NYDFS: A Lawyer’s Responsibility

Jan 18, 2017

Reading Time : 5 min

By: Jo-Ellyn Sakowitz Klein, Natasha G. Kohne, David S. Turetsky, Visiting Professor, College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity at the University of Albany

Because the final NYDFS regulations will likely largely reflect the current draft of the regulations, companies subject to these regulations should immediately begin to tackle compliance requirements.  By now, in-house counsel understand that cybersecurity is both a legal and a technical issue, where lawyers are a necessary and integral part of mitigating cybersecurity attacks and ensuring that reasonable security controls have met regulatory standards.  Not only should lawyers ensure that their information security/technology departments are compliant with emerging regulations, but our lawyers consistently take the lead with respect to the following issues discussed more fully below: (1) incident response, (2) breach notification, (3) vendor management and (4) compliance.

Incident Response

Among other things, the regulations require each Covered Entity to “establish a written incident response plan designed to promptly respond to, and recover from, any Cybersecurity Event materially affecting the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the Covered Entity’s Information Systems or the continuing functionality of any aspect of the Covered Entity’s business or operations.”  The NYDFS added the materiality threshold as part of its revisions to the rules, which should have a significant limiting effect, given the broad definition of a Cybersecurity Event: “any act or attempt, successful or unsuccessful, to gain unauthorized access to, disrupt or misuse an Information System or information stored on such Information System.” 

The regulations also require the incident response plan to address areas including the internal processes for responding to a Cybersecurity Event, goals of the plan, external and internal communications and information-sharing, and the evaluation and revision as necessary of the incident response plan following a Cybersecurity Event.

Since the regulation requires Covered Entities to regularly train all personnel, we assist daily with tailored scenario-planning and running tabletop exercises for all types of employees in connection with their cybersecurity awareness training. 

Breach Notification

The NYDFS’s original proposal required notification to DFS of a Cybersecurity Event within 72 hours and had encompassed “actual or potential authorized tampering with, or access to, or use of, Nonpublic Information.”  Following comments claiming that this was unduly burdensome and would result in over reporting of immaterial incidents, the revised regulations now set forth a materiality standard for reporting within 72 hours of a determination that the Event either (1) requires notice to any government body, self-regulatory agency or any other supervisory body; or (2) has a reasonable likelihood of materially harming any material part of the normal operation(s) of the Covered Entity.  

One of our most important roles as lead breach counsel is determining whether the legal requirement to notify has been triggered and how other circumstances influence this decision-making process.  The revised regulation still has a relatively broad notification trigger involving a “reasonable likelihood of materially harming any material part of the operations,” and sound judgment is required to navigate the countless factors that impact notification considerations.

Vendor Management

Based on its Risk Assessment, each Covered Entity is required to implement written policies and procedures designed to ensure the security of information accessible to, or held by, “Third-Party Service Providers” (namely, a nonaffiliate that maintains, processes or otherwise is permitted access to Nonpublic Information through its provision of services to the Covered Entity).  The policies and procedures should address the identification and risk assessment of Third-Party Service Providers, Third-Party Service Providers’ minimum cybersecurity practices, due diligence processes and periodic assessment. 

Our lawyers consistently help with development of third-party management programs and contract management, conducting diligence on, and negotiating, provisions that provide better oversight and control over Third-Party Service Providers relating to, among other things, access controls and encryption, representations and warranties concerning those policies and procedures, and notice of Cybersecurity Events. 

Compliance Policies

The revisions establish a risk-based approach to cybersecurity policies, tying many of the requirements to the results of the Covered Entity’s Risk Assessment, which must be conducted at least annually to “inform the design of the cybersecurity program” that is “updated as reasonably necessary to address changes to the Covered Entity’s Information Systems, Nonpublic Information or business operations.”

The rules require a Covered Entity to designate an individual responsible for overseeing and implementing the Covered Entity’s cybersecurity program and enforcing its cybersecurity policy.  This individual is referred to as a “CISO” (or Chief Information Security Officer) in the rules, although the CISO may be employed by an affiliate or Third-Party Service Provider.  The CISO must submit written reports to the board of directors on an annual basis.

***

The role of the lawyer does not end there.  Legal and compliance officers for Covered Entities should ensure that their information security/technology departments are aware that these standards exist and are implementing appropriate technical measures, and to whom and when they apply.  For instance, the NYDFS regulations emphasize the importance of the following:

Data Retention

Each Covered Entity must include policies and procedures for the periodic disposal of nonpublic information that is no longer necessary for business operations or for other legitimate business purposes.  The NYDFS previously exempted disposal where such information is otherwise required to be retained by law or regulation, and added to the revised version that disposal is not required where targeted disposal is not reasonably feasible due to the manner in which the information is maintained.

Encryption and Multifactor Authentication

The NYDFS’s original proposal broadly required multifactor authentication for virtually all network access and encryption for nearly all data.  The revisions relax these requirements by requiring multifactor authentication for only individuals accessing internal networks from an external network when the CISO has not approved “reasonably equivalent or more secure access controls.”  Otherwise, only “effective controls” are required, which may include multifactor authentication or risk-based authentication.  Further, where encryption is “infeasible,” “effective alternative compensating controls reviewed and approved” by the CISO may be used.

Application and Exemptions

The NYDFS added a number of exemptions to the proposed regulations.  In addition to exempting Covered Entities with less than $5 million in gross annual revenue in each of the last three fiscal years, several other Covered Entities are exempt: (1) fewer than 10 employees; (2) less than $10 million in year-end total assets; (3) employee, agent, representative or designee of a Covered Entity, who is itself a Covered Entity and is covered by the cybersecurity program of the Covered Entity; and (4) a Covered Entity that does not operate, maintain, utilize or control any Information Systems, and that does not control, own, access, generate, receive or possess Nonpublic Information. 

Timeline

Covered Entities will have 180 days to comply with the requirements.  However, the rules allow for extended implementation of some requirements, including the following:

Requirement

Deadline

CISO report

one year

Penetration testing

one year

Vulnerability assessments

one year

Risk assessments

one year

Multifactor authentication

one year

Updated cybersecurity awareness training

one year

Audit trail requirements

18 months

Application security

18 months

Data retention

18 months

Monitoring unauthorized access

18 months

Encryption

18 months

Policies and procedures for handling Third-Party Service Providers

two years*

 
*Although significant time is allowed for compliance with the Third-Party Service Provider provisions as compared to other requirements, we would recommend taking steps to implement this requirement sooner, given the high risk of third-party vendors, as well as the amount of time it takes to develop tailored written policies, conduct appropriate diligence efforts and negotiate protected contract language.

A lawyer’s role in cybersecurity is no longer optional.  In addition to taking the lead investigative role on data breach investigations and follow-on litigation, lawyers must ensure that their multidisciplinary team has complied with standards imposed by regulators and ensure that the privilege is structured to maximize its protection in breach and compliance scenarios.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.