Conflict Minerals: SEC Position on Non-Metallic Forms of Tin

more+
less-

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.

 

Written by:

Published In:

SEC

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Stinson Leonard Street - Dodd-Frank and the Jobs Act | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×