SEC Confirms Exclusion of Tin Chemicals from Conflict Minerals Disclosures

UPDATE:  Last week, the SEC made available the letter from the law firm confirming the teleconference with SEC staff on this matter.  Further, the matter was discussed in detail at last week’s IPC conflict minerals seminar.  We have learned that the exclusion includes 3TG, not just tin.

Yesterday we had an inquiry from Jeff Perry at King & Spalding concerning very recent guidance from the SEC on whether the conflict minerals disclosure applies to chemical forms of tin or is limited to metallic forms of tin.  As a result, we contacted the SEC staff directly about this and received confirmation that indeed the staff has determined that the disclosure requirements only apply to metallic forms of tin, including alloys containing tin that is intentionally added.  It does not appear that the staff will issue any written documentation of this new interpretation, but we believe outside counsel representing the group requesting this interpretation will memorialize the position in followup correspondence to the staff.

At this time, it is unclear if the interpretation is limited to tin or applies to chemical forms of the other three minerals.  For instance, gold salts are a common chemical form of gold.

Issuers who filed by yesterday’s deadline should discuss next steps with their legal counsel.  Some companies may choose to amend their disclosures and others may wait until the next filing deadline to address this new information.

As we have volunteered to do in the past, we will attempt to obtain a copy of the documentation and make it widely available.  We are working with CorporateCounsel.net to determine an approach to warehousing these documents and related information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 − 4 =