In 2010, the U.S. Congress passed a law called the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Action of 2010 (the Dodd-Frank Act).” The Dodd-Frank Act is generally known as the legislative response to the financial crisis that existed from 2007-2010 and it included widespread changes to the regulation of financial institutions.

So you might ask: why are we writing about it in the Manufacturing Law Blog?

The answer is that “buried” in the Act itself is a mandate requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to develop a rule that impacts countless manufacturers/distributors in either a direct or indirect way. That rule, which was adopted in 2012, requires all publicly traded companies to publicly disclose their use of “conflict minerals” that orginated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country. Examples of the “conflict minerals” are tantalum, tin, tungsten, and gold.

Does this Rule Impact Publicly Traded Companies?

Yes. According to the SEC, if a company files a report under the Exchange Act, it is required to disclose its use of conflict minerals if those minerals are “necessary to the functionality or production of a product” manufactured by those companies. Click here to see the SEC form. As with any regulatory mandate, the analysis that goes into the filing of this report can be complicated so seeking legal advice from both in-house lawyers or your manufacturing counsel is essential. In addition, if you have not done so, you should consider whether to develop a “Conflicts Mineral Policy” to distribute to those in your supply chain.

Does this Rule Impact Privately Held Companies?

Most Likely. Although privately held companies are not regulated directly, that does not mean that they are not impacted by the SEC rule. Simply stated, if you operate inside a supply chain that involves the manufacture of products that use conflict minerals, it is likely that you will be asked to provide documentation supporting your compliance with the SEC rule at some point. Indeed, the SEC rule requires “due diligence” for the reporting companies and as a result, many entities pass this diligence down the supply chain. As a result, it is advisable to develop a framework for responding to these requests now instead of later.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jeffrey White Jeffrey White

I am a partner at Robinson+Cole who handles corporate compliance and litigation matters for both domestic and international manufacturers and distributors that make and ship products around the world. My clients have ranged from publicly traded Fortune 500 companies to privately held and/or…

I am a partner at Robinson+Cole who handles corporate compliance and litigation matters for both domestic and international manufacturers and distributors that make and ship products around the world. My clients have ranged from publicly traded Fortune 500 companies to privately held and/or family owned manufacturers. For those looking for my detailed law firm bio, click here.

I am often asked why I have focused a large part of my law practice on counseling manufacturers and distributors. As with most things in life, the answer to that question is tied back to experiences I had well before I became a lawyer. My grandfather spent over 30 years working at a steel mill (Detroit Steel Company), including several years in its maintenance department. One of my grandfather’s prime job duties was to make sure that the equipment being used was safe. In his later years, he would apply those lessons learned in every project we did together as he passed on to me his great respect and pride for the manufacturing industry.

Because of these experiences, I not only feel comfortable advising executives in a boardroom, but also can easily transition to the factory floor. My experience has involved a range of industries, including aerospace and defense, chemicals, energy, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, nutritional and dietary supplements, and retail and consumer products. While I have extensive experience in litigation (including product liability and class actions), I am extremely proactive about trying to keep my clients out of the courtroom if at all possible. Specifically, I have counseled manufacturers and distributors on issues such as product labeling and warranties, product recalls, workplace safety/OSHA, anti-trust, and vendor relations, among other things. I always look for the business-friendly solution to a problem that may face a manufacturer or distributor and I hope this blog will help advance those efforts.