Stinson Leonard Street Dodd Frank

MAKING SENSE OF DODD-FRANK

The Dodd-Frank Act has broad and deep implications that will touch every corner of financial services and multiple other industries. This site, developed and maintained by attorneys at Stinson Leonard Street, is dedicated to making sense of this complex legislation and helping businesses understand how it will affect them specifically. Our Bloggers »

Dodd-Frank

Proposed Judgment in Conflict Minerals Case

by   |   March 20, 2017

Pursuant to a court order, the parties to the conflict minerals case have filed a proposed judgment after they advised the court no further proceedings were necessary. The text of the proposed judgment is as follows:

(1) The Court DECLARES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78m(p)(1)(A)(ii) and (E) (“the Statute”), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 13p-1 and Form SD, Conflict Minerals, 77 Fed. Reg. 56,274, 56,362-65 (Sept. 12, 2012) (“the Rule”), violate the First Amendment to the extent that the Statute and the Rule require regulated entities to report to the Commission and to state on their websites that any of their products “have not been found to be ‘DRC conflict free.’”

(2) Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), the Court HOLDS UNLAWFUL AND SETS ASIDE the Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 56,632-65, only to the extent that it requires regulated entities to report to the Commission and to state on their websites that any of their products “have not been found to be ‘DRC conflict free.’”

(3) In all other respects, the Court DENIES summary judgment to Plaintiffs, GRANTS summary judgment to Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors, and REMANDS to the Commission.