Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Chevron’

SEC Cybersecurity Rule

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on July 29, 2024| Leave a Comment »

On May 21, 2024, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement providing more information on how public companies are to disclose material cybersecurity incidents on Form 8-K. The rule, which went into effect in December 2023, mandates companies to report incidents considered “material” under Item 1.05 promptly.

Here are the key points:

  • Companies are urged, but not required, to disclose non-material cybersecurity events.
  • The form on which material events are reported must be updated when new information comes to light.
  • In considering whether an event is material (and reportable) or non-material, the company should consider the event’s financial impact, operational disruption, the sensitivity of the data involved, whether regulations or industry standards were violated, and the potential damage to a company’s reputation.

Who does it apply to: Public companies

When does it become effective: December 18, 2023

What does it do: Requires public companies to disclose material cybersecurity events

Why was this law created: To clarify material reporting requirements to hold all public companies to the same standards

Potential Problems (or the law of unanticipated consequences which should have been anticipated): The main challenge for in-house counsel will be to determine whether a cybersecurity event is material or not, when an event changes from non-material to material, and how best to word the disclosure. [However, given the overturning of the Chevron precedent (which required courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable statutory interpretation), it is possible that SEC rules will be some of the first to be re-examined by the federal court system providing a huge advantage to corporate America wishing to rid itself of those pesky regulations.]

Read Full Post »

D’oh – foolish or fraudulent?

Posted in Law, tagged , , on April 16, 2010| 16 Comments »

If any of you have ever watched Damages on TV you probably wonder where they come up with their plot lines. (If you haven’t seen it, you should – but watch it from the beginning.)  I often tell people they wouldn’t believe half of the insane stuff that goes on in lawsuits. Anyway, in a suit against Chevron concerning their alleged polluting of an Ecuadorean rain forest, it was discovered that one of the expert witnesses had filed fraudulent reports with the court. The expert was hired by the plaintiffs to oversee water and soil tests, but had to return to the US before the reports were prepared. In a multi-BILLION dollar suit, the expert witness essentially signed a blank report that he allegedly believed would be filled in with the actual results. Imagine his surprise when although he recalled finding no significant contamination, the reports with his signature on them indicated that the sites were significantly impacted and required remediation. The “mistake” was discovered when the expert’s name was misspelled on his own correspondence with the court. This apparently alerted Chevron’s attorneys that something was not quite right with this expert’s reports. Can you believe that some guy was actually paid to oversee reports in a case of this magnitude and doesn’t even bother to make sure he signs the actual results?  Now that I think of it, this sounds more like an episode of the Simpsons.

Read Full Post »