DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu
Securities exchange commission

Securities and Exchange Commission Settles Charges Against Flagstar for Misleading Investors About Citrix Data Breach

Posted on December 17, 2024 by Dissent

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-22360

December 16, 2024 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed settled charges against Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. (now known as “Flagstar Financial, Inc.”), for making materially misleading statements regarding a cybersecurity attack on Flagstar’s network in late 2021 (the “Citrix Breach”).

The SEC’s order finds that Flagstar negligently made materially misleading statements regarding the Citrix Breach, which resulted in, among other things, the encryption of data, network disruptions, and the exfiltration of the personally identifiable information (“PII”) of approximately 1.5 million individuals, including customers. According to the order, the risk factors in Flagstar’s 2021 Form 10-K, which it filed on March 1, 2022, stated that cybersecurity attacks “may interrupt our business or compromise the sensitive data of our customers,” but Flagstar did not disclose that Flagstar had already experienced cybersecurity attacks that resulted in the exfiltration of sensitive customer data and that the Citrix Breach interrupted its business. The SEC’s order also finds that in a June 17, 2022 notice to customers posted on its website and a Form 10-Q filed on August 9, 2022, Flagstar made additional materially misleading statements concerning the scope of the Citrix Breach and represented that there was unauthorized “access” to its network and customer data, when Flagstar was aware that the breach disrupted several of its network systems and that customer PII was exfiltrated from its network. The SEC’s order also finds that Flagstar failed to maintain disclosure controls and procedures regarding cybersecurity incidents designed to ensure that relevant information to assess materiality was considered by disclosure decision makers to allow timely decisions regarding potentially required disclosure.

The SEC’s order found that Flagstar violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, and 13a-15 thereunder. Without admitting or denying the findings in the SEC’s order, Flagstar agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of these provisions and to pay a $3.55 million civil money penalty.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Christine Bautista, Peter Senechalle, and Kathleen Sweeney of the Chicago Regional Office and Christopher Carpenter in Washington, D.C.

Trial attorneys Robert M. Moye and Ashley Dalmau-Holmes assisted with this matter. This matter was supervised by Amy Flaherty Hartman and Jorge G. Tenreiro of the Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit.

Source: SEC


Related:

  • Attorney General James Announces Settlement with Wojeski & Company Accounting Firm
  • JFL Lost Up to $800,000 Weekly After Cyberattack, CEO Says No Patient or Staff Data Was Compromised
  • A business's cyber insurance policy included ransom coverage, but when they needed it, the insurer refused to pay. Why?
  • Before Their Telegram Channel Was Banned Again, ScatteredLAPSUS$Hunters Dropped Files Doxing Government Employees (2)
  • Massachusetts hospitals Heywood, Athol say outage was a cybersecurity incident
  • Data BreachesProsper Data Breach Impacts 17.6 Million Accounts
Category: Financial SectorMalwareSubcontractorU.S.

Post navigation

← Granite School District breach worse than the district has revealed — former employee (1)
A positive example of forthright breach disclosure (1) →

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

  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says
  • The Case for Making EdTech Companies Liable Under FERPA
  • NHS providers reviewing stolen Synnovis data published by cyber criminals
  • Gates Down: Third Circuit Says Breaking Employer Computer Access Policies Is Not Hacking
  • Short-term renewal of cyber information sharing law appears in bill to end shutdown
  • Yanluowang ransomware IAB pleads guilty
  • Lawsuit Alleges Ex-Intel Employee Hid 18,000 Sensitive Documents Prior to Leaving the Company
  • HIPAA, but for non-Covered Entities?
  • Manassas City Public Schools close on Monday due to cyberattack

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

  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation
  • Who’s watching the watchers? This Mozilla fellow, and her Surveillance Watch map
  • EPIC Publishes New Whitepaper Detailing Privacy Risks of Government Data Mining Programs
  • Modern cars are spying on you. Here’s what you can do about it.

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[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.