Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses scrambled to rapidly deploy a remote workforce which created new challenges for businesses and financial institutions to continue operating and providing critical services. It also created an opportunity for malicious actors to hack into and gain access to IT systems and sensitive, personal information.
New research from VMware reveals a significant increase in cyberattacks experienced by financial institutions and banks between February and April of this year. VMware data indicates that close to a third of all cyberattacks target either banks or the healthcare sector. While some states are rescinding their stay at home orders, some companies are still erring on the side of caution by continuing to work remotely or have made the decision to work remotely indefinitely such as Twitter. As a result of the uncertain future of COVID-19, a lot of businesses will continue to work remotely and those that collect and manage financial information, including processing of payment card information, will need to assess any cybersecurity vulnerabilities, implement safeguards to protect financial information and educate and train its workforce. In response to COVID-19, many U.S. federal and state governmental agencies have issued helpful guidance for businesses to help prevent and mitigate cybersecurity incidents.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued several advisories for financial institutions to remain alert regarding malicious or fraudulent transactions. In one advisory issued on March 16, 2020, FinCEN noted that it's seeing several trends on potential illicit behavior connected to COVID-19. The most popular trend is imposter scams with bad actors trying to capitalize on individual's vulnerabilities during this pandemic by attempting to solicit donations, steal personal information, or distribute malware by impersonating government agencies (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)), international organizations (e.g., World Health Organization (WHO). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reported that criminals are using fake emails that pretend to be from the CDC, ask for charitable contributions, or offer COVID-19 relief such as government checks in an effort steal personal information. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) urged investors to be wary of COVID-19-related investment scams, such as promotions that falsely claim that the products or services of publicly traded companies can prevent, detect, or cure coronavirus.
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?