Advertisement

June 20, 2013

SEC Issues Guidance on the Disclosure of Cybersecurity Incidents and Costs

On October 13, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued disclosure guidance[1] related to cybersecurity risks and costs that may have far-reaching impacts on electric utilities. For those electric utilities already subject to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) cybersecurity requirements, this guidance suggests the need for increased scrutiny of compliance costs and harms resulting from cyber incidents and potential cyber incidents to evaluate appropriate disclosure. With the pending increase in the number of assets covered by the Version 4 Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards, which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently proposed to approve, the costs of compliance are likely to significantly increase across the electric utilities industry, affecting a wide variety of SEC registrants subject to FERC's reliability jurisdiction.

The SEC's guidance was spurred by its recognition that registrants have been relying more heavily on digital technologies for their operations, which results in increased risks to those operations due to cyber vulnerabilities. The SEC explained that cyber incidents, including cyber attacks and unintentional cyber events, can lead a registrant to incur substantial costs and suffer negative consequences including the following:

  • Remediation costs, such as for asset repairs, customer incentives, and liability for lost assets
  • Increased costs for cybersecurity protective measures
  • Lost revenues from the proprietary information obtained by others or the loss of customers
  • Litigation
  • Reputational damage

The SEC explained that, while no disclosure requirements mention cyber events and cyber risks, certain disclosures may nevertheless be required because cyber risks and cyber incidents would be captured by existing disclosure requirements that deal with operational and financial risks. The SEC suggested that registrants use their new guidance to "review, on an ongoing basis, the adequacy of their disclosure relating to cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents."

Risk Factors

First, registrants are expected to disclose cyber incident risks if such risks are among the factors that make a particular investment risky or speculative. Such disclosures should include the nature of the material risks and the impact of each risk on the registrant. The SEC offered the following as examples of appropriate disclosures:

  • Business characteristics that create material cybersecurity risks, with potential costs and consequences
  • Outsourcing that creates cybersecurity risks, and how those risks are addressed
  • Cyber incidents experienced by the registrant, with costs and consequences of those incidents
  • Risks for cyber incidents that may remain undetected for a lengthy period of time
  • Relevant insurance coverage

In addition, the SEC explained, past cyber incidents may need to be discussed to place the risk discussion in context, including a description of any specific attacks and the costs and consequences from such attacks.

Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Second, the SEC explained that cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents should be addressed in a registrant's MD&A if the costs and consequences of the risks and incidents "represent a material event, trend, or uncertainty that is reasonably likely to have a material effect" on the operations or the financial condition of the registrant. If it is "reasonably likely" that reductions in revenue, cyber protection costs, litigation, or the like will occur, those outcomes should be discussed. Similarly, even if no harm occurred, but cyber protections were materially increased as a result of a cyber incident, those costs should be disclosed. Presumably, this disclosure would be necessary only if material.

Description of Business

Third, the SEC explained that cyber incidents that "materially affect" a registrant's products, services, client relationships, and the like should be disclosed in the "Description of Business." For example, a cyber incident that threatens the viability of a new product that a registrant is developing may need to be discussed.

Legal Proceedings

Fourth, the SEC explained that litigation resulting from a cyber incident may need to be disclosed if the litigation is material.

Financial Statement Disclosures

Fifth, the SEC discussed financial statement disclosures, and explained that cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents could affect financial statements in several ways. Prior to a cyber incident, substantial costs may be incurred to protect against cyber incidents. For electric utilities, this might include the costs for compliance with mandatory CIP Reliability Standards as well as other corporate cybersecurity measures.

During and after a cyber incident, registrants may try to mitigate damages to customer relationships by offering incentives, may need to recognize losses due to asserted and unasserted claims, or may suffer cash flow reductions that potentially impair assets such as goodwill, trademarks, patents, capitalized software, and intangible customer-related assets. In the event of a cyber incident, a registrant must try to determine the impact of the incident on its financial statements by reassessing estimates used in preparing such financial statements, including estimates relating to warranties, litigation, and deferred revenue.

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Finally, conclusions reached by a registrant regarding the effects of a cybersecurity incident on its disclosure controls and procedures would need to be disclosed if the incident created a risk to the ability of the registrant to "record, process, summarize, and report" information disclosed in SEC filings.


 

[1]. View the guidance online at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/cfguidance-topic2.htm.

Copyright © 2013 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Partner

John D. McGrane is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Energy Practice. Mr. McGrane has more than 30 years of experience representing electric utilities and other participants in the electric power industry. He is listed in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, Chambers Global: The World’s Leading Lawyers, and The Best Lawyers in America as one of America's leading energy attorneys.

202-739-5621

About the Author

Partner

Stephen M. Spina is a partner in Morgan Lewis's Energy Practice. Mr. Spina represents electric utilities and other electric industry participants before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on a variety of matters, including industry restructuring, market investigations, and regulatory issues under the Federal Power Act.

202-739-5958

Contributors

Associate

J. Daniel Skees is an associate in Morgan Lewis's Energy Practice

202-739-5834

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.