SEC's $35M Cyber Disclosure Settlement With Yahoo Could Be 'Rubicon Moment'
This could be a sign that the commission will start cracking down harder on breach disclosure issues in the future.
April 26, 2018 at 05:35 PM
3 minute read
(Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)
This week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Altaba Inc., (formerly known as Yahoo! Inc), came to a $35 million settlement over the company's alleged failure to disclose a massive data breach that was discovered in 2014 but, according to the commission, was not reported to investors until 2016.
Attorneys who work on cybersecurity matters believe this action will be far from the last of its kind—and that the SEC will continue to pursue publicly traded companies that it believes are not keeping investors informed enough.
“This is a Rubicon moment,” said Denver Edwards, a principal at Bressler Amery Ross. He said the SEC has been talking “for a long time” about cracking down on publicly traded companies that fail to properly report data breaches to investors and regulators.
The breach allowed Russian hackers to gain access to usernames, birthdates, telephone numbers and encrypted emails and affected over 500 million of its users' accounts. It also impacted the company's former GC, Ron Bell, who resigned after the in-house legal team was blamed in part for not sufficiently pursuing an investigation of the attack.
Yahoo neither admitted nor denied the SEC's allegations.
Companies deciding when to speak up about a breach face competing regulations and business interests. Edwards said that, before reporting data breaches, companies must “not jump out in front without having the material in hand.” He said it is reasonable for a company to gather as much information as possible before reporting the breach, however they should also notify the SEC as soon as possible.
The amount of time companies can put off telling regulatory agencies about a data breach varies from state to state. Edward McAndrew, partner at Ballard Spahr, said that in some states, such as New York, companies have as little as 72 hours to report a breach after they have a reasonable suspicion of one occurring, but other states give companies as many as 45 to 60 days to report to state authorities.
Robert E. Cattanach, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis specializing in cybersecurity, said three things should be done when a company reasonably suspects a breach might have occurred. He said the breach should be confirmed, there should be a blackout on trading in that company's stock, and the breach should be reported. “That sequence should be done within hours,” Cattanach said.
McAndrew said that attorneys should be more careful in how they speak about cybersecurity. What got Yahoo in trouble, he said, is that the company wrote in its quarterly and annual filings “[W]e may be at risk for future data breaches.”
“That language is going to be problematic where there is any type of significant data breach,” McAndrew said. “In-house lawyers are going to have to be much more careful that they are not misrepresenting, by omission, cyber incident history.”
Ultimately, he said, the legal department is going to have to be more involved in instances of data breaches than Yahoo's legal team appeared to be.
“One of the lessons for the general counsel is they have to be quarterbacking these investigations,” McAndrew said. “If they're not in the loop in the investigation, they're not going to be able to make decisions.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readEx-Red Robin CLO Joins Norton Rose Fulbright After Helping Sell Latest Employer for $4.9 Billion
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250