Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For the casual observer, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals in the 20th century occurred in a staid and established world carefully controlled and choreographed by Wall Street investment bankers and lawyers. Like poorly-behaved school children, new technologies and intellectual property (IP) are increasingly disrupting the M&A establishment. Digital and data technologies revolutionized transactions in the 1970-80s; intellectual property came to the forefront as a source of significant value and collateral in the 1990s and, Internet technology created vast wealth in the early 2000s.
Cybersecurity has become the latest disruptive newcomer to the M&A party. As expanding technology allows companies and platforms to capture, store and distribute critical enterprise, supplier and customer information, attacks are spreading. Traditional M&A due diligence processes struggle to keep pace with increasing cybersecurity problems.
The unique ways that information moves through the networks and channels of entities and M&A participants exposes new vulnerabilities during the M&A process. Interconnected networks extend connectivity and access beyond a single company's control. Comprehensive cybersecurity due diligence is required to consider the processes and systems that protect the integrity and value of proprietary data, personally identifiable information (PII), and business and financial information. Hacks and cyber threats occur at all stages of M&A deals. The present material risks to impact the value of the deal and the companies involved. Considerations for cybersecurity due diligence are different at each stage of the M&A process.
Verizon's recent acquisition of Yahoo! illustrates the need to start cybersecurity due diligence before a deal's announcement. Verizon was caught unaware learning about two unreported data breaches of Yahoo which occurred pre-announcement. The unexpected breach information resulted in Yahoo! being devalued by $350 million and caused significant delays in closing the deal. See, Claire Meyer, “Q&A: How are cyber risks changing Mergers and Acquisitions?” Security Magazine, Jan. 31, 2018. The liability did not end there. Post-deal, Yahoo!'s successor entity was ordered to pay $85 million to settle a class-action and was subject to FTC remediation measures. A comprehensive cybersecurity due diligence process conducted before the announcement could have alerted deal makers to the materiality of the issue enabling them to better mitigate risks before announcing the deal.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?