SEC Proposes Rules for Resource Extraction Issuers Under Dodd-Frank Act

Dec 17, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min

Issuers Subject to the Proposed Rules

The proposed rules would apply to a domestic or foreign issuer that made payments to the U.S. federal government or a foreign government if:

  • the issuer is required to file an annual report with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
  • the issuer engages in the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals.

In addition, a resource extraction issuer would be required to disclose payments made by a subsidiary or another entity controlled by the issuer. For purposes of the rule, control would be determined by reference to financial consolidation principles that the issuer applies to the audited financial statements in its Exchange Act annual reports.

Payments Triggering Disclosure

The proposed rules provide that a resource extraction issuer would be required to disclose payments that are:

  • made to further the “commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals,” defined in the proposed rules to include exploration, extraction, processing and export, or the acquisition of a license for any such activity
  • “not de minimis,” defined in the proposed rules as any payment, whether a single payment or a series of related payments, which equals or exceeds $100,000 during the same fiscal year
  • within the specified types of “payments,” e.g., taxes, royalties, fees (including license fees), production entitlements, bonuses, dividends and payments for infrastructure improvements.

Disclosure Requirements

The proposed rules would require a resource extraction issuer to provide the following information about payments made to further the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals:

  • type and total amount of such payments made for each project of the resource extraction issuer relating to the commercial development of oil, natural gas or minerals
  • type and total amount of such payments for all projects made to each government
  • total amounts of the payments by category
  • currency used to make the payments
  • financial period in which the payments were made
  • business segment of the resource extraction issuer that made the payments
  • the government that received the payments, and the country in which the government is located
  • the project of the resource extraction issuer to which the payments relate
  • the particular resource that is the subject of commercial development
  • the subnational geographic location of the “project,” defined in the proposed rules as an approach that is focused on the legal agreement that forms the basis for payment liabilities with a government and which could include operational activities governed by multiple legal agreements.

The proposed rules also clarify the types of taxes, fees, bonuses and dividends that are required to be disclosed and how they should be disclosed. This list of payment types would be consistent with the requirements of the European Union, Canada and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

The proposed rules note that the SEC could provide exemptive relief from the requirements of the proposed rules on a case-by-case basis using its existing authority under the Exchange Act. Also, in light of international developments, as well as the progress made by the U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (USEITI), the proposed rules would allow issuers to use a report prepared for foreign regulatory purposes or for the USEITI to comply with the proposed rules if the SEC determines the requirements are substantially similar to the proposed rules.

Filing Requirements

The proposed rules would require a subject issuer to publicly disclose the above-described information annually using Form SD, which would be filed with the SEC no later than 150 days after the end of its fiscal year. Form SD is already used for specialized disclosure not included within a subject issuer’s periodic or current reports, such as the conflict minerals disclosure required by Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The information would be included in an exhibit and electronically tagged using the eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) format.

Timing for Implementation

The SEC is providing two comment periods for this proposal. Initial public comments are due by January 25, 2016. Reply comments, which may respond only to issues raised in the initial comment period, are due on February 16, 2016.

Additional Information

A copy of the proposing release for Rule 13q-1 is available here, a copy of the press release issued by the SEC regarding the proposed rules is available here and a copy of Chair Mary Jo White’s statement about the rules is available here.

For more on this topic, please click here.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.