Cybersecurity Due Diligence in M&A Transactions
As former SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar aptly stated: “boards that choose to ignore, or minimize, the importance of cybersecurity oversight responsibility, do so at their own peril.”
June 22, 2018 at 11:10 AM
4 minute read
Yahoo/Verizon Deal
Yahoo! Inc., Form 10-Q, at 47Lessons Learned
- A target's cybersecurity practices and monitoring should be carefully assessed, especially when its relies heavily on the collection, use and storage of personal data. Yahoo's lack of emphasis on uncovering, responding to and disclosing security incidents demonstrates how even established companies can fall short in addressing data security responsibilities (and also how customary due diligence can fail to uncover theses critical shortfalls).
- The board's involvement and understanding of the company's data security protocols and recent incidents can serve as a litmus test of a company's cybersecurity risk. Buyers must understand that cybersecurity issues are not IT issues, they are core business issues that the board and C-level management must treat seriously or suffer operational consequences.
- Relatedly, a buyer must diligence the company's internal cyberawareness and communication practices, and ensure that employees report data security incidents “up the chain,” including to the board. Yahoo's blunders during the Verizon deal could have been avoided had its legal and IT teams properly reported the 2014 Security Incident when they discovered it, and buyers should smoke out any risk that the seller may have similar reporting breakdowns.
- Cybersecurity diligence should be conducted early, as many companies may be reluctant to disclose such issues (or may not be aware of them). Moreover, cybersecurity weaknesses may not be readily apparent.
Cybersecurity Diligence Priorities
- What types of digital assets does the company collect, use, transmit and store?
- Does the target take appropriate measures to collect only the minimum sensitive data it needs and protect data in storage and transit? “Appropriateness” depends on the value of data and its importance to the company's business. Appropriate measures include an established cybersecurity policy, employee education, awareness and training, appointment of an individual accountable for cybersecurity, regular reporting (including to management by the board's audit committee), and access controls such as encryption. Policies should be updated annually.
- Does the company have a sufficient plan to uncover and respond to security breaches (e.g., an “incident response plan”) and have a person designated to take responsibility for them? Has the company tested its plan through a tabletop exercise?
- Has the company experienced data security incidents in the past? If so, were vulnerabilities remediated?
- Does the company conduct regular assessments of cybersecurity weaknesses and is it committed to making cybersecurity a priority, even at the management and board level? Are such assessments conducted using a third-party, objective process?
- Does the target take appropriate steps to comply with its legal cybersecurity obligations (e.g., state statutes and national regulations, such as the GDPR) or industry-imposed standards (e.g., health care, financial services)?
- Has the company notified governmental agencies about any cyberincidents (such as letters to state attorneys general or the filing of suspicious activity reports with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network)? Does the company's policy contemplate providing such notices?
- Does the company share sensitive data with third parties, such as cloud vendors? If so, has the target included language for third party cybersecurity compliance in contracts?
Closing Points
Sharon R. Klein is a partner and the chair of Pepper Hamilton's privacy, security and data protection practice. She also leads the firm's technology and digital health practices. Taylor Jon Torrence is an associate in the corporate and securities practice group of the firm. He advises clients on all types of transactions, including mergers acquisitions and joint ventures, as well as privacy and data protection issues.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
© 2025 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 AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Navigating AI Risks: Best Practices for Compliance and Security
- 220 New Judges? Connecticut Could Get Wave of Jurists
- 3Orrick Loses 10-Lawyer Team to Herbert Smith in Germany
- 4‘The US Market Is Critical’: KPMG’s Former Head of Global Legal Services On the Legal Arm of the Big Four Firm Entering the US
- 5Justice Marguerite Grays Elevated to Co-Chair Panel That Advises on Commercial Division
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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