Technology: Corporate governance meets information governance
The following are some questions and tips to help navigate the intersection of corporate governance and information governance in the electronic age.
May 17, 2013 at 04:15 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
What practices can your company implement to facilitate efficient business processes and corporate oversight while also maximizing its ability to quickly and defensibly respond to discovery requests that extend to board information? As you assess current practices and perhaps consider ways to improve them, the following are some questions and tips to help navigate the intersection of corporate governance and information governance in the electronic age.
How does your board receive information necessary to discharge its oversight duties?
- Hard copy board books via postal mail or courier?
- Email (sent to dedicated board email address or commingled with other email)?
- Board portal e-book (internal or external)?
- Tablet application?
- Other?
Regardless of the mechanism, board member data is potentially discoverable, particularly in cases where board member conduct is at issue or board members are key players. In addition and importantly, board information may be subject to applicable records and information governance requirements.
E-books, board portals and mobile devices
Business enterprises use technology to work faster, smarter and more cost effectively. The C-suite is no exception: Access, connectivity and rapid response time are all possible with mobile device technology, laptops, tablets, wireless networks and more. Many directors are also current or retired business executives. They expect timely and ready access to information, and they want it delivered in a manner that helps facilitate executive decision making.
- Multiple hats and information sources.Many directors serve multiple boards in addition to their day jobs. They may have fiduciary duties to and receive information from multiple organizations in connection with their oversight roles. Where does it all go? Do they carry multiple smartphones, laptops or tablets? Does board-related email go to their work email address or get commingled with their personal email accounts? If it goes to their work email, do their workplace policies provide for corporate access to company email accounts, and do that company's records retention policies now apply to your board data? Do board members have segregated email accounts for each of the multiple hats they wear? Is information “pushed” or delivered versus “pulled” from a central source?
- E-books and board portals.Increasingly, companies are moving toward electronic board materials. E-books and board portals offer solutions to help centralize the dissemination of and access to board information. Benefits touted by these solutions include: centralized and secure access to the most current information, centralized document repository and retention features, ability to search prior board documents, ability to access board information anytime and anywhere, integrated email features, cost savings and information governance features. One size does not fit all, and these tools may not be the solution for every board.
- Mobile devices, tablets and laptops.Electronic board materials offer efficiency but introduce complexity. What kinds of devices do board members use to view electronic board materials? Do they have the ability to download and annotate the materials? If materials are delivered via email, is the receiving device company-owned or a personal device, and how might that affect access to other information on that device and privacy with regard to personal information?
Connect the dots—Corporate and information governance
Hopefully, your company will never encounter a situation in which board member data is the subject of a discovery demand. Advance planning and preparation will help minimize burdens, business disruption and potential privacy concerns in the event board member data is in the crosshairs. Implement steps designed to facilitate good business practices and information governance, and to enhance readiness and the ability to defensibly respond to requests for board information if they arise.
Considerations include:
- Implement information governance policies.Define types of board-related information subject to corporate information governance policies and review relevant policies to confirm requirements applicable to the board (including records retention, email, bring your own device (BYOD), company-issued mobile devices, preservation and legal hold, social media). Consider streamlining information governance requirements for the board by developing a specific board-level information governance policy. Benefits include aggregating various corporate information governance policies in a manner that is tailored to address applicable expectations and requirements.
- Address BYOD concerns specifically. If board members may use personal devices in connection with their board service and a specific board-level information governance policy that addresses BYOD isn't in place, consider user guidelines and device registration requirements. As part of any BYOD policy, communicate privacy considerations and inform board members that using their personal devices or computers for board service purposes could put their personal information at risk. Describe what may happen to personal information, including remote wipe or auto-lock.
- Discuss commingled information.Board members should understand that if they save or download board information to personal devices or systems or commingle Board email communications with personal or other business email accounts, such information or communications may come under scrutiny and be discoverable. Communicate privacy implications, and potential for exposure or loss of personal information in the event that imaging or remote wiping becomes necessary.
- Institute policies for e-books and board portals. If your board uses these, consider encryption and security requirements. Set document retention and storage rules and integrate with litigation hold and document collection requirements. Determine what happens to deleted data and backup media. Identify email functionality, retention and features. In addition, set rules regarding the ability to download and annotate documents, and ensure that litigation holds, preservation and collection processes are designed to address electronically stored information if downloading or annotating documents is permitted.
- Avoid storing unique information on personal devices or systems. Implement practices to centralize board information, and to design e-board books and board portals (if used) so that there is nothing on an e-board book or device that is not on a centralized server.
- Communicate, train, acknowledge and improve.Train board members on information governance expectations, risks and requirements; include a written acknowledgement as part of the overall strategy. Conduct periodic assessments to help ensure that information governance practices are keeping pace with governance and business processes, and adjust as necessary.
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 AllFatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
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