A coalition of 80 institutional investors sent a
letter to Congress last week in support of the Business
Transparency on Trafficking and Slavery Act (HR 2759).
As discussed previously, the proposed legislation would require
companies to disclose efforts to identify and address the risks of
human trafficking, forced labor, slavery, and the worst forms of
child labor in their supply chains.
Modeled after the
California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, which went into
effect on January 1, 2012, the proposed federal legislation, unlike
the California statute, is not limited to retailers and
manufacturers. If enacted, the legislation would be applicable to
any publicly-traded or private company currently required to submit
annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), as long as the company meets an established
annual gross receipts threshold. Companies would be required to
include the required disclosures in their annual reports to the
In a letter sent to Speaker of the House John Boehner and House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, members of the Interfaith Center on
Corporate Responsibility and U.S. SIF: The Forum for Sustainable
and Responsible Investment called for HR 2759 to be placed at
the top of the legislative agenda in order to move "this
important legislation forward in an expeditious manner."
In urging Congressional leaders to prioritize the bill, the
investors stated that the proposed legislation
"reflects the realities of the marketplace, which
increasingly requires that companies be sensitive to social and
ethical issues, including human rights, in their operations and
global supply chains, and create human rights policies, as well as
due diligence processes to evaluate, monitor, and strengthen these
Notably, the investors' statement also argued that the U.N
Human Rights Council's unanimous endorsement of the
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in June 2011
established "a global norm for the 'corporate
responsibility to respect' human rights and underscores the
importance of public reporting by companies."
When it was introduced in August 2011, HR 2759 was referred to
the House Committee on Financial Services and currently sits with
the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored
Enterprises. Given the contentious climate on Capitol Hill, and the
upcoming presidential election, it is unlikely that the bill will
move in 2012, but its introduction is reflective of shifting
expectations regarding the responsibilities of companies to
identify and account for the adverse human rights impacts of their
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
stimates place the amount of money illegally "laundered" through
United States banks in the hundreds of billions of dollars each year.1
For more than five decades, the U.S. government has attacked money
laundering, in part, through anti-money laundering ("AML") disclosure,
monitoring, and reporting requirements placed on financial institutions.
We recently notified you of the FDIC’s Financial Institution Letter 47-2013 , which urges directors and officers of financial institutions to examine their institutions’ directors and officers (D&O) insurance coverage to ensure adequate protection for themselves as well as their depositors and shareholders.
Comments made by Kara N. Brockmeyer, the Securities Exchange Commission’s chief of the Foreign Corruption Practices Act unit, and Charles E. Duross, deputy chief of the Department of Justice’s FCPA unit, at the recent International Conference on the FCPA suggest that both agencies are increasing their scrutiny of possible FCPA violations for the next year.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Last Friday’s edition of the New York Law Journal features an article in its "Outside Counsel" column authored by Mintz Levin colleagues Andrew Roth and Kim Gold, entitled Cracking Down on Executive Compensation for Not-for-Profits.