Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2017: Cybersecurity

Jan 5, 2017

Reading Time : 4 min
  1. Ransomware. In the first quarter of 2016, phishing email campaigns pushing ransomware increased by almost 800 percent compared to the last quarter of 2015. The FBI estimates that reported ransomware attacks cost their victims a total of $209 million in the first three months of 2016, but when accounting for unreported incidents and lost productivity, one estimate shows a financial impact of $75 billion annually. Ransomware attacks follow a similar pattern: a virus is downloaded by an employee and encrypts a company’s data; then, a message appears demanding a ransom, often in bitcoin, ranging in value from a few hundred to millions of dollars—if the ransom is timely paid, then the information is restored.
  2. Cybercriminals have weaponized the Internet of Things. Cybercriminals have diversified their targets, with a large percentage of all targets being user devices and individuals. As more information is stored on smartphones and as more devices connect to the Internet through the expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT), cybercriminals have hacked these devices to obtain information, as well as use them as weapons. The October 21, 2016, Dyn attack revealed this vulnerability. The attackers used malware to take control of hundreds of thousands of devices across the country—printers, baby monitors, Apple TV devices, etc.—and used these to begin a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on Dyn, a DNS provider that links a domain name to its corresponding IP address (i.e., you type in amazon.com, and it sends you to the Amazon IP address). As a result, websites across the country and around the world—including those of Amazon, CNN, BBC, HBO, PayPal, Pinterest, Spotify, Walgreens, The Wall Street Journal and many others—shut down for hours. We anticipate that attacks like these will continue to rise.
  3. Increased regulation at home. U.S. regulators have recognized the growing importance of cybersecurity, and there is no shortage of pressure on directors to get this right. The New York State Financial Services Department led the way in creating a more prescriptive cybersecurity regulation, to be effective in January 2017. Other regulators have also continued their enforcement activities. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has prosecuted more than 50 enforcement cases for data security issues. The SEC has emphasized the critical risk presented, as outgoing U.S. SEC chair Mary Jo White commented, “Cybersecurity is one of the greatest risks facing the financial services industry.” The SEC continues to focus on investment advisors and broker-dealers, with enforcement actions for failure to safeguard information. The Yahoo data breaches may also provide a baseline for the SEC’s investigation and enforcement of disclosures from public companies regarding data breaches, with calls for a formal investigation from the Senate.
  4. Increased regulation abroad. Data transfer to the EU continues to be challenging. With the overturn of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor by the Schrems decision, companies turned to model clauses/contracts to transfer data. In 2016, Privacy Shield—the successor framework to Safe Harbor—went into effect, providing additional procedural protections for citizens of EU member states. Privacy Shield has already been challenged by privacy advocates in Europe and will continue to face significant legal challenges, particularly in light of concerns regarding President-elect Trump’s protection of privacy, so its future remains unclear. Data transfers between the U.S. and the U.K. also faced concerns after Brexit, but it is likely that the U.K. Data Protection Authority will follow the Privacy Shield framework. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides material changes to the data protection framework in Europe. The GDPR was finalized in 2016 and becomes finally applicable in May 2018. Unlike the predecessor EU Directive, it applies to organizations based outside of the EU if they process personal data of EU residents. The GDPR includes mandatory data breach notification requirements, “privacy by design,” appointment of a data protection officer and rights to erasure, with severe penalties for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4 percent of worldwide turnover (whichever is higher). Multinational companies have significant work to do to comply with the framework by 2018.
  5. Employees as assets to combat cyber risks. With experts estimating that 90 percent of all data breaches are caused by people, it is easy to view a company’s employees as its biggest threat. The sophisticated use of phishing, spear phishing, personal email, device loss, improper cloud storage and the intentional use of information for profit, sabotage or revenge threatens every company. In 2016, the Internal Revenue Service was forced to issue a special alert warning of W-2 tax fraud phishing schemes, with agents reporting hundreds of compromised companies daily in the first few months of the year. Despite this, employees can become a company’s biggest asset. Providing advanced cybersecurity training, running phishing exercises and building a top-down culture of cyber awareness can be the best detection device and countermeasure against cybercriminals.
  6. Checklist for directors. Directors should continue to keep cybersecurity at the top of the agenda by doing the following:
    • establish a clear governance structure for cybersecurity 
    • analyze top risks facing the company and changing threats  
    • review the incident response plan and ensure retained cybersecurity legal advisor and forensic team
    • review the existence and testing of a disaster recovery plan to minimize ransomware threats
    • conduct annual tabletop exercises to practice incident response and ensure coordination across departments
    • provide regular reports to the board with clear cybersecurity dashboards evaluating key audit and compliance metrics; outstanding high-risk findings from prior assessments; benchmarking against established cybersecurity framework such as NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) or ISO (International Organization for Standardization); and provide an overview of cybersecurity operational metrics
    • monitor director communications over the Internet and leave all devices outside of the boardroom when sensitive information is to be delivered
    • perform a legal update on regulatory risks and new requirements
    • update vendor access and compliance plans
    • review insurance coverage in the event of a cyber incident

View the full report 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

© 2024 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.