{"id":999,"date":"2015-11-11T07:11:33","date_gmt":"2015-11-11T12:11:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/?p=999"},"modified":"2015-11-24T10:05:46","modified_gmt":"2015-11-24T15:05:46","slug":"usa-court-of-appeal-denies-sec-request-on-conflict-minerals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/2015\/11\/11\/usa-court-of-appeal-denies-sec-request-on-conflict-minerals\/","title":{"rendered":"USA \u2013 Court of Appeal Denies SEC Request on Conflict Minerals"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On November 9, 2015, the US Court of Appeals refused the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Amnesty International requests for rehearing en banc of <a href=\"http:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/2015\/09\/07\/us-court-of-appeals-rejects-mandatory-declaration-of-conflict-mineral-status\/\" target=\"_blank\">the court\u2019s Aug. 18, 2015 decision<\/a> in the Conflict Minerals Rule litigation. The request for rehearing is with regard to whether compelling companies to describe products as having \u201cnot been found to be DRC conflict free\u201d violates the First Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>However, the refusal by the Court doesn\u2019t settle the issue and the saga continues. There are still several options available to the SEC and there is a lot of speculation underway as to what happens next. For example, the SEC could file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. We\u2019ll need to let the dust settle and look to see what the SEC does next.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling itself is very briefly, only really saying \u201cthe petitions be denied\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Contact <a href=\"http:\/\/web.ecdcompliance.com\/contact-us\">ECD Compliance, f<\/a>or additional information and services to assess your environmental product compliance requirements, keep you up to date on the impact to your products and markets and to implement compliance procedures.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On November 9, 2015, the US Court of Appeals refused the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Amnesty International requests for rehearing en banc of the court\u2019s Aug. 18, 2015 decision in the Conflict Minerals Rule litigation. The request for rehearing is with regard to whether compelling companies to describe products as having \u201cnot been [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[99],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-nl2015q4"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/999","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=999"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/999\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1014,"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/999\/revisions\/1014"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rohs.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}