6 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Will Products Liability Litigation Help Protect IoT Users from Cyber-Physical Attacks?
While there is an identifiable trend towards protecting consumers from data breaches and data misuses related to IoT devices through new legislation, new regulations, government enforcement actions, and private lawsuits, there has been little progress towards creating similar legally enforceable standards of care for “cyber-physical device security.” This article explores this underdeveloped area of academic inquiry into cyber-physical device security within the context of product liability litigation in the United States. The two questions addressed in this article are: (1) Have there been any successful products liability court decisions in the United States that have held IoT manufacturers liable for creating IoT products with inadequate cyber-physical device security; and (2) Is it likely that product liability litigation will soon lead to significant change in IoT cyber-physical device security? Analysis of laws, regulations, and court cases shows that the answer to both questions is negative. These findings have implications for IoT device users, device manufacturers, and the government agencies whose job it is to deter data breaches and other IoT-related cyberattacks
Veiled Taxes and Their Outcomes: The Case of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
Clarifying the Original Clawback: Interpreting Sarbanes-Oxley Section 304 Through the Lens of Dodd-Frank Section 954
In the early 2000s, major accounting scandals involving reporting violations and audit failures sent the United States financial markets into turmoil. Congress and President George W. Bush reacted to the controversy by passing the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, better known as the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX), in July of 2002. Section 304 created an explicit procedure, whereby the SEC could disgorge or clawback a CEO or CFO’s incentive-based compensation or stock gains when such profits were based on inflated financial statements later required to be restated to reflect the company’s true financial position. When the stock market crashed again in the fall of 2008, Congress began to pursue the idea of creating another clawback program. In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd–Frank Act) in order to strengthen corporation governance and avoid oversight issues that had surfaced during the latest crisis. Section 954 of the Dodd–Frank Act created a new co-existing clawback program that tasked the individual boards of directors, rather than the SEC, with enforcement. Recently, the SEC issued proposed regulations to regulate the section 954 clawback program. Because of the similar language in the two clawbacks, many of the regulations appear applicable to the section 304 clawback as well. This Article will analyze section 304 and identify eight ambiguities that plague its application. The article will then discuss the new section 954 clawback and the proposed regulations that appear to provide clarity to some of the more ambiguous questions surrounding the application of section 304. Finally, it will reference ambiguities still lacking significant clarification