Cyber security is top of mind for companies, and cyber-security oversight is top of mind for corporate directors. I recently co-moderated a panel discussion for directors on board oversight of cyber security and cyber-security disclosures. I thought I’d share my thoughts on some of the key issues.
What are the board’s fiduciary duties in the area of cyber-security oversight? Board oversight of cyber security conceptually is no different than oversight of any other area of risk. The board must take good-faith steps to ensure that the company has systems designed to address cyber-attack prevention and mitigation, and to follow up on red flags it sees. The board’s decision-making is protected by the business judgment rule.
It is important for directors to understand that cyber-security oversight isn’t exotic. Because cyber security is a highly technical area, some directors may feel out of their depth – which may help explain why Carnegie Mellon’s 2012 CyLab survey revealed that some boards are not sufficiently focused on cyber-security oversight. But with the help of experts – on which directors are entitled to rely – boards can ask the same types of questions they’re used to asking about other types of risk, and gain a similar degree of comfort.
How do I pick the right experts? Directors should be comfortable that they are receiving candid and independent advice, and need to be mindful that the company’s internal IT group may have trouble being self-critical. So in addition to receiving appropriate reports from the IT group, directors should periodically consult outside advisors who are capable of giving independent advice.
Given the importance of cyber security, will courts impose a higher standard on directors? Directors’ basic duties are not heightened by general political and economic concerns about cyber security, or even the magnitude of harm that the company itself could suffer from a cyber attack. But the magnitude of potential harm does matter. If a substantial portion of a company’s value depends on the security of its cyber assets, common sense dictates that directors will naturally spend relatively more time on cyber security. In my experience, that’s the way directors think and work – they analyze and devote more time to their companies’ most important issues. And from a practical perspective, directors’ actions, or inaction, will be judged against the backdrop of a really bad problem. Judges are human beings, and often do make decisions that are influenced by the presence of particularly severe harm.
How does cyber insurance fit in to the board’s job? Cyber insurance allows the company to shift a specific and potentially very large risk. As such, it is important that boards consider cyber insurance among the types of expenditures appropriate to prevent and mitigate cyber attacks. Shifting risk through cyber insurance also can help directors avoid a shareholder derivative action, by reducing the attractiveness of the suit to plaintiffs’ lawyers, or reduce the severity of an action that is filed, making it easier and less expensive to resolve.
Are there any court decisions on directors’ duties in the area of cyber security? No. Although a TJX Companies, Inc. shareholder brought a derivative suit following a significant data breach, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement Fund v. Alvarez, Civil Action No. 5620-VCN (Del. Ch. July 2, 2010), the case settled early in the litigation. As a result, the court never had the opportunity to make any substantive rulings on the plaintiffs’ allegations that the board failed to adequately oversee the company’s cyber security.
What is the board’s role in overseeing the company’s disclosures concerning cyber security? The board’s duty is the same as it is with any corporate disclosure.
Does the SEC’s October 13, 2011 guidance on cyber-security disclosures enhance the board’s oversight responsibilities? No. As the guidance itself notes, it does not change disclosure law, but rather interprets existing law. The guidance does, however, put a sharper focus on cyber-security disclosures, and provides the SEC and plaintiffs’ counsel with a checklist of potential criticisms – though those criticisms would really just be based on existing law.
The sharper focus on cyber-security disclosure isn’t meaningless, however. The SEC has issued cyber-security comments to approximately 50 public companies since issuing its guidance. The guidance, moreover, provides another opportunity for the board to discuss cyber security with management, and the increased focus should result in incrementally better disclosure. And the SEC may well speak again on the subject; last spring, Senator Rockefeller asked new SEC Chair Mary Jo White to further address cyber-security disclosures. (For a good discussion of the SEC’s guidance, I recommend an article by Dan Bailey, which was reprinted in the D&O Diary, and a recent D&O Diary post discussing a Willis survey of cyber-security disclosures.)
Are there any disclosure securities class actions alleging a false or misleading statement based on failure to follow the guidance? No. There was a securities class action against Heartland Payment Systems for a stock price drop that plaintiffs attributed to Heartland’s alleged misstatements concerning its cyber-security protections. In re Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., CIV. 09-1043, 2009 WL 4798148 (D.N.J. Dec. 7, 2009). The litigation was dismissed because the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that the company made a false or misleading statement or, if it had, did so with scienter. However, that case was filed prior to the SEC’s cyber-security guidance. At least one commentator has suggested the outcome might have been different if the SEC guidance had informed the analysis.
Is there a wave of cyber-security shareholder suits coming? What type of suits will there be? If there is a wave, it looks like the lawsuits primarily will be shareholder derivative actions, not securities class actions.
There has not been a wave of cyber-attack securities class actions because companies’ stock prices generally haven’t fallen significantly following disclosure of cyber attacks. If that trend remains, shareholder litigation over cyber security primarily will take the form of shareholder derivative litigation, seeking to recover from directors and officers damages for the harm to the corporation caused by a cyber attack.
The vast majority of options backdating lawsuits were derivative actions due to the lack of significant stock drops, and many of them survived motions to dismiss and resulted in significant settlements. However, unlike the options backdating cases, in which many motions to dismiss for failure to make a demand on the board were complicated by directors’ receipt of allegedly backdated options or service on compensation committees that allegedly approved backdated options, directors’ governance of cyber security should be judged by more favorable legal standards and with a more deferential judicial attitude. For that reason, I anticipate that plaintiffs’ attorneys will file derivative cases mostly over larger cyber-security breaches, in which the litigation environment will help them overcome the legal obstacles, and will not routinely file over less significant breaches.