDGARLink Online or accepted by EDGAR.”
Business Groups File Supplemental Brief in Conflict Minerals Legal Challenge
As you may be aware, on November 18, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted the SEC’s petition for rehearing of the court’s April 2014 decision that found that certain disclosure requirements of the conflict minerals rule violated the First Amendment. On December 8, 2014, the SEC filed its Supplemental Brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On December 29, 2014, the business groups filed their Supplemental Brief.
In their brief, the business groups argue that the conflict minerals rule disclosure requirement does not result in “purely factual and uncontroversial disclosure” and thus should be subject to a stricter scrutiny.