DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

SEC Charges Four Companies With Misleading Cyber Disclosures

Posted on October 23, 2024 by Dissent

Washington D.C., Oct. 22, 2024 —

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged four current and former public companies – Unisys Corp., Avaya Holdings Corp., Check Point Software Technologies Ltd, and Mimecast Limited – with making materially misleading disclosures regarding cybersecurity risks and intrusions. The SEC also charged Unisys with disclosure controls and procedures violations. The companies agreed to pay the following civil penalties to settle the SEC’s charges:

  • Unisys will pay a $4 million civil penalty;
  • Avaya. will pay a $1 million civil penalty;
  • Check Point will pay a $995,000 civil penalty; and
  • Mimecast will pay a $990,000 civil penalty.

The charges against the four companies result from an investigation involving public companies potentially impacted by the compromise of SolarWinds’ Orion software and by other related activity.

“As today’s enforcement actions reflect, while public companies may become targets of cyberattacks, it is incumbent upon them to not further victimize their shareholders or other members of the investing public by providing misleading disclosures about the cybersecurity incidents they have encountered,” said Sanjay Wadhwa, Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Here, the SEC’s orders find that these companies provided misleading disclosures about the incidents at issue, leaving investors in the dark about the true scope of the incidents.”

According to the SEC’s orders, Unisys, Avaya, and Check Point learned in 2020, and Mimecast learned in 2021, that the threat actor likely behind the SolarWinds Orion hack had accessed their systems without authorization, but each negligently minimized its cybersecurity incident in its public disclosures. The SEC’s order against Unisys finds that the company described its risks from cybersecurity events as hypothetical despite knowing that it had experienced two SolarWinds-related intrusions involving exfiltration of gigabytes of data. The order also finds that these materially misleading disclosures resulted in part from Unisys’ deficient disclosure controls. The SEC’s order against Avaya finds that it stated that the threat actor had accessed a “limited number of [the] Company’s email messages,” when Avaya knew the threat actor had also accessed at least 145 files in its cloud file sharing environment. The SEC’s order against Check Point finds that it knew of the intrusion but described cyber intrusions and risks from them in generic terms. The order charging Mimecast finds that the company minimized the attack by failing to disclose the nature of the code the threat actor exfiltrated and the quantity of encrypted credentials the threat actor accessed.

“Downplaying the extent of a material cybersecurity breach is a bad strategy,” said Jorge G. Tenreiro, Acting Chief of the Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit. “In two of these cases, the relevant cybersecurity risk factors were framed hypothetically or generically when the companies knew the warned of risks had already materialized.  The federal securities laws prohibit half-truths, and there is no exception for statements in risk-factor disclosures.”

The SEC’s orders find that each company violated certain applicable provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and related rules thereunder. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, each company agreed to cease and desist from future violations of the charged provisions and to pay the penalties described above. Each company cooperated during the investigation, including by voluntarily providing analyses or presentations that helped expedite the staff’s investigation and by voluntarily taking steps to enhance its cybersecurity controls.

The SEC’s investigation involving the four companies was conducted by Arsen Ablaev and Michael Baker of the Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit (CACU) and David D’Addio in the Boston Regional Office. It was supervised by Amy Flaherty Hartman and Mr. Tenreiro of the CACU and Kathryn A. Pyszka of the Chicago Regional Office.

###

Source: SEC

Related posts:

  • What does the Unisys Security Index really tell us about consumer responses to a data breach?
  • Kept in the Dark — Meet the Hired Guns Who Make Sure School Cyberattacks Stay Hidden
  • Altaba, Formerly Known as Yahoo!, Charged With Failing to Disclose Massive Cybersecurity Breach; Agrees To Pay $35 Million
  • FBI Arrests Alabama Man in the January 2024 SEC X Hack that Spiked the Value of Bitcoin
Category: Breach LawsBusiness SectorCommentaries and AnalysesOf Note

Post navigation

← Hackers Disable Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine Once Again
Personal Data Protection Commission of Singapore issues three undertakings stemming from ransomware attacks →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
  • Swiss Health Foundation Radix Hit by Cyberattack Affecting Federal Data
  • Russian hackers get 7 and 5 years in prison for large-scale cyber attacks with ransomware, over 60 million euros in bitcoins seized
  • Bolton Walk-In Clinic patient data leak locked down (finally!)
  • 50 Customers of French Bank Hit by Insider SIM Swap Scam
  • Ontario health agency atHome ordered to inform 200,000 patients of March data breach
  • Fact-Checking Claims By Cybernews: The 16 Billion Record Data Breach That Wasn’t
  • Horizon Healthcare RCM discloses ransomware attack in December
  • Disgruntled IT Worker Jailed for Cyber Attack, Huddersfield
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • The Trump administration is building a national citizenship data system
  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.