Shortly before the filing deadline for the first conflict minerals filings on Form SD, it became known that the SEC believed non-metallic forms of tin are not conflict minerals because non-metallic forms of tin are “chemically distinct from the metal derivatives themselves.” Documentation of the SEC position has been scant. However, a letter outlining the discussions by a firm that participated in the discussions has appeared on the SEC website which is some help in verifying the position.

We note however that the letter was uploaded to the comments section on the proposed conflict minerals rules which could mean it was not necessarily vetted in the same manner as more authoritative SEC staff positions.

Our thanks to The Elm Consulting Group International LLC for pointing this out.