Mike Scherzer, Author at Scherzer International

About Mike Scherzer

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Mike Scherzer has created 424 blog entries.

California expands privacy protections for state residents

A perennial trendsetter with regard to data security and privacy, California has updated its state law with tweaks that expand the scope of the privacy protections for state residents.

A.B. 1710 made three changes to existing law that go into effect January 1, 2015: first, businesses that maintain “personal information” about California residents must “implement and maintain appropriate and reasonable security procedures and practices” to protect the data from “unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.” Personal information is defined to include an individual’s first name or first initial and last name, Social Security number, driver’s license number, as well as medical and financial account information.

Second, if a person or business was “the source” of a data breach and offers to provide identity theft prevention and mitigation services to affected individuals, the business must offer the services at no cost for at least 12 months. Some controversy has swirled around this provision, with debate on whether the language actually requires businesses to provide one year of free identity theft protection and mitigation services or if the law simply requires that if the services are offered, they last for 12 months and are provided gratis. Additional guidance may be forthcoming.

Finally, the new legislation prohibits a business from “selling, offering for sale, or advertising for sale” Social Security numbers. Limited exceptions were noted in the bill, including “if the release

[not necessarily a sale] of the Social Security number is incidental to a larger transaction and is necessary to identify the individual in order to accomplish a legitimate business purpose” or “for a purpose specifically authorized or specifically allowed by federal or state law.”

The law’s scope reaches well beyond the borders of California, as it applies to businesses that maintain any personal information about a state resident. Companies would be well advised to familiarize themselves with the new requirements.

To read AB 1710, click here.

December 3rd, 2014|Categories: Legislation, Privacy|Tags: California, Privacy|

Decisions in two cases to set precedence for auditors’ fraud liability

It all started in 1905 with the lawsuit Smith v. London Assurance Corporation whereby an auditor was held liable for failing to audit its client’s branch office and detecting embezzlement.

Now more than 100 years later, the legal liability of auditors in detecting corporate fraud will be decided in two cases that were heard on Tuesday, September 14, 2010, in the New York Court of Appeals, potentially increasing the Big Four accountants’ exposure to multibillion-dollar shareholder lawsuits for malpractice. In both cases, the court will rule whether auditors can rely on the legal doctrine of in pari delicto (“in equal fault”) to reject claims for fraud allegedly committed by company insiders. The doctrine prevents someone from recovering damages from a defendant if that someone is also at fault. The argument is whether the shareholders, as owners of the company, can be held at fault for frauds committed within the company and barred from suing its auditors for not discovering the wrongdoing.

The first lawsuit facing scrutiny was filed by the shareholders of AIG against PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the insurer’s auditor. The shareholders claim that PwC failed in its job as auditors in the early 2000s, when various AIG officers and directors, including ex-CEO Maurice Greenberg, allegedly engaged in fraudulent transactions to pad AIG’s bottom line. Authorities subsequently caught the fraud, and AIG had to restate years of financial statements that “eventually reduced stockholder equity by $3.5 billion.” AIG ended up paying more than $1.5 billion in fines, and the shareholders say that since PwC missed the fraud, they should be allowed to sue PwC for malpractice. The Chancery Court in Delaware dismissed their request to sue PwC, and the case was appealed in Delaware’s Supreme Court. That court asked the New York’s Court of Appeals to decide whether the shareholders have a claim under New York law.

The second case relates to protracted litigation by the bankruptcy trustee of Refco Inc., the failed futures broker, seeking damages from a number of the firm’s professional advisers, and auditors including Grant Thornton, KPMG LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Mayer Brown, LLP, et al. The trustee alleges that Refco’s outside counsel Mayer Brown, and several other insiders are liable for defrauding Refco’s creditors by helping the defunct company conceal hundreds of millions of dollars in uncollectible debt. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the trustee’s argument to revive claims against the corporate insiders raised unresolved questions concerning his standing under New York law to sue third-parties for Refco’s fraud.

September 17th, 2010|Categories: Criminal Activity|Tags: Lawsuit|

Your Risk Management Partner … Because Integrity Matters

The past few months have witnessed appalling stories of con artists who bilked billions of dollars out of people, business, and charitable foundations. These white collar thieves were not just in banking and on Wall Street; they were in health care, retail, oil and refining, military supplies and other fields. In short, the effects of these cons have been felt on every street in America and beyond.

Do these stories indicate that business crime has increased in recent years, or are we simply more effective in catching the perpetrators? Perhaps it is a combination of both, but these cases point to the importance of internal controls through due diligence and risk management.

Scherzer International (SI) has a proven reputation for accuracy, expertise, quality and speed in risk management. As part of a Risk Management Program we provide background reports with search strategies designed for each client’s risk level. Our highly trained research analysts review and summarize public records for both individuals and companies and deliver a comprehensive, easy-to-read report targeted on the client’s purpose of investigation.

SI’s trusted reputation was proven once again recently in two highly publicized cases involving fraud, money laundering and drug related crimes. Years before news broke on the cases; SI identified these individuals as a potential risk for two of our clients. Based on our reports, our clients (one a financial services firm and one an accounting firm) made the informed decision not to engage in business with these individuals. In one case, the subject of our investigation was arrested and convicted of drug related crimes, money laundering and involvement in organized crime. In the other case, the federal government charged the subject with illegal financial dealings, investments that could not be traced and altering financial records.

It is difficult to quantify just how much SI’s background report saved these companies in what could have been very costly and damaging decisions. What we can say is that our clients feel confident that we are an integral part of their Risk Management Program.

Your Risk Management Partner … Because Integrity Matters

June 25th, 2009|Categories: Risk Management|Tags: Partnership, Risk Management|

Members of the Financial Community

Members of the Financial Community
FM: Larry Scherzer, President, Scherzer International
RE: Background Investigations in the Current Economic Environment

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As a part of its Risk Management Program, one of our financial services clients asked us to conduct a Prospective Client Background Investigation. This is a well-accepted best practice for protecting the firm’s reputation and minimizing legal liabilities.

SI’s investigation in 2006 revealed that the subject company and its principal were involved in dubious business practices. As you may have guessed, based on this initial discovery, our client declined the engagement.

Recent headlines have now verified, years after our investigation, that the prospective client had, in fact, been running what can best be described as a long-standing Ponzi scheme.

This experience demonstrates the benefits of obtaining background investigations that provide comprehensively researched and analyzed information as a key element in your Risk Management Program.

Please visit www.scherzer.com or telephone 800-SC-FACTS to find out more about managing business risk for pennies on the dollar… because we never take integrity for granted

Sincerely,

Larry S. Scherzer

April 17th, 2009|Categories: Risk Management|Tags: Investigation, Risk Management|

Previous 4243