Features
Are U.S. Records Retention Requirements on a Collision Course with the GDPR's 'Right to Erasure?'
U.S. laws require companies to retain records for years, and sometimes forever, and violating U.S. records retention laws can result in domestic fines and penalties. How can U.S. companies comply with the GDPR's “right to erasure” while still fulfilling their U.S. records retention obligations?
Features
Vendor Risk Management for Law Firms: 7 Steps to Success
Most firms have extensive cybersecurity measures in place, but emerging or unclear regulatory requirements embroil them in a never-ending cycle of evaluation, best-practices review, and implementation. Firms don't just need to have their own systems secured; a responsible firm must also reduce the risk of breach at their third-party vendors. As cloud service providers become commonplace, so too does a firm's responsibility to ensure their vendors are managing risk appropriately.
Features
You're Going to Need a Bigger Boat
<b><i>Small Law Firms Face Large Regulatory Requirements</b></i><p>Unlike large firms with comparable resources with which to protect client non-public information, small firms can find themselves trapped between cyberattacks, like ransomware, that don't prejudice based on the size of firm, and regulators who are indifferent to your size, when investigating a potential violation.
Features
How the New UST Fee Schedule Is a Ticking Tax-Bomb for Middle Market Debtors
As of Jan. 1, 2018, each jointly administered debtor with quarterly disbursements of at least $1,000,000 must pay a fee of 1% of all disbursements, up to $250,000 per quarter. Although this change in the law was only intended to address shortfalls in UST funding, it has taken a little-noticed component of bankruptcy and magnified it into a ticking tax-bomb for unsuspecting debtors and their lenders.
Features
SEC Releases New Guidance on Cybersecurity Disclosures and Controls
On Feb. 21, 2018, the SEC voted unanimously to approve a statement and interpretive guidance to assist the public in preparing disclosures about cybersecurity risks and incidents. The new guidance expands upon previous guidance provided in October of 2011.
Features
<i>A Roundtable Discussion:</i> How Evolving Media Types and Cybersecurity Concerns Are Impacting e-Discovery
In this roundtable discussion, two law firm partners and two GCs share their experience and insight on the evolving nature of e-discovery and its intersection with AI, cybersecurity and privacy.
Features
Compliance Officers and Law Enforcement: Friends or Foes?
<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>As we saw in Part One, regulators have recently shown a tendency to focus on compliance officers who they deem to have failed to ensure that the compliance and anti-money laundering (AML) programs that they oversee adequately prevented corporate wrongdoing, and there are several indications that regulators will continue to target compliance officers in 2018 in actions focused on Bank Secrecy Act/AML compliance.
Features
Supreme Court Ties SEC's Hands in Whistleblower Case
With its decision in <i>Digital Realty v. Somers</i>, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to companies interested in learning of their own securities violations before the government gets the heads-up. The case's outcome means whistleblowers who might have reported violations internally will be incentivized to bypass their own companies' compliance mechanisms in favor of immediate reporting to the SEC.
Features
Cyber Risk Assessments are a Critical Component of All Cybersecurity Programs
Many companies remain overwhelmed by the prospect of developing a cybersecurity program. Too many still see cyber crime as an IT issue, and simply defer to that department. Cybersecurity is most definitely an information security issue and it must be treated as such. Failure to recognize this concept almost ensures a weak cybersecurity program that remains highly vulnerable to breaches.
Features
DOL's New Rules on ERISA Claims Procedure for Disability Benefits
The Department of Labor (DOL) issued regulations that revise the ERISA claims procedure regulations for employee benefit plans that provide disability benefits. The scope of the new regulations are broader than you may realize and apply to any plan, regardless of how it is characterized, that provides benefits or rights that are contingent on whether the plan determines an individual to be disabled.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The Roadmap of Litigation AnalyticsLitigation analytics can be considered a roadmap of sorts — an important guide to ensure the legal professional arrives at the correct litigation strategy or business plan. However, like roadmaps, litigation analytics will only be useful if it's based on data that is complete and accurate.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- Understanding the Potential Pitfalls Arising From Participation in Standards BodiesChances are that if your company is involved in research and development of new technology there is a standards setting organization exploring the potential standardization of such technology. While there are clear benefits to participation in standards organizations — keeping abreast of industry developments, targeting product development toward standard compliant products, steering research and intellectual property protection into potential areas of future standardization — such participation does not come without certain risks. Whether you are in-house counsel or outside counsel, you may be called upon to advise participants in standard-setting bodies about intellectual property issues or to participate yourself. You may also be asked to review patent policy of the standard-setting body that sets forth the disclosure and notification requirements with respect to patents for that organization. Here are some potential patent pitfalls that can catch the unwary off-guard.Read More ›
