Photo of Pamela L. Marcogliese

Pamela L. Marcogliese’s practice focuses on corporate and financial transactions, particularly capital markets matters and corporate governance matters.

The consequences of a cybersecurity incident can be severe. The economic loss associated with an incident can often be compounded by reputational damage, loss of trade secrets, destruction of assets, operational impairment, lost revenue following the announcement of the cybersecurity incident and the expense of implementing remedial measures. The timing and content of any public communication about a suspected or confirmed cybersecurity incident can exacerbate this loss and have a significant impact on the trading price of the issuer’s securities.[1] The disclosure considerations become even more complex when a company is subject to overlapping, and potentially conflicting, regulatory obligations in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union (“EU”). This issue is now at the forefront with the EU’s new data security and privacy regime, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which became effective on May 25, 2018.

Continue Reading Untangling the Tangled Web of Cybersecurity Disclosure Requirements: A Practical Guide

On April 24, 2018, Altaba, formerly known as Yahoo, entered into a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), pursuant to which Altaba agreed to pay $35 million to resolve allegations that Yahoo violated federal securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the 2014 data breach of its user database.  The case represents the first time a public company has been charged by the SEC for failing to adequately disclose a cyber breach, an area that is expected to face continued heightened scrutiny as enforcement authorities and the public are increasingly focused on the actions taken by companies in response to such incidents.  Altaba’s settlement with the SEC, coming on the heels of its agreement to pay $80 million to civil class action plaintiffs alleging similar disclosure violations, underscores the increasing potential legal exposure for companies based on failing to properly disclose cybersecurity risks and incidents.

Please click here to read the full alert memorandum.

On December 5, 2017, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) published a proposed update to its Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Framework”).  NIST is a non-regulatory federal agency within the Department of Commerce, with a mission to promote innovation and industrial competitiveness in the United States by advancing measurement science, standards and technology in beneficial ways.  The Framework was initially developed as a result of the issuance of Executive Order 13636 in 2013 (“Executive Order”), which specifically addressed the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure (defined below) and directed NIST to work with stakeholders to develop a voluntary framework for reducing cyber risks to such critical infrastructure.  Therefore, the Framework provides nonbinding guidance, and compliance is not mandatory.  In practice, the Framework is used as the basis for best practices by many companies in the United States that have cybersecurity policies and procedures.  The Framework has generally been praised as a successful example of cooperation between the public and private sector and is cited by many as a more effective approach than prescriptive regulatory requirements. Continue Reading NIST Proposes Fine-Tuning of its Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity