It is a day that virtually every business owner fears, when you receive word from your IT department that your company’s computer system has been hacked.  A million thoughts rush through your head, but they all come back to one question: what do I do right now to protect my company, my employees and my customers? The answer may seem daunting, but an answer does exist. This article attempts to provide you with a few of the basics on how to respond to a cyber-attack, focusing on the first step: Establishing your cyber-response team.

The first step to be taken upon learning of a cyber-breach is to understand what happened and what type of breach occurred.  For example, is your system being held hostage by Ransomware, or did an employee mistakenly release confidential information? There are a number of common circumstances for cyber-breaches, such as: employee negligence like losing a laptop or flash drive containing personally identifiable information (“PII”) or protected health information (“PHI”); malicious insider behavior, such as the disgruntled or dishonest employee who steals company information to use for some nefarious purpose against the company; and perhaps the most wildly publicized breach as of late, hacking and cybercriminal activity.

In order to understand what happened and how best to react, the initial step is to assemble a team of cybersecurity  professionals who can assist with all facets of the cyber-breach.  In a perfect world, your company has already established its own cyber-breach response team, but if you have not done so, you will need to hire professionals as soon as possible after learning of the cyber-attack.  This means engaging individuals who possess expertise in Information Technology and are experienced in evaluating the severity and scope of a cyber-breach. The cyber-breach needs to be quickly identified, affected systems need to be isolated, defenses to future breaches need to be put in place and steps to retrieve data need to be taken.

Published on:
Updated:

By: Eric Levine, Esq.

In , the Superior Court denied Mega Brand’s application for injunctive relief against two former employees who purportedly violated the non-competition and confidentiality provisions of their employment agreements.  The decision illustrates the burden faced by employers seeking to enforce post-employment restrictions against former employees, as well as the consequences of appearing less than truthful when seeking judicial relief.  

The Facts: Mega Brands is a distributor of stationary products to large retail customers such as Wal-Mart and Target.  Prior to joining Mega Brands, Michael Cerillo and Ben Hoch operated a company that sold stationary products comparable to those offered by Mega Brands.  In 2006, Mega Brands acquired the company through a stock purchase agreement (“SP Agreement”) and hired Cerillo and Hoch under employment agreements containing standard non-competition and confidentiality provisions.  These agreements expired on the later of five years from the date of the SP Agreement or twelve months after Cerillo and Hoch’s termination of employment with Mega Brands. 

Published on:
Updated:

By: Eric Levine, Esq.

In its recent decision in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes New Jersey) issued a ruling that signals heightened obligations for employers communicating with employees about their rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Prior to that ruling, employers typically relied upon the “Mailbox Rule” (which presumes receipt of a letter properly deposited into the U. S. Mail) as evidence that mandated FMLA notices were received by employees. After , however, the Mailbox Rule’s viability in the FMLA context is questionable, and prudent employers should institute procedures to insure that FMLA notices are served by certified mail or other method of traceable transmission so that actual receipt by the employee can be established.

The Facts: Lisa Lupyan was an instructor for Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (“CCI”). In 2007, Ms. Lupyan requested a personal leave of absence to recover from depression, and thereafter provided CCI with a physician’s certification of a mental health condition. As a result, CCI determined that Ms. Lupyan was eligible for FMLA leave as opposed to using her personal leave allotment.

Published on:
Updated:

By: Eric Levine

In this turbulent economy, many people are finding it difficult to make ends meet. With income being stretched to the limit, some people are sometimes unable to pay bills on time or in full. When this happens, creditors are frequently pursuing payment by hiring debt collectors to recover the money that is owed them.  In some cases, creditors will go so far as to obtain legal judgments against the non-paying individuals. Afterwards, they try to recover the amount recognized in the judgment by attempting to acquire the personal assets of the persons against whom the judgment was entered. 

As creditors try to acquire a person’s assets, they can take steps leading to the freezing of bank accounts and turnover of funds in those accounts. They may place liens on both personal and real property that can result in judicial sales of such property. They may even garnish wages, which is the deduction of money directly from one’s salary.  If done correctly, a judgment by a creditor can place a stranglehold on someone’s assets until payment in full is made. 

Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information