Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2019: Cybersecurity

Mar 4, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

Improve Disclosures and Controls

Directors should pay close attention both to cybersecurity disclosures and to internal controls related to cybersecurity vulnerabilities. In addition to publishing formal Commission-level guidance on cybersecurity disclosures and controls, the SEC has recently warned that it may consider certain cybersecurity vulnerabilities as actionable violations of federal securities laws, which require robust internal controls. In a rare Section 21(a) report, the SEC reported that companies continue to fall victims to billions of dollars in fraudulent wire transfers due to business email compromise and indicated that such failures may violate Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Be Vigilant in Supply Chain Management

With a spike in supply-chain cyber attacks, directors should ask probing questions on third-party relationships. Conducting proper due diligence, developing robust contractual security requirements and following up to ensure compliance are all critical aspects of any supply-chain relationship and, in some cases, are legally required pursuant to certain state laws (such as New York’s Department of Financial Services Cybersecurity Regulation, which mandates third-party diligence compliance by March 2019).

Provide Oversight of Privacy and Security by Design

Emerging technologies have brought new risks: artificial intelligence, Internet of Things (IoT) and biometrics are changing the face of business. Directors should be forward-looking in their oversight of controls and should implement privacy and security by design into new technologies. With rigorous requirements imposed in newly passed California IoT legislation (SB 327) and Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, that has more than 100 lawsuits challenging alleged improper use of biometrics, companies will likely save money and decrease regulatory risk by anticipating privacy and security needs at the inception of any new project. Blockchain (the security technology that underlies Bitcoin) provides another emerging method to secure transactions and will likely evolve as companies adopt it more broadly.

Monitor Rapidly Changing Privacy and Cybersecurity Requirements

The patchwork of state, federal and international laws makes a challenging path forward for cybersecurity and privacy compliance for companies and their directors. In 2018, at least 35 states introduced more than 265 bills or resolutions related to cybersecurity. The California Consumer Privacy Act is arguably the most expansive, requiring covered businesses to provide General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)-like rights to Californians and creating a narrow private right against companies that fail to implement reasonable security controls. Although not effective until 2020, it requires covered businesses to start tracking data and data practices as of January 1, 2019, to comply with a one-year look back provision. Other states, such as Colorado, Ohio, South Carolina, Connecticut and New York, have enacted privacy- and cybersecurityspecific laws and regulations affecting myriad different industries. The SEC has pursued enforcement and issued additional guidance surrounding Bitcoin. The international landscape is also evolving, with complaints to Data Protection Authorities in the European Union skyrocketing after implementation of the GDPR, including more than 1,100 complaints in a single month in the United Kingdom alone. In response, companies have banded together to seek federal legislation in the United States to preempt the patchwork of state laws, but, with contentious Senate hearings on proposed legislation, the prospects for a quick solution remain elusive.

Directors should insist on regular cybersecurity briefings. Such briefings should include updates on the adequacy of incident response plans, a review of budgets, tabletop exercises with the incident response team and a review of cybersecurity training (including statistics on phishing exercises). As cybersecurity risk issues continue to threaten companies worldwide, delegation to a committee, a CIO/CISO or a director who is a cybersecurity specialist will likely be deemed insufficient to discharge fiduciary duties.

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.