Morgan Stanley Fined $1 Million by SEC for Cybersecurity Violations

Jun 16, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

In December 2014, MSSB, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, discovered through routine Internet sweeps that certain of its confidential customer information had been posted to at least three Internet sites, purportedly for sale to a third party. MSSB identified Galen Marsh, an employee at the time, as the likely source of the data breach. Specifically, from approximately June 2011 through 2014, Marsh accessed confidential customer information—including information for customers outside his group—and conducted nearly 6,000 unauthorized searches of customer data on two firm portals that stored sensitive personally identifiable information (PII).1 He then downloaded the data and transferred it from his MSSB computer to a personal server located at his home. A forensic analysis of Marsh’s personal server revealed that a third party likely hacked into the server and copied the confidential customer data that Marsh had downloaded. MSSB promptly took steps to remove this data from the Internet and notified law enforcement and other authorities, as well as customers who were impacted by the breach.

In its order, the SEC found that MSSB had written policies and procedures, including a Code of Conduct, that prohibited employees from accessing confidential information other than what employees had been authorized to access in order to perform their responsibilities. MSSB also had designed and installed authorization modules that, “if properly implemented,” should have permitted each employee to run reports only with respect to the data for customers whom that employee supported. 

However, MSSB’s authorization modules were ineffective and/or absent in limiting access with respect to two types of reports available through the two firm portals, allowing Marsh to access the customer information. MSSB also “failed to conduct any auditing or testing of the authorization modules” since they were created and “did not monitor user activity in the Portals to identify any unusual or suspicious patterns.”

MSSB was ordered to cease and desist, and pay a $1 million civil money penalty.

The order emphasizes that the Safeguards Rule requires every broker-dealer and investment advisor registered with the SEC to adopt written policies and procedures that “address administrative, technical and physical safeguards reasonably designed to (1) [e]nsure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information; (2) protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of customer records and information; and (3) protect against unauthorized access to or use of customer records or information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.”

This enforcement action comes on the heels of statements by the SEC indicating tougher enforcement of cybersecurity controls. Less than a month prior to the SEC’s Order against MSSB, SEC Chair Mary Jo White had warned that the biggest risk the financial system faces is cybersecurity. Speaking at the Financial Regulation Summit in Washington D.C. in May, White had said that the SEC has found “a lot of preparedness” in the industry, but that companies’ policies and procedures are not “tailored to their particular risks.” 

Andrew Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, also recently stated in an SEC webcast that “cyber is obviously a focus of [the SEC Enforcement Division], as I know it is for the other divisions, and we’ve brought a number of cases there relating to Reg S-P and failure to have policies and procedures relating to safeguarding information. . .There’ll be others coming down the pike.”

The SEC recently announced similar cease-and-desist proceedings under Regulation S-P against broker-dealer Craig Scott Capital, LLC and two of its principals.

These recent actions should serve as a further warning and example for registered firms to ensure that:

  • Cybersecurity policies and procedures are thoroughly and carefully constructed.
  • Employee access to confidential customer data is restricted appropriately to those who have a legitimate business need for the information.
  • Audits and/or testing of authorization modules are conducted regularly.
  • Employee access to, and use of, customer information is regularly monitored and analyzed, including to identify any unusual or suspicious patterns.
  • Internet filtering programs should be complete and tailored to the companies’ specific business and practices.

Akin Gump can assist with tailoring comprehensive cybersecurity policies and procedures appropriately.


1 On September 21, 2015, Marsh pled guilty to a criminal information in United States v. Galen Marsh, No. 15 Cr. 641 (KTD) (S.D.N.Y.) that charged him with one count of exceeding his authorized access to a computer and thereby obtaining information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(A). On December 22, 2015, a judgment in the criminal case was entered against Marsh. The court sentenced Marsh to 36 months’ probation and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $600,000.

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.