Last year, we provided an overview regarding the requirement that U.S. publicly traded companies disclose their use of “conflict minerals.”  As of 2014, the Government Accounting Office reported that 1,321 companies filed the requisite disclosure.  The GAO anticipated that over 6,000 companies could be affected by the rule.  That discrepancy can be explained either by:  (1) the GAO’s stats were off; or (2) a large number of companies did not make the filing.  The numbers for 2015 will be available next month and we will update our readers on whether the number of compliant companies has increased.

This coming fall, I will be presenting a webinar about conflict minerals compliance with the help of one of firm’s summer associate’s Nicole Mulé.  If you are interested in receiving an invitation, please email me at jwhite@rc.com.

In the meantime, a teaser.  Are privately held manufacturers impacted by this law?  The answer is yes.  First, from a business perspective, many publicly traded companies require that companies in their supply chain certify that they do not use conflict minerals.  Second, and more daunting, is that the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) has instituted sanctions for companies (even if they are not publicly traded) that import conflict minerals from the DRC region.   Such sanctions can range from substantial monetary fines to criminal penalties, including lengthy prison time.

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.