How do you protect your firm? The vast majority of cyber-related vulnerabilities can be traced to staff and third parties who accidentally or deliberately don't follow security protocols or are tricked into downloading malicious code.
If 2017 was considered the “year of the data breach” as the number of incidents hit a new record high of 1,579, 2018 might get even more serious. Just a little more than halfway through 2018, the number and scale of data breaches that have already been reported is staggering.
Earlier this summer a group of security-minded executives in Chicago, long a hub for legal and financial tech, sat down for a panel discussion on anticipating and combatting cybercrime.
A survey of more than 160 law firm executives (from medium to large firms) found that law firms are among some of the highest spenders on security yet were susceptible to some of the most common risks. And the issue will grow over the coming years as the demands of the business drive the adoption of emerging technologies, such as cloud and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Cloud service providers to the federal government must meet the rigorous requirements of the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program. FedRAMP, as it's known, is designed to help federal agencies follow the government's “cloud first” policy, and includes detailed and strict encryption and other cybersecurity requirements.
As more and more data is in blockchains, attorneys will have to interact with it. Blockchain will also become part of litigation without being the central focus as systems move to blockchain implementation. Attorneys will have to take note.
The entertainment industry is intensely focused on data collection and analytics as it seeks to maximize the exploitation of digital content. Just as those of us in the privacy field had begun to have a slight breather as much of the heavy lifting on the GDPR was finally behind us, lawmakers in California have passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA).
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
The 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.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
