NAM et al have filed their reply brief in the conflict minerals emergency stay hearing. Highlights, many of which are not new points, are:
- The rule must be vacated because it cannot function sensibly without the stricken provision. The rule’s remaining requirements fail to enable anyone to distinguish between issuers using minerals from mines controlled by armed groups and those using minerals from other mines. “Only the confession requirement connects issuers to conflict. The rest of the Rule does not.”
- Citing the severability language is not enough. “It remains for the Court to determine whether such intent is rational.” A severability provision is not even conclusive of intent.
- The argument that unrecoverable compliance costs – no matter how large – can never constitute irreparable harm proves too much. Otherwise any agency could adopt a rule without notice and comment and a stay would be impossible, regardless of expense incurred.
ABOUT STINSON LEONARD STREET
Stinson Leonard Street LLP provides sophisticated transactional and litigation legal services to clients ranging from individuals and privately held enterprises to national and international public companies. As one of the 75 largest firms in the U.S., Stinson Leonard Street has more than 520 attorneys and offices in 14 cities, including Minneapolis, Mankato and St. Cloud, Minn.; Kansas City, St. Louis and Jefferson City, Mo.; Phoenix, Ariz.; Denver, Colo.; Washington, D.C.; Decatur, Ill.; Wichita and Overland Park, Kan.; Omaha, Neb.; and Bismarck, N.D.
The views expressed herein are the views of the blogger and not those of Stinson Leonard Street or any client.