Over the past 18 months companies have scoured their supply chains and wrestled with hard-to-interpret regulatory mandates in order to comply with the initial reporting deadline for the SEC’s new conflict minerals rule. As a result, investors and the general public have unprecedented insight into the presence and source of conflict minerals in the supply chains of SEC-reporting companies. But many details remain unclear—Davis Polk’s survey shows that most companies are unable (or unwilling) to confirm whether or not their conflict minerals originated in the Democratic Republic of Congo or a neighboring country, or whether proceeds from these minerals actually financed armed conflict. While companies are looking to OECD guidance on how to analyze their supply chains, their efforts to reach out to suppliers varied. The overall picture from the first wave of filings was undoubtedly blurred by late-breaking developments stemming from the ongoing legal challenge to the new rule.

If you have any questions regarding the matters covered in this publication, please reach out to any of the lawyers listed below or your usual Davis Polk contact.

This communication, which we believe may be of interest to our clients and friends of the firm, is for general information only. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented and should not be relied upon as legal advice. This may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Please refer to the firm's privacy notice for further details.

Related materials

Read the full update
Copy link to share post