How General Counsel Can Help Protect Confidential Records and Prevent Insider Trading
In-house leaders typically don't serve as gatekeepers for a firm's sensitive data, but they can play an important role when it comes to advising companies and employees about the management of confidential records.
December 18, 2019 at 03:35 PM
4 minute read
The Securities and Exchange Commission's announcement of insider trading charges against a former information technology administrator for cybersecurity company Palo Alto Networks Inc. raises questions about what, if anything, in-house leaders can do to prevent similar incidents.
In the Palo Alto Networks case, the IT staffer in question, Janardhan Nellore, allegedly accessed "highly confidential" financial records with his employee credentials, then shared the insider information with four friends.
Nellore and his pals, who used the code word "baby" in texts and emails to refer to Palo Alto Networks' stock, made more than $7 million through the insider trading scheme before they were caught, according to a federal complaint filed Tuesday in California.
Nellore was arrested in May at the airport as he and his family tried to board a one-way flight to India. He was fired earlier this year.
"There will always be people at a company with administrative access to email, etc., unless you have a totally closed system, which is pretty unrealistic and impractical," Ed Ryan, former general counsel of Marriott International Inc., wrote Wednesday in an email.
Companies need to ensure that sensitive data is shared on a need-to-know basis and that "anyone who potentially has access, authorized or not—and this would include IT—be aware that it's a terminable offense to access it (and they know that bread crumbs are always out there) and a criminal offense to use it," Ryan added.
Corporate legal department adviser Jason Winmill, a managing partner at Agropoint in Boston, echoed Ryan in noting that in-house leaders typically have an advisory role when it comes to determining which documents are confidential but do not generally act as gatekeepers.
"In my experience, the general counsel would be responsible for communicating to the other stakeholders what their legal obligations are to keep things confidential. And then perhaps doing follow-up spot checking to make sure the legal obligations are being met," he said.
Mark Smolik, general counsel and chief compliance officer for DHL Supply Chain Americas, noted that many large companies, especially those with a global presence, have data protection officers, who sometimes work in the legal department but are more often found in the IT department.
Smolik added that "more and more of this function [oversight of confidential records] is landing under the umbrella of the IT teams. Legal departments are there to support the IT departments and data protection officers and interpret the laws and rules and regulations that apply."
Of course, most companies that are worried about the misuse of their confidential data have employees sign nondisclosure and noncompete agreements. But Susan Hackett, CEO of law practice management consulting firm Legal Executive Leadership, said corporate counsel are increasingly questioning the benefit of such agreements.
"Quite honestly, you don't give yourself any further protections at law for having put those documents in place. If you violate a nondisclosure agreement, you're going to get prosecuted if we catch you. But the fact that you have a nondisclosure agreement doesn't mean I have any greater or fewer opportunities to sue your or stop you," she added.
The agreements serve a purpose by putting employees on notice, Hackett said, but "in terms of compliance responsibilities, I'm not sure that you can prevent someone who has criminal intent from exercising that criminal intent."
She added, "If there was any kind of best practice, it would be to help employees who may be ignorant of these issues realize what they should or shouldn't talk about."
Read More:
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 AllElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
PepsiCo's Legal Team Champions Diversity, Wellness, and Mentorship to Shape a Thriving Corporate Culture
Datasite's Ethics and Compliance Team Drives Transformation
SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
Trending Stories
- 1How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 2DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 3GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 4Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 5Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
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