- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Adrianne Appel2023-08-02T19:57:00
The clock is ticking for public companies to put in place policies and practices to meet the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) newly approved cybersecurity incident disclosure rule.
The intent of the 186-page final rule, adopted last week, is to make more information about material cybersecurity incidents available to investors—and quicker.
The rule follows guidance the SEC issued on cybersecurity incident disclosures in 2011 and 2018. While risk reporting and management have improved since then, disclosure practices across companies are “inconsistent,” which the new policy aims to address, the agency said in a fact sheet.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec. Select an option and click continue.
Annual Membership $499 Value offer
Full price one year membership with auto-renewal.
Membership $599
One-year only, no auto-renewal.
Large public companies say they are prepared to comply with the disclosure requirements of the SEC’s new cybersecurity incident rule, according to a survey conducted by Compliance Week and DLA Piper, but concerns exist that those reports could enhance the threat of future cyberattacks.
Financial businesses and other critical infrastructure entities would have to report significant cybersecurity and ransomware incidents to the federal government under a new rule that will be proposed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Companies won’t have an easy path toward earning additional time from the Department of Justice regarding the disclosure of a material cybersecurity incident to the Securities and Exchange Commission as required under a new rule.
Any product that uses AI needs to be safety assessed for its entire lifespan under new rules that went into effect recently across the EU. Experts warned companies using AI to tailor products could be classed as “manufacturers” and face the same duty of care as developed.
When lawmakers slam the U.K.’s chief financial regulator as “incompetent,” it not only opens the doors for others to pile criticism on it, but it sparks a debate about how the organization can be improved–or removed.
The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority apologized to investors in peer-to-peer investment firm Collateral for not acting swiftly enough to prevent Collateral from defrauding its customers.
