Mergers, Acquisitions and Breaches: How to Evaluate Cyber Risk in Deals
Buyers need to ensure that they approach a deal with an equal understanding of the seller’s financial and cyber risk.
August 12, 2019 at 05:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
June marked the anniversary of the Verizon and Yahoo! deal — not that there was anything to celebrate. No company wants an acquisition to end up the way Yahoo! did for Verizon. The massive breach of every single Yahoo! account — over 3 billion in all — contributed to the significant devaluation of Yahoo! for Oath, the subsidiary of Verizon that made the purchase. This devaluation amounted to a writedown of almost $5 billion after the original acquisition price of under $4.5 billion. Talk about adding insult to injury.
While perhaps it’s not always the first thing business leaders think about when discussing a deal, cybersecurity audits are a vital aspect of mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Businesses need to vet companies that they would like to acquire in order to determine their cyber vulnerability, because the buyer ultimately inherits all of the target’s exposures and liability.
However, despite the Verizon-Yahoo! debacle, there is still a gaping hole in the M&A due diligence process when it comes to evaluating cyber risk. A cyber review is just as vital as the financial and employee analysis, but not enough professionals know how to do this diligence on the fast-paced timeframe that deals are conducted.
Here are some actions to consider before engaging or finalizing a deal:
- Test the network: In the ideal scenario, deal rooms would include a copy of a recent penetration test of the selling company. A penetration test is an authorized simulated cyberattack on a company’s IT system to evaluate weaknesses. It provides an inside-out view of the selling company from the perspective of a criminal actor attempting to breach the network. A team of IT specialists typically conduct these tests to determine the manner in which the selling company manages cybersecurity. From these simulations, the specialists can gather a complete understanding of how data is stored, by who, where, and if this confidential information is vulnerable. As penetration testing may take longer than “deal time” (if a penetration test has not taken place), alternative methodologies such as an external scan also can assist in obtaining a better understanding of the target’s security posture.
- Evaluate the results: The information collected educates decision-makers on the state of the selling company’s risk management strategy and exposures. These results uncover everything from indicators of poor security hygiene to employee email credentials. The worst thing that a test could reveal is that there is already a malicious actor in the selling company’s network. The test could also reveal weaknesses caused by internet-exposed systems created to support remote workers or third-party vendors. A significant finding could affect the deal size, change the escrow amount, or create a need for a contingency clause on the deal.
- Protect assets accordingly: The buyer should also consider taking out a cyber insurance policy that covers the combined exposure of the parent company and selling company. If a buyer goes forward with a deal, it is important that they have the right cyber insurance policy in place to cover a breach. When creating a policy, insurance companies evaluate the selling business using an outside-in approach. Unlike a penetration test in which IT specialists are often given access to a company’s internal system, an outside-in assessment consists of a team collecting data from the outside by simulating cyber adversaries’ tradecraft and techniques used to gain information about a target. Key weaknesses that insurance companies notice when underwriting a policy for an M&A are often easily corrected or mitigated with existing security controls. Brokers must work with tech-forward insurance companies to provide businesses with an accurate policy on a very short time frame — “deal time,” which moves at the breakneck pace of a few hours, rather than a few weeks.
As cyber breaches become more impactful and frequent, decision-makers must incorporate a cyber review into their M&A plan. Buyers need to ensure that they approach a deal with an equal understanding of the seller’s financial and cyber risk.
Related: Cyber insurance market update 2019
Shawn Ram ([email protected]) is the head of insurance at Coalition, a company founded at the intersection of the insurance and cybersecurity industries by a team of insurance, technology and intelligence community veterans. The views expressed here are the author’s own.
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 AllOnce the LA Fires Are Extinguished, Expect the Litigation to Unfold for Years
5 minute readTexas Insurer Slaps Hinshaw & Culbertson With Legal Mal Claim Over $11 Million Personal Injury Jury Award
3 minute readInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
Trending Stories
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