Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Suppose you have invested considerable time and money creating an Incident Response Plan (IRP) and delivering annual Tabletop Exercises (TTE) within your organization in the hopes that these efforts will drive an efficient and effective response when a breach occurs. If that is the entirety of your response strategy, you are going to be disappointed. Developing and delivering an IRP or TTE to improve the effectiveness of your incident response approach, in isolation, does not work. If your incident response preparation activity does not include some fundamental tactical actions, when the time comes and your house is on fire, your breach response will fail to meet your expectations, I promise.
*May exclude premium content
By John Beardwood and Shan Arora
Part Four In a Series
The conclusion of the series on Canada’s recently introduced Consumer Privacy Protection Act looks at hot button enforcement issues in the Act.
By Shanil R. Vitarana
Like other organizations, including law firms, in-house legal departments have not been spared from the “great resignation.” Lawyers and professionals across all industries are actively seeking new opportunities for a host of reasons including better pay, better culture and better balance. When they leave, they take with them not just their talent but the institutional knowledge they’ve accumulated, while their former team members are left to piece things together.
By Kristin L. Burnett
The promise that the crypto and digital assets markets bring comes bundled with uncertainty — especially on the regulatory front. Until jurisdictions adopt unified and consistent frameworks that account for the unique facets and features of cryptocurrencies, institutional investors and other market participants must keep abreast of ever-changing, dynamic laws to avoid sanctions and fines.
By Ella Shenhav and Eric S. Adams
In several recent cases, companies with cyber insurance discovered that provisions in these policies led their insurers to limit coverage. Courts have been strictly construing cyber policies, and have found that the coverage provided is narrow. These decisions hinged upon whether an event constituted a covered “direct” loss and whether intervening actions precluded coverage, like an employee responding to fraudulent communications.