Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2015: Cybersecurity

Dec 23, 2014

Reading Time : 4 min

These tangible consequences for boards and management are a response to growing awareness of critical risk. As the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) noted, “The national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of critical infrastructure. Cybersecurity threats exploit the increased complexity and connectivity of critical infrastructure systems, placing the Nation’s security, economy and public safety and health at risk. Similar to financial and reputational risk, cybersecurity risk affects a company’s bottom line. It can drive up costs and impact revenue. It can harm an organization’s ability to innovate and to gain and maintain customers.”

2014 Regulatory Developments

In February 2014, NIST issued its first Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. The framework provides companies with standards and best practices for managing cyber risks, establishing a common vocabulary for discussions between businesspeople and technical specialists. It offers an incremental approach to cyber risk management and enables companies to flexibly address risk.

Although the NIST framework is voluntary, regulators appear to be tacitly adopting the NIST framework as a guide to evaluating companies. In April 2014, the SEC’s Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) announced a cybersecurity audit in which it reviewed cyber practices of more than 50 broker-dealers and investment advisors. Despite being only directed to broker-dealers and investment advisors, the seven-page list of cybersecurity questions provides a guide to companies in any industry of the focus of regulators in assessing cybersecurity readiness.

In November, the SEC unanimously adopted Regulation SCI (Systems Compliance and Integrity) to govern the technology infrastructure of the United States’ securities exchanges and certain other trading platforms and market participants. The new rules are designed to minimize disruptions to markets and enhance the capability of exchanges and trading platforms to respond to, and remedy, breakdowns in their systems. The rules are the first updates in more than two decades to the technological standards governing exchange-based automated trading systems. The SEC has signaled that it may expand the scope of Regulation SCI to include other key market participants in the future.

Industries also continued to self-regulate. The retail and oil and gas industries established the Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISAC) to aggregate analyze and distribute information regarding threats to their respective industries. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council established a site to outline cybersecurity guidance and indicated that member agencies (including the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC) will begin incorporating cybersecurity assessments into the examination process by the end of the year. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission issued a joint statement that officially encouraged companies, including direct competitors, to share cyber threat information with one another, emphasizing that “properly designed sharing of cyber threat information should not raise antitrust concerns.”

Key Risk Management Considerations

Boards should place cybersecurity near the top of any enterprise risk management program. The following are questions that boards should be asking:

  • Governance. Has the board established a cybersecurity review committee and determined clear lines of reporting and responsibility for cyber issues?
  • Critical Asset Review. Has the company identified what its highest cyber risk assets are (e.g., IP, personal information, trade secrets, mechanical controls on equipment, etc.)? Are sufficient resources allocated to protect these assets?
  • Threat assessment. What is the daily/weekly/monthly threat report for the company? What are the current gaps and how are they being resolved?
  • Incident Response Preparedness. Does the company have an incident response plan and has it been tested in the past six months? Has the company established contracts via outside counsel with forensic investigators in the event of a breach to facilitate quick response and privilege protection?
  • Employee Training. What training is provided to employees to help them identify common risk areas for cyber threat?
  • Third-Party Management. What are the company’s practices with respect to third parties? What are the procedures for issuing credentials? Are access rights limited and backdoors to key data entry points restricted? Has the company conducted cyber due diligence for any acquired companies? Do the third-party contracts contain proper data breach notification, audit rights, indemnification and other provisions?
  • Insurance. Does the company have specific cyber insurance and does it have sufficient limits and coverage?
  • Risk Disclosure. Has the company updated its cyber risk disclosures in SEC filings or other investor disclosures to reflect key incidents and specific risks?

Cybersecurity is no longer solely an IT issue. The board must do more than simply review the IT budget annually and trust the IT department to self-regulate. The SEC and other government agencies have made clear that it is their expectation that boards actively manage cyber risk at an enterprise level. Given the complexity of the cybersecurity inquiry, boards should seriously consider conducting an annual third-party risk assessment to review current practices and risks.

This post was excerpted from our annual Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2015 alert. 

 


1Speech by SEC Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar, “Boards of Directors, Corporate Governance and Cyber-Risks: Sharpening the Focus” (June 10, 2014).

2Adam J. Epstein, “Thinking Strategically About Cyber Risk,” NACD Directorship (Sept./Oct. 2014), p. 32-34, citing a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 2014.

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.