• Home
  • IHRIB Initiatives
    • Financial Humanity Project
      • FHP Library
    • ASSURE
  • About Us
    • IHRIB Staff
    • Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law
    • AU Washington College of Law
    • Contact Us
  • News & Events
    • News
    • Calendar of Events
  • IHRIB Blog
facebook
twitter

IHRIB Blog

25
JUL
2013

Extractives Industry Groups Repel Anti-Corruption Rule

tag : anti-corruption, corruption, dodd-frank, extractives, mining, oil, section 1504
by : Mohammad Abushehab
comment : 0

On Monday July 2, 2013, the honorable John D. Bates, federal judge for the District Court of Columbia, struck down Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, a regulatory provision aimed at decreasing corruption in developing countries. Known as the Cardin-Lugar provision, Section 1504 was part of a Congressional effort to regulate the U.S. financial industry domestically and abroad. Section 1504 would have required American resource extraction companies to disclose any payments of $100,000 or more that they made within a given fiscal year with the purpose of commercially developing oil, natural gas or mineral resources. The primary purpose of Section 1504 was to increase transparency and accountability with respect to the relationships between resource extractors and governments. If it had not been overruled, the provision would have required an estimated 1,100 companies to begin disclosing their records next year.

The court’s decision is seen as a significant victory for the American Petroleum Institute (API), a lobbying group that sued the U.S. government after the rule was adopted in August of 2012. The API argued that Section 1504 should be overruled because it would force businesses to disclose their proprietary secrets, infringe on their constitutional right to free speech, and burden them with significant costs. “The court has vacated the SEC’s requirement that U.S. companies report competitive information that can be used against them by global competitors,” said Harry Ng, API vice president and general counsel, adding that the rule would jeopardize current American transparency efforts by making American firms less competitive against foreign, state-owned oil companies. Ng also pointed out that several leading companies under the API umbrella are already engaged in the Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), a set of standards currently being implemented in around three-dozen countries.

Despite the API’s criticism, many transparency activists and developmental groups continue to regard Section 1504 as an essential step towards decreasing corruption and ending the “resource curse” in resource-rich and governance-poor developing countries. “Needless to say we are incredibly disappointed with this decision, particularly given that the United States has been a leader on this issue through the passage of Section 1504,” stated Jana Morgan, a Washington campaigner with Global Witness, a D.C.-based advocacy group. “We are now seeing similar initiatives in the European Union and Canada, with transparency in resource payments becoming the new paradigm and the new standard for best business practices,” she added. Senator Ben Cardin, who co-authored Section 1504, expressed similar concerns over the potential broader effects of Tuesday’s court decision, stating that “the U.S. has been at the forefront of the transparency fight, and this decision will delay implementation of vital transparency rules.” Cardin further added, “Congress was clear in the letter and the spirit of the law that this information should be in the public domain. It is unfortunate that the court believes that company disclosures to the SEC should remain hidden.”

According to Judge John D. Bates, the Rule on Section 1504 Contained Significant Errors But the SEC Can Issue an Updated Rule on Section 1504.

The Federal District Court of Columbia’s decision on Monday revolved around the SEC’s interpretation of Section 1504. The Honorable Judge Bates ruled against the SEC’s interpretation of the provision after concluding that it had overreached the Congressional mandate in two primary ways. First, the Commission’s rule required companies to report all of the their payments connected to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or mineral resources to the public, rather than simply requiring them to publish annual summary reports. Second, the rule did not provide any exemption for companies operating in countries where national laws prohibited such disclosures – Angola, Cameroon, China and Qatar are the four at issue in this case. According to the U.S. companies, Section 1504’s lack of an exemption for national rules would force them to pull out of certain countries, resulting in massive economic costs. Judge Bates noted that “the commission misread the statute to mandate public disclosure of the reports, and its decision to deny any exemption was, given the limited explanation provided, arbitrary and capricious.” Based on these two points, Judge Bates struck down the provision without discussing any additional arguments brought before the court, including the issue of constitutionality.

Although the SEC’s interpretation of Section 1504 has been struck down by the district court, the judgment is more technical than substantive and leaves room for the SEC to edit and re –issue the rule. “We strongly disagree with the court findings, but that said, the court has not precluded the possibility that the rules will be re-enacted in the same form but with a stronger justification,” said Gavin Hayman, the London-based director of campaigns for Global Witness. “Further, we note that nothing in the decision blocks the SEC from requiring public reporting or allows for exemptions from reporting. The oil industry has never been able to show, clearly, the existence of the host country prohibitions against payment disclosure.” Unless the Commission moves to appeal the judgment to a higher court, the district court’s decision will force the SEC to refashion the existing provision.

For further reading:
1- http://www.mainjustice.com/justanticorruption/2013/07/02/judge-vacates-sec-dodd-frank-rule-for-extractive-industries-remands-to-sec/
2- http://www.americanlawyer.com/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202611136774&The_Global_Lawyer_Will_the_US_Get_Back_on_the_Transparency_Train&slreturn=20130624134433
3- http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/07/u-s-court-overturns-key-extractives-transparency-rule/
4- http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/assets/another-side-of-dodd-frank-understanding-section-1504-final.pdf

About the Author

Social Share

  • google-share

Tags

agriculture ansi standard archives barclays barclays capital biofuel CalPers commodities commodity commodity index swaps commodity speculation conference cows derivatives dodd-frank FAO food Food Price Index food security futures contract Geneva Guatemala housing crisis human rights human rights business hunger ICAR icoc imf investment investor land grabbing Michael Greenberg military security Montreux pmsc private security Ruggie speculation sustainability swaps U.K. UNPRI Washington College of Law WCL

Recent Posts

  • Is the Muslim Brotherhood the Only Barrier Facing the New Egyptian Government?
  • Hunger: A state of mind or a globally conceptualized definition
  • The Daily Show on Goldman Sachs and the Aluminum Market
  • Extractives Industry Groups Repel Anti-Corruption Rule
  • Two Years After the Revolution, the Fight for a Democratic Transition in Egypt Continues

Civil Society Advocacy

  • Business and Human Rights Resource Centre – Portal on Business, Conflict and Peace Portal
  • CorpWatch – War and Disaster Profiteering
  • Fund for Peace – Private Security and Human Rights
  • Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces – Private Security Governance
  • Human Rights First – Accountability for Private Security Contractors
  • International Coalition to Control PMSCs
  • War on Want – Stop the business of war

General Resources

  • Private Security Monitor

Recent Reports

  • ACLU. June 2012. Victims of Complacency: The Ongoing Trafficking and Abuse of Third Country Nationals by U.S. Government Contractors
  • Global Policy Forum June 2012. Dangerous Partnerships: Private Military & Security Companies and the UN

Standards for Security Companies

  • International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers
  • International Stability Operations Association Code of Conduct
  • Management System for Quality of Private Security Company Operations ANSI/ASIS PSC.1
  • Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies during Armed Conflict
  • Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights
AULogo

View our eNewsletter Archives here.

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

AUWCL

Copyright 2013 The Initiative for Human Rights in Business
All rights reserved