Results for: conflict minerals
Highlights from panels with current and former staff of Corp Fin
by Cydney Posner Below are some highlights (from my notes) of the PLI Securities Regulation Institute panel discussions Thursday and Friday with the Corp Fin staff (Keith Higgins, Shelley Parratt, David Fredrickson, Michele Anderson, Karen Garnett) as well as a number of some former staffers, plus some additional discussion from […]
SEC to issue final Dodd-Frank resource extraction disclosure rule by June 2016 (maybe)
by Cydney Posner As noted in this Law 360 article and in this thecorporatecounsel.net blog , on Friday, the SEC filed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in connection with Oxfam America v. SEC, the case on the resource extraction disclosure rule. The Notice is in […]
District Court compels SEC to provide “expedited schedule” for issuing Dodd-Frank resource extraction rule — will other rule proponents follow suit?
by Cydney Posner A U.S. District Court has handed a victory to Oxfam America in its efforts to compel the SEC to complete rulemaking on the Dodd-Frank mandate regarding resource extraction disclosures (Section 1504). Unless appealed, the decision almost puts the SEC in the vicinity of where it was in […]
In adopting pay-ratio rules, is the SEC just a mime pushing on the sides of an imaginary box?
by Cydney Posner At an open meeting this morning, SEC Commissioner Daniel Gallagher contended that, in its efforts to adopt pay-ratio rules that conform to the Dodd-Frank mandate, the SEC was just putting itself in a box – viewing the Dodd-Frank mandate as so prescriptive that the SEC could only […]
Resources
April 27, 2015 July 16, 2014 July 16, 2014 July 14, 2014 July 14, 2014 July 10, 2014 June 30, 2014 June 30, 2014 June 27, 2014 June 25, 2014 June 23, 2014 June 13, 2014 June 12, 2014 June 11, 2014 June 11, 2014 June 6, 2014 June 5, […]
Publish the list — hold the irony
by Cydney Posner As required by section 1502(d)(3)(C) of Dodd-Frank, the U.S. Commerce Department has compiled and posted (albeit more than a year late) a list of ”all known conflict mineral processing facilities worldwide.” Without the slightest hint of irony, Commerce notes that the list does “not indicate whether a […]
Are the securities laws a First Amendment free zone?
by Cydney Posner When does the First Amendment prevent the Government from compelling companies to make specified disclosures? Isn’t that what the securities laws are all about? Are the securities laws just exempt from First Amendment challenges? After all, the USSCT has long recognized that “the exchange of information about […]
Rare good news from the DRC?
by Cydney Posner This month, the Enough Project issued a relatively favorable report on progress in the DRC and adjoining countries in curtailing the funding of armed groups through the trade in conflict minerals (tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold –3TG). Happily, according to the Enough Project — one of the key proponents […]
Court denies Chamber’s motion for summary judgment that California climate disclosure laws violate First Amendment
Given the impending change in Administration in D.C.—and all that portends for regulation—the States may, in many ways, take on much larger significance. Case in point: California’s climate disclosure laws and the ongoing litigation challenges there. In January, the U.S. and California Chambers of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation and others filed a complaint (and in February, an amended complaint) against two executives of the California Air Resources Board and the California Attorney General challenging these two California laws. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief that the two laws are void because they violate the First Amendment, are precluded under the Supremacy Clause by the Clean Air Act, and are invalid under the Constitution’s limitations on extraterritorial regulation, particularly under the dormant Commerce Clause. The litigation also seeks injunctive relief to prevent CARB from taking any action to enforce these two laws. (See this PubCo post.) California then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Interestingly, however, the motion did not seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim (except as to the Attorney General, whom the motion seeks to exclude altogether on the basis of sovereign immunity), even though California asserted that Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge was “legally flawed.” The Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on the First Amendment claim, and California moved to deny that motion or to defer it, enabling the parties to conduct discovery. In this Order, issued on election day, the Federal District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and granted California’s motion to deny or defer the motion for summary judgment.
Are you ready for anti-anti-ESG?
You all remember the reams of anti-ESG bills that poured out of some of the states, not to mention the U.S. House? According to Reuters, some “states have unleashed a policy push to punish Wall Street for taking stances on gun control, climate change, diversity and other social issues, in a warning for companies that have waded in to fractious social debates.” A 2022 Reuters analysis found that there were at least 44 bills or new laws in 17 states “penalizing such company policies, compared with roughly a dozen such measures in 2021.” (See this PubCo post.) In 2023, an article in Institutional Investor reported, 198 pieces of legislation were introduced, 23 laws passed and 6 resolutions adopted. And in 2024, the article reports, state legislators wrote 161 bills and resolutions in 28 states for consideration, with six bills passed so far. (See this PubCo post.) Recently, however, ESG proponents have begun to employ a more aggressive strategy regarding anti-ESG legislation. They’re now playing in the same sandbox as the anti-ESG groups, pursuing anti-anti-ESG litigation—premised in part on…wait for it…the First Amendment, one of the favored legal strategies, of course, of the anti-ESG groups. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander? What goes around comes around? As the call, so the echo? A couple of cases may illustrate the phenomenon. Will we see more?
You must be logged in to post a comment.