According to several reports, in April 29, 2014 testimony to the Financial Services Committee of the US House of Representatives, SEC Chair Mary Jo White stated that the SEC plans to implement the conflict minerals rule on schedule despite a Court of Appeals ruling earlier this month striking down one aspect of the disclosure required by the rule. Also according to reports, Chair White stated that the SEC staff plans to release guidance on its expectations for conflict minerals reporting in light of the court holding by the end of April 2014. These statements are not reflected in Chair White's published remarks for the occasion.

On April 14, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on a legal challenge brought by several business groups against the conflict minerals rule, Rule 13p-1 under the Exchange Act. The ruling upheld much of the conflict minerals rule while striking down as unconstitutional a provision that would have required companies to disclose under certain circumstances that their products containing minerals covered by the rule have "not been found to be 'DRC conflict free.'" The Court of Appeals remanded the action to District Court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling. For more information on the holding, see Legal Update, Conflict Minerals Challenge: DC Circuit Strikes Disclosure Provision and Upholds Rest of Rule.

Chair White's statement follows an April 28, 2014 joint statement on the conflict minerals rule issued by SEC Commissioners Daniel M. Gallagher and Michael S. Piwowar. In the statement, Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar express the view that the entire conflict minerals rule should be stayed, and no further regulatory obligations should be imposed, while the District Court considers the case on remand.

For more information on the conflict minerals rule, see Practice Note, Conflict Minerals Diligence.