By: Andres F. Puerta
Over the last few years, numerous retailers, including Wal-Mart, Target, The Home Depot, and Neiman Marcus have been victims of major cyberattacks. In 2009, hackers broke into Wal-Mart’s computer system and stole information from cash registers, though the company did not release exactly what information the hackers stole. During the 2013 holiday season, Target experienced a cyberattack that resulted in hackers accessing personal information for about 110 million consumers. In 2014, The Home Depot endured five months of undetected cyberattacks, resulting in the theft of over sixty million credit card numbers of its patrons. Also in 2014, although hackers set off 60,000 security alerts that should have notified Neiman Marcus of questionable activity, staff members paid little attention, enabling the theft of customer credit card records for eight months.
By: Daniel Selznick
Earlier this month, NPR’s Planet Money podcast released an episode titled “Blockchain Gang,” about bitcoin pioneer Charlie Shrem. Shrem was sentenced to prison in December 2014 for his indirect involvement in the infamous, Silk Road, a massive online bitcoin exchange used largely for anonymous illegal transactions. The podcast did not focus, however, on Shrem’s sentence (two years for aiding and abetting an unlicensed money transmitting business) but rather on the potential applications of “blockchain,” a major technology underlying bitcoin.
By: Yian Pan
The Trump Effect on Businesses – What You Need to Know
Donald John Trump was sworn in on January 20, 2017 as the 45th President of the United States and the only president who has neither had any political experience nor any military experience.  Regardless of political views, this administration will undoubtedly bring about drastic changes in this country. This post will focus on some of the potential changes and the effects the new administration will have on corporations and businesses, including Trump’s proposed corporate tax plan, his trade war, Dodd-Frank reforms and future prosecutions of corporate crime.
By: Bruce A. Ortwine
Reasons for the Occurrence of Compliance Framework Deficiencies: Compliance framework deficiencies can occur for many different reasons, including in extreme situations because an organization is fundamentally “rogue” in nature (examples include Enron Corporation, and Bernie Madoff’s and Alan Stanford’s organizations) or, more typically, that an organization is legitimate in its business operations but has fundamental failures in its corporate governance and oversight functions. Failure by the organization’s board of directors or other governing body and its senior management in ensuring that the organization develop and maintain an effective compliance framework has all-too-often been the primary reason for an organization’s compliance failures and resulting enforcement action.
By: Bruce Ortwine
Introduction: Legal and compliance are two essential functions in any contemporary organizational structure. The specific relationship between these two functions, including reporting lines and division of responsibilities, may well vary depending on the particular organization, but effective communication, coordination and cooperation (the “Three C’s”) between the two functions in all cases are essential. Additionally, legal must be heavily involved in helping compliance develop an effective organizational compliance framework. A failure to develop and maintain the Three C’s increases the prospect of a failure or breakdown in the organizational compliance framework. Once that failure occurs, legal must, by necessity, become heavily involved in attempting to mitigate the damages that have already resulted. Constant enforcement of the Three C’s can help prevent a compliance failure or mitigate the risks to the organization if it does occur.
By: Gemini A. Nazareno, Jr.
On January 18, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) sued Sallie Mae spin-off Navient Corporation (“Navient”), the largest servicer of both federal and private student loans in the United States, for systematically and illegally failing borrowers at every stage of repayment. According to the CFPB, Navient cheated borrowers of the opportunity to exercise their important right to lower payments based on what they could afford by giving them bad information, processing payments incorrectly, and failing to act on complaints. As a whole, the CFPB alleges Navient’s illegal practices made it more difficult and costlier for borrowers to repay their student loans.