InTP: Quality of Design in a New Age of Terror...

Executive Management and the Board of Directors are waking up today, with a key thought on their minds.  As a result of the horrific act of terrorism in San Bernadino, CA USA this week, how effective are the "Insider Threat" Programs (InTP) that are now being tasked:

The FBI said Friday that it is investigating the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre as an act of terrorism, with officials revealing that the Pakistani woman who teamed with her husband in the slaughter went on Facebook afterward to pledge her allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State.

The husband terrorist was employed by a county government agency in California.  Just as your place of employment has a "Duty of Care" for the safety and security of it's employees, any nexus with home grown violent extremism or terrorism on a government or private sector ecosystem requires a strategic focus.

( U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”^[18])

The Board of Directors or Under Secretary, in concert with Operational Risk Management (ORM) professionals within the enterprise have a fiduciary responsibility that now has a new spotlight.

The husband terrorist was a U.S. citizen working as an environmental health specialist in San Bernardino County.  He was a devout Sunni Muslim.  He had recently traveled to Saudi Arabia for two weeks, home of the 9/11 hijackers.  When he returned, he was growing a beard and married to a devout Sunni Muslim woman he met online.  Witnesses have stated that his new wife had substantial influence on his religious beliefs.  Was some or all of this a potential "Red Flag" by family members or co-workers?   Could she have been a clandestine agent?

The presence of an "Insider Threat" Program (InTP) is evident in hundreds of top tier Fortune 500 organizations and almost 100% of government contractors who may have "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities" (SCIF).  U.S. Executive Order 13587 requires that an organization have an InTP in place.

This still leaves thousands of vulnerable businesses and governments agencies at the state and local levels without the resources, expertise and policy-based programs to effectively administer a lawful and effective InTP or hybrid "Insider Threat" strategy.  It is imperative to assist in the continuous protection of physical and digital organizational assets, including the precious lives of all employees:

As a result, many organizations will be asking senior management about the initial implementation of an InTP or to review the effectiveness of a current InTP that is already in progress, at a Defense Industrial Base (DIB) contractor.  So what?

What does the current InTP in your organization, have to do with the adverse consequences that may occur?  Why could those potential consequences of an InTP that has been designed incorrectly or implemented without control metrics, create substantial risk and liability to the enterprise?  How can you address the Operational Risks associated with an "Insider Threat" Program?

Here are several key design areas, to mitigate the potential likelihood of unintended consequences of a failed InTP design:

• Staff or employees who utilize the InTP incorrectly with intent or by accident
• Top management loss of reputation by supporting an aggressive InTP Progam
• Collision course with formal EEOC Whistle blower protections and processes
• Friction with internal Human Resources relationships

These are just a few examples of the many areas that should be addressed in the initial design of a high performing InTP.  The problematic cases as a result of low quality design, are building bad PR and new employee lawsuits are gaining attention.  The aggressive actions by management may create a high rate of "False-Positives," that alienates employees, increases privacy violation claims and impacts corporate culture.

The integrity and the credibility of the InTP is paramount, if we are to continue to utilize it as an effective tool in the Operational Risk Management (ORM) strategic plan.  Managing risk on vital enterprise assets requires dedicated people, tested processes and robust systems that will not erode support.

Where are the vital process, training and systems areas that need focus or have the ability to be designed correctly from the start:

1. Relationships with Management & Employees
2. Investigation of Incidents and Reports
3. Management Behavior after an Employee Red Flag
4. Implications of the Culture of Trust

Organizational behaviors and the "Duty of Care" are in the spotlight again, as a result of the San Bernadino terrorist attack.  The quick reaction by hundreds of companies to implement InTP that have not done so already, will spawn thousands of new litigation examples that have a nexus with security and privacy in the workplace.

In essence, you need to have a specific executive management intervention, that does not over react.  You should have a independent facilitated off-site meeting to better understand what can go wrong, why it happens and what to keep an eye on.  Finally, what you can do about it.

The opportunity now is for you to strategically implement or adjust the InTP within your organization.  Why you do this and how you proceed, is vital to the enterprise risk management of the company.  How you and your employees behave from this point forward, will forever impact the culture of trust in your organization.

Our thoughts and prayers to all of the victims and the families impacted by this act of terrorism in the U.S. Homeland...

4GW: U.S. CyberSpace OPS Risk...

The Washington, DC beltway bandits are buzzing in anticipation of President Obama's selection for the next defender and policy maker for United States CyberSpace. We wonder what branch of the armed forces s/he will be associated with and to what degree they gain the agreement of the power base that CyberSpace is indeed a "Strategic National Asset", once and for all.

Meanwhile, OPS Risk Managers are dealing with transnational non-state actors (in some cases funded by nation states) that are robbing our private sector and government agencies blind. Stealing Personal Identifiable Information (PII), Corporate Intellectual Property, Defense R & D and classified State secrets. The next commander of U.S. CyberSpace has an even bigger job once the job starts; protecting and defending our country's vital Digital Infrastructure. This nexus of criminal, terrorist and irregular warfare is being waged on a 24/7 basis here in the homeland.

So how do you go about fighting this 4th Generation (4GW) war comprised of well organized, decentralized, clandestine subjects operating in the cyber shadows? This begins with creating an effective Information Sharing Environment (ISE), a fusion of who, what, when, how, where and maybe why. Defending the nation against the physical attacks of the likes of Al-Qaida or the virtual attacks from Yingcracker has some very interesting similarities.

If the next Secretary of U.S. CyberSpace is going to take the fight to those who wish to copy, delete, probe, scan, flood, bypass, steal, modify and spoof their way across our Digital Infrastructure, they could learn from this synopsis from Robert Haddick:

Does it take a network to beat a network?

On June 5 United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) wraps up a week-long war game designed to test the Pentagon's vision of warfare in the future. The war game looks ahead to the year 2020 and examines how U.S. and allied military forces -- along with civilian government, non-government, and international institutions -- cope with a failing state, a globally networked terrorist organization, and a peer competitor. The results of the war game are supposed to influence the conclusions of this year's Quadrennial Defense Review, an in-depth review of the Pentagon's strategies.

Officials at USJFCOM won't discuss the results of the war game until at least July; many of the most interesting conclusions may remain classified. But the commander of USJFCOM, General James Mattis of the Marine Corps, described his vision of the future while delivering a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mattis discussed how today's adversaries have adapted to U.S. conventional military superiority by forming disaggregated networks of small irregular teams that hide among indigenous populations. United States military forces, by contrast, have only come under greater central control. According to Mattis, this shift is due to evolutions in intelligence-gathering and communications technologies. Call it the new iron law of military bureaucracies: when commanders gain the technical ability to micromanage, they will micromanage.

Mattis believes that in order to defeat modern decentralized networks, U.S. forces will have to become decentralized themselves. This will entail giving autonomy to and requiring initiative from the youngest junior leaders in the Army and Marine Corps. High-performance small infantry units, "a national imperative" according to Mattis, will need to operate independent from higher control, finding their own solutions to local problems as they implement broader policy guidance.

Whether the troops are fast roping out of helicopters or behind the flat screen detecting and analyzing the stealth cyber attack, the approach to defeating the adversaries is much the same. Infiltrating the "cells" and collecting valuable INTEL on the global enemy is what gives us the "Ground Truth." The commander for U.S. CyberSpace will soon be educated on the private sectors role in achieving this continuous and lofty goal of a creating more decentralized and clandestine citizen soldiers.

As the private sector battles the non-state actors for preservation and protection of valuable customer data, corporations are simultaneously being attacked by adversarial plaintiff lawyers.

U.S. insurer Aetna has been targeted in a lawsuit alleging it failed to protect personal information of employees and job applicants, documents indicate.

The lawsuit comes after Aetna, of Hartford, Conn., was struck by computer hackers to access a company Web site holding personal data for 450,000 current and former employees as well as job applicants, the Hartford Courant reported Wednesday.

The private sector would enjoy having our government involved in more proactive efforts to seek out and stop these criminal and terrorist entities that prey on organizations that remain vulnerable. The Operational Risks associated with litigation in the corporate enterprise are here to stay. If the public and private sector can once and for all coordinate, collaborate and "Share Information", we can disrupt, capture, prosecute and defeat our cyber adversaries.

PII: Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care...

A data security breach of "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) will impact your organization in the future. This incident is no different than other Operational Risk loss events to your global enterprise this year, such as occupational fraud or the settlement of a lawsuit. Correct?

This time however, the difference is that now your own employees or your customers are the victim. Their PII has been lost or stolen and your organization has been the safeguarding entity of that valuable data until now. Your response is vital and the way you legally and ethically behave is a significant risk factor in itself.

Your brand reputation in the marketplace is on the line and the potential churn in lost customers or employees is at stake. Like many post 9/11 companies, your crisis response protocol is already in place for incidents that require your senior executives and the establishment of an immediate Incident Response Team (IRT).

So why is lost or stolen PII such an important executive issue for any organization?

In privacy, PII is less restrictive than in Information security and one definition can be found in the EU directive 95/46/EC:^[1]

Article 2a: 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;

Although the concept of PII is ancient, it has become much more important as information technology and the Internet have made it easier to collect PII, leading to a profitable market in collecting and reselling PII. PII can also be exploited by criminals to stalk or steal the identity of a person, or to plan a person's murder or robbery, among other crimes. As a response to these threats, many web site privacy policies specifically address the collection of PII, and lawmakers have enacted a series of legislation to limit the distribution and accessibility of PII.

As your General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer begin to assess the magnitude and breadth of your recent PII exposure, so too does the plaintiff lawyers. Now the clock starts ticking and each tick gets louder and louder, as different litigation strategies are discussed. In Board Rooms and judges court chambers across the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the admissibility of "Electronically Stored Information" (ESI) is being discussed as a legitimate component of evidence and it's relevance in the case.

What if you could now "Rewind" this scenario and find yourself in a "legal safe zone" to adequately prepare, prevent and even preempt a "Data Security Breach" in your organization. This "legal safe zone" is available today and is as close as your corporate executive conference room, with several "Subject Matter Experts" working side-by-side. It's a professional service solution from the data breach services leader, idexperts.

The "Achieving a Defensible Standard of Care" Readiness workshop in your organization begins with a two day facilitated process for discovery and convergence with your fellow company executives. You will be engaged in a proactive, preventive and preemptive tactical plan in preparation for the day of your next PII-involved Data Security Breach. Upon completion, this operational plan establishes the baseline framework for a complete team-based drill. This outcome will then test the readiness of your key stakeholders internally and external to the company. More importantly, it provides the strategic insight on what vulnerabilities still exist in your particular organizations approach to remediation and legal compliance.

Each year, despite security efforts, millions of personal records are compromised as a result of corporate and public-sector data breaches. Breach response costs - mandated notification, PR, call handling, credit monitoring and legal fees - can add up, yet traditional approaches don't fully mitigate the risk to your business or your customers.

A data security breach of "Personal Identifiable Information" (PII) will impact your organization in the future. The next one will be different.

QFD: The End of Compliance...

Corporations will continue to be responsible for the criminal behavior and actions of their employees, 3rd party suppliers and other contractors for at least the near term. In a case that has the defense legal eagles and "Usual Suspects" arguing against the corporate liability issue, the intent is getting cloudy or is it crystal clear?

But in a case now pending before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Ionia Management SA, the defendant corporation, as well as a diverse group of business and legal organizations acting as amici curiae, are asking the court to re-examine what had previously been accepted as black-letter law regarding when a corporation may properly be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees.

While the defense bar has successfully battled some of the U.S. Justice Department's specific tactics in corporate criminal investigations (such as pressuring companies to waive attorney-client privilege or deny payment of employees' legal fees), this is the first significant direct challenge in recent years to the long-standing doctrine of corporate criminal liability. Their arguments, if accepted by the court, could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power between the government and the targets of corporate criminal investigations.

Even if the corporate compliance programs are in full force and the financial integrity unit is robust in it's efforts, the "Operational Risk" still exists for litigation. How the cases settle or end up in deferred prosecution deals is another subject. Andrew Weissmann is in the precarious position of having been on the other side of the court room during the Enron trial. Now after having moved to the defense he is feeling the size of the governments powerbase.

Mr. Weissmann, 50 years old, says he noticed the "glitch" in the law four years ago as a prosecutor when he helped put together deferred-prosecution agreements of Merrill Lynch & Co. and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for their conduct in connection with the Enron collapse. It struck him that the standard for criminal liability might be too low for "companies that work hard to create compliance programs" and yet are still on the hook, he says.

Regardless of the amount of awareness building, education and corporate window dressing you can't ultimately control human behavior. More compliance enforcement and regulatory pressure may seem to be the answer. A voluntary effort to shore up security, soundness and the opportunity for malfeasance in the work place may not be working effectively. And still the liabilities exist from the plaintiffs and government adversaries to gain compensation. So what is the answer?

The answer lies in the "Enterprise Architecture" of our institutions and the failure to implement the process of "Quality Function Deployment" (QFD). This has been ignored by senior executives and US business because many judge it to be too complex. One only has to look at the state of our automobile manufacturers versus the likes of Japanese companies to get a sense of the success of incorporating QFD on a comprehensive basis. But now apply this to the culture of an organization and how each individual makes logical business decisions instead of emotion-based decisions.

What many liability issues begin with are the employee(s) who made a bad decision. QFD in its simplest form is a tool to promote communications. Among peers and connected teams within the organization it provides the methodology to catch errors, omissions and emotional bias early in the process. As an example, let's take the Request for Proposal (RFP). Many companies depend heavily on winning business by responding to RFP's. A "deal makers" perception of importance to the RFP determines the effort for the response. Many times, this is influenced by an incentive plan. The human behavior to accept or decline the effort on an RFP as well as what it takes to push it through the organization for executive sign offs, is not always compatible with the strategic and quality measures of the enterprise.

Over time this will form an unimaginable amount of moral decay within a company. This leads to bad behavior and unethical decisions that people make because the business enviroment has rewarded it for far too long. So who is to blame here? The employee or the culture and company that has condoned and encouraged the behavior that ultimately damaged someone or something.

Implementing QFD in your information-based enterprise could have a dramatic impact on achieving a defensible standard of care by reducing the likelihood of catastrophic emotional decisions. More importantly, QFD programs such as this that are directly reducing the likelihood of bad employee behavior and criminal incidents, can reduce the necessity for invasive compliance programs that most everyone wants to ignore.

A Perfect Storm: OPS Risk & The Asian Factor...

The forensic professionals have been busy at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae over the past six months, and we are only looking at the tip of the ice berg. The results are in and Uncle Sam (US) is now adopting them in order to try and achieve new corporate governance and operational risk management objectives. The "Asian Factor" is a major influence in this decision.

The historic announcement has been well received by some of the institutions and Asian countries that were heavily invested in the US mortgage backed securities market. In Hong Kong, HSBC soared 4.5 percent and No.1 China lender ICBC rose 4.7 percent in trading.

Asian stock markets soared Monday after Washington announced a bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — a move that could help bolster a shaky U.S. housing market and renew global investor confidence.

The initial relief will give some the feeling that the worst is over and that is not the case. The Operational Risks associated with these events have now increased exponentially as new people take over and existing people jump off the sinking ship. Just the attrition in manpower will create new threats from within these organizations in the form of just errors and omissions alone.

And now let the litigation begin:

A shareholder is suing five banks, claiming they did not warn her or other investors about a proposed accounting-rule change that lowered the value of Fannie Mae stocks she bought, Bloomberg News reported.

The proposed rule is FAS 140, the accounting standard that specifies the conditions for keeping securitized assets off the balance sheet. If the proposal is issued in its current form and takes effect in November 2009 as expected, it could force companies like Fannie Mae to bring some special-purpose entities back on their balance sheet.

Plaintiff Karen Orkin, who bought 600 shares of class B Fannie Mae shares, filed the suit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan this week as a proposed class action, according to Bloomberg. The complaint reportedly says 89 million shares of the stock were sold, and the share price sunk by 44 percent in value in four months.

The five banks — Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Morgan Stanley, and UBS — formed a syndicate to underwrite the stocks. Wachovia, Morgan Stanley, and UBS declined to comment on the suit.

The lawyers and the accountants are circling the feeding frenzy looking for new opportunities to cash in on the next phase of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. And they are not the only firms that have been gearing up for the court room drama in the months and years to come. FTI, LECG and other eDiscovery firms such as Encore are creating specialty units to focus on the growing number of law suits and litigation as a result of the tremendous fraud allegations:

The fact that numerous government entities are involved puts a high premium on the use of sound electronic discovery processes, chain of custody and especially forensic expertise. “What may start as a broad-based investigation by the SEC could quickly evolve into a complex web of related cases,” said Hemanth Salem, Encore’s Vice President of Professional Services and member of the Subprime Services Unit. “For example, the discovery process must factor in that an investigation could quickly expand to include 10b- 5 and derivative cases, ERISA ‘stock-drop’ cases, fraud or negligence claims revolving around slack underwriting standards, lack of appropriate internal accounting controls and failure to disclose exposure to risk in MBSs and CDOs.”

As the markets stabilize and the new corporate governance takes hold at institutions across the globe, take a minute to consider the real interdependencies. Operational Risk is directly tied to the sophistication of our systems, software and algorithms that make up the very DNA of our financial trading infrastructure. Add to this the complexity of people, cultures and their behavior when emotions of fear, greed and even revenge come into play. Welcome to the "Perfect Storm" of Global Enterprise Risk Management.

Directors Q & A: Outside Counsel Risk...

Every Board Member needs to ask "Six Legal Questions" of corporate management because the answers will help you determine what law firms your company should fire, or even consider hiring. This special report by Randy Myers in Corporate Board Member highlights the Operational Risk of litigation and whether you are prepared for offense, defense and the next reputation scandal:

1. How well do our outside law firms know our business?
2. Are we prepared to handle litigation against us in the best way?
3. Under what circumstances should we consider suing another company?
4. When should we use a big law firm? When are we better off with a small one?
5. What clues can tell us if our outside lawyers are no longer right for us?
6. How well will we stand up to scrutiny?

We have to highlight the commentary on #6 (H. Rodgin Cohen, partner and chairman of New York City-based Sullivan & Cromwell LLP)

Directors must let the compliance office and general counsel know that they are to be informed anytime the company is put under investigation, Cohen says; government regulators and prosecutors expect the board to take a role in such matters. Having a clear policy in place is critical, says attorney Matthew Powers.

There is no cookbook recipe to prepare a company for an investigation. But what directors have to do, says Cohen, is approach any such inquiry with the understanding that in today’s environment, with laws and regulations being rigorously enforced, fighting a government investigation is almost always a bad idea. Companies must be seen as cooperative, he says, which means that they must conduct thorough investigations of their own when alerted to potential wrongdoing and provide the government with whatever it requests. If problems are uncovered, they should move quickly to take remedial action, implement policies and procedures to prevent further troubles, and penalize the people responsible. “If the company fails to take action,” Cohen warns, “it must expect that it will receive harsher punishment.”

He says it makes sense to report suspected violations of the law voluntarily when an internal examination uncovers them. “You’re really rolling the dice if you don’t, because if the government later finds out, it will have no confidence in you. And remember, the government has two ways to find out—on its own or from someone inside the company.” If the government decides it needs to find out on its own, he says, any penalties are likely to be much more painful.

Firing your long time outside firm is not easy and like any third party supplier who has been embedded for years or decades, "Breaking Up is Hard to Do." Every Corporate General Counsel's greatest fear. Have you every received advice that the negative results of an internal investigation needs to be buried, hushed up or even worse, ignored in hopes that nothing will happen?

Corporate Governance is taking on a new resonance in a politically charged election year here in the United States. The Democrats are gearing up for more oversight, investigation and compliance laws focused on areas that the Republicans have been long to scrutinize. Laws that have been gathering momentum in the halls of Capitol Hill are targeting some of the industry sectors that have benefited the most from the Defense Industrial Base windfall.

In a global survey by Fulbright & Jaworkski LLP, 40% of US companies had at least one lawsuit with $20M. or more at risk. 60% had one or more plaintiff class actions pending and 36% say that the government regulators have stepped up their visits.

So if you are on the Board of Directors and you want to be proactive on the upcoming front for litigation, where do you look? The Accounting department. Sales and Marketing. Information Technology. Legal Department. The easy answer may be, who has the most laptops? Brian Krebs talks about the Data Breach problem from The Washington Post blog:

The San Diego-based Identity Theft Resource Center tracked 342 data breach reports from Jan. 1 to June 27. Nearly 37 percent of reports came from businesses -- an increase from almost 29 percent last year.

Data breach reports from health care providers (14.9 percent of the total) and banks (10 percent) continued to rise, while the share of breaches from educational institutions (21.3 percent of the total) government entities and the military (17 percent) declined for the third year in a row, the ITRC found.

Hacking was the least-cited cause of data breaches in the first six months of 2008 (11.7 percent of the total). Instead, lost or stolen laptops and other digital storage media remain the most frequently cited cause of data breaches, accounting for more than 20 percent of all reported cases, the ITRC found. The inadvertent posting of personal and financial data online prompted roughly 15 percent of the data breach disclosures.

The nexus of data, plaintiff law suits and your outside counsel (3rd party suppliers) will be the Board of Directors #1 priority in the next few years. This is the vortex of Operational Risk in the 21st century.

Information Risk: The Zero's & One's Don't Lie...

The Bear Stearns implosion has been predicted as a casualty of failed hedge funds. These entities are less regulated than banks and don't have to keep a minimum capital reserve. The limits on the amount of leverage they utilize can sometimes come back to burn you.

Angry Bear Stearns Co Inc shareholders have wasted no time in bringing legal claims following the company's stunning stock collapse and $2-a-share fire sale to JPMorgan Chase & Co.

At least one federal lawsuit in New York seeking class- action status for alleged securities fraud was filed on Monday by an investor contending the company hid its true financial condition from shareholders.

"Who Knew What When" is the focus of the legal mechanism now in full swing as investigators at the SEC and other federal regulators begin their forensic examinations and interviews. Eliot Spitzer is finally a back story after his demise in the FINCEN money laundering investigation:

But what really snared Spitzer was a money laundering investigation that was flagged by suspicious activity reports (SARs) that banks have to file with the Treasury to surface everything from money laundering to terrorist activity. This network has been around for a while, but its importance escalated following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. According to the FBI’s charges the prostitution ring that counted Spitzer as a customer was investigated due to some shady bank accounts, checks and wire transfers with big totals ($39,000, $400,000 and others).

The nexus of eDiscovery, Data Mining and Operational Risk Management are in the news as these incidents are unraveled. The information and evidence from the data analysis will reveal the truth and those caught shredding documents or deleting files will no doubt become part of one of these inquiries.

Even today at 2AM JP Morgan Chase was searching Google with the terms "information operations risk management" and landed here on this Operational Risk Management Blog. Then they "Out Clicked" to A Defensible Standard of Care in hopes of finding answers to their questions.

The law suits and the lawyers are busy these days with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) as they defend ongoing data breaches and bad behavior by employees and interested 3rd parties:

A security breach at an East Coast supermarket chain exposed 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers and led to 1,800 cases of fraud, the Hannaford Bros. grocery chain announced Monday.

Hannaford said credit and debit card numbers were stolen during the card authorization process and about 4.2 million unique account numbers were exposed.

The breach affected all of its 165 stores in the Northeast, 106 Sweetbay stores in Florida and a smaller number of independent groceries that sell Hannaford products.

The company is aware of about 1,800 cases of fraud reported so far relating to the breach.

If the latest economic studies are correct, that's going to cost about $98.00 per record on the low side when it comes to the amount of money that these organizations will spend (unless insured) to clean up this operational risk related incident.

New York State has a new Governor at the same time the Bears are descending on Wall Street:

David A. Paterson became New York’s 55th Governor on March 17, 2008. In his first address as Governor, Paterson spoke about the challenges New York faces and his plan for New York’s future.

This month it's New York in the news but our prediction is that California will soon be next to capture the nations headlines. The legal buzzards are soaring overhead...

Lessons Learned: The Impact of Executive Decisions...

In times of economic downturn the Operational Risks within your institution will begin to rise. Enron, Worldcom and HealthSouth are the few names people recognize as the major casualties of the last significant dip in our economy. When times get tough, people get desperate and try to keep the schemes and any red flags from being discovered.

So what are some of the areas that encompass Operational Risk:

• Internal Fraud - bribery, misappropriation of assets, tax evasion, intentional mismarking of positions
  
• External Fraud - theft of information, hacking damage, third-party theft and forgery
• Employment Practices and Workplace Safety - discrimination, workers compensation, employee health and safety
• Clients, Products, & Business Practice - market manipulation, antitrust, improper trade, product defects, fiduciary breaches, account churning
• Damage to Physical Assets - natural disasters, terrorism, vandalism
• Business Disruption & Systems Failures - utility disruptions, software failures, hardware failures
• Execution, Delivery, & Process Management - data entry errors, accounting errors, failed mandatory reporting, negligent loss of client assets

Cynthia Cooper has written a new book "Extraordinary Circumstances: The Journey of a Corporate Whistleblower" about her honorable quest to find the truth at Worldcom. Her quote in the March/April issue of Fraud Magazine says it all:

"Listen to your instinct. If people are acting out of character or appear to be working to head you in another direction, step back and ask yourself why. Continue to ask for support and dig until you're satisfied that you've gotten it right."

Beyond Cynthia's first person account to give the reader her emotional perspectives, Operational Risk Management professionals realize that their role and the job they have been trained to do is not always a "Pleasant" experience. This is why all of the training and education is so important and the rehearsals are absolutely imperative. Testing, evaluating and testing some more is the norm. Understanding what "Normal" looks like, takes time and persistence. Yet without it, our horizon for positive change could be in jeopardy.

With many of the "Lessons Learned" books now published from the last economic dip, who will be next to blow the whistle or expose the real risks that some companies are hiding from the Board of Directors and the shareholders. The class action lawyers are even gathering their evidence on the possibility of cashing in on predatory lending practices:

A federal appeals court is nearing a decision on a battle between Chevy Chase Bank and a Wisconsin couple that could for the first time enable homeowners across the country to band together in class-action lawsuits against mortgage firms and get their loans canceled.

The case is alarming Wall Street 's biggest banks, which could bear the hefty cost of reimbursing all mortgage interest, closing costs and broker fees to groups of homeowners who uncover even minor mistakes in their loan documents. After a federal judge in Milwaukee ruled last year that the Wisconsin couple had been deceived and other borrowers could join their suit, Chevy Chase Bank appealed to the circuit court in Chicago.

So what we have are markets that are volatile. Bankers who are raising the stakes for borrowers. And naive consumers who are facing higher prices across the board. The time for increased vigilance is in front of us all. From the Board Room to the Court Room it's time that we spend more time looking at the interdependencies and realize that risk is more than a prediction.

During these times, it's worth revisiting this post on Fear: The Elements of Prediction.

4GW: Trusted Information Class Actions...

The SEC is in the middle of a Supreme Court battle and they have called in the "A" team to assist. Former SEC officials William H. Donaldson, Arthur Levitt and Harvey J. Goldschmid want to expand investors' abilities to sue in frauds:

The big-money issue has mobilized lawyers who bring class-action lawsuits and the companies and executives they target in one of the most important securities-law issues to reach the Supreme Court in years.

In cases in which fraud-ridden corporations have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, investors may not be able to wrest money from the company itself. Lawsuits against business partners and advisers such as accountants and lawyers may present the only rich and viable option for shareholders and plaintiff lawyers, experts said.

What have we learned since Enron? Do we not have a more ethics based atmosphere at the professional services firms? In the long run, will investors be better off with the ability to sue the advisors of the companies as accomplices to wrong doing? You can bet that if the US Chamber of Commerce has it's way, the SEC is in for a real fight on this one.

Some people are behind bars. Some companies are out of business. And the Dow is again at an all time high nearing the 14,000 threshold. All of the legislation, class actions and fraud allegations are all about one thing. Information. Trusted Information.

A number of trends focused on corporate data continue to distract today's IT departments. Shareholders are clamoring for more transparency as a result of the financial scandals that have shaken confidence in corporate governance around the world. Compliance legislation such as the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act (whose impact is reaching far beyond the U.S.) can result in jail sentences for executives who - even unintentionally - report erroneous information. New privacy laws around the world restrict the use of customer information. Increasing global competition has put pressure on organizations to use their expensive information assets more strategically.

All these issues can be summed up in a single concept: trusted information. Simply accessing data is no longer enough. Today's CEOs, CFOs and knowledge-workers must be able to reliably track the information they use for decisions back to the original source systems in order to ensure its timeliness, accuracy and credibility.

Over the last decade, organizations have invested millions of dollars in systems to collect, store and distribute information more effectively. Despite this, information users at all levels of the organization are often uncomfortable with the quality, reliability and transparency of the information they receive.

Today's organizations rarely have a "single view of the truth." Executives waste time in meetings debating whose figures are correct, rather than what to do about the company's issues. Additionally, they worry about the consequences of making strategic decisions using the wrong information, directly impacting the long-term survival of the organization.

This brief essay by Jeffrey Ritter discusses the compelling forces converging at the beginning of the 21st century that are shaping the need to consider trusted information as a vital asset that should be the priority of any organization:

As the 21st century accelerates, digital devices connected to the Net will continue to be indispensable to modern life. But those devices, and the services provided through them, remain vulnerable to human judgment—the 21st century winners will be those who earn and sustain the trust of those using the devices and the services—whether those are consumers, employees, shareholders, lenders or service providers.

When the law intersects with the validity of information the corporate battle lines are drawn. Think about how much time and dollars are spent proving or disproving the integrity of information in a court of law. Those organizations who know that they are in the "4th Generation Warfare" (4GW) era will survive only if they can grasp this concept. Fourth Generation Warfare removes the front entirely. Attackers rely on a barrage of information salvos and coordinated incidents to paralyze or erode the adversaries political will, rather than seeking decisive hand-to-hand combat. Does this sound familiar to your General Counsel?

We are not talking about Al Qaeda now. We are talking about the class action "Army" that is forming the strategy and the means to wage unconventional battles against your, trusted information. Or is it?