Skip to main content

Statement on the Commission’s Conflict Minerals Rule

Acting Chairman Michael S. Piwowar

January 31, 2017

In April 2014, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that a portion of the disclosure required by the Commission’s Conflict Minerals Rule violated the First Amendment. Shortly thereafter, the then-Director of the Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance regarding compliance with the Rule in light of the court’s decision and the Commission issued an order staying the effect of the compliance date for those portions of the rule found to be unconstitutional. The case was subsequently remanded to the district court for further consideration. The litigation remains ongoing and the staff’s guidance remains in effect.

In the interim, the temporary transition period provided for in the Rule has expired. And the reporting period beginning January 1, 2017, is the first reporting period for which no issuer falls within the terms of that transition period. In light of this, as well as the unexpected duration of the litigation, I am directing the staff to consider whether the 2014 guidance is still appropriate and whether any additional relief is appropriate in the interim.

I welcome and encourage interested parties to submit detailed comments, and request that they be submitted within the next 45 days.


More information

Return to Top