By: Rachel Lau, Social Media & Marketing Associate, Guardian Data Destruction

Data destruction is the last phase of IT equipment lifecycle planning. The end goal is to make sure that no data remains on lease returns, equipment bound for recycling or handed over to the next guy in line for a replacement laptop. Knowing where your data is stored (or hiding) is an essential part of preventing a data breach.

It’s not a scavenger hunt

But it can feel like it. IT equipment is super complex these days (and it’s getting smarter every day). Knowing where to find the data so that you can make a comprehensive plan for data destruction is getting harder and harder.

30 places your company data may be stored

Here’s a quick list of common and possibly overlooked corporate devices and office equipment that are storing (hiding?) your data. Any one of them could be a huge risk for a data breach.
​

1. Work-issued laptops and desktop computers
2. Personal/home computers
3. Motherboards with SSD drives
4. Thumb drives / USB drives
5. External hard drives
6. Tablets
7. Badges, IDs
8. X-rays
9. CDs and DVDs
10. Copiers
11. Printers
12. Hard drives
13. Solid State Drives (SSD)
14. Cell phones
15. Point of Sale (POS) Devices
16. Tapes/Magnetic tapes
17. Arrays
18. Storage area networks (SAN)
19. Network area storage (NAS)
20. Backup tapes / magnetic tapes
21. JAZ and ZIP discs
22. Memory chips and sticks
23. Military gear
24. Smart phones
25. Video tape
26. Transmitters
27. Pagers
28. Rental cars and lease returns (smart phone connection)
29. Shipping/inventory scanners
30. Cloud service providers (data centers and their backups)

Help is right here

Your ITAD, VAR or even head of data security should be able to help you put together a list of possible sources that could be holding onto potentially harmful company data. And advise you on a best practices plan to ensure that the data is destroyed so that you can rest easy.
If you need help, talk to us. Without obligation. We’re happy to give you a quick evaluation of data destruction options so that you can stomp out risk wherever it may be. And, we can refer you to a VAR or ITAD if you need one.

To learn more about data destruction options, download our Data Destruction 101 guide or read our data destruction services section of the website. And, if we missed a data hidey-hole that you’ve discovered, let us know.

By: NPZ Law Group, P.C. 
​
​Former Vice President Joe Biden is projected to be have been elected the President of the United States. One of his many proposed reforms includes the Biden Immigration Plan, which may be put into effect in as little as 100 days after he is sworn into office.
 
Below are some of the proposal Biden reforms:
 
Changes in U.S. Employment-Based Immigration (H-1B visas):
 
Joe Biden’s immigration plan showcases reform in employment-based immigration, i.e., H-1B visas. Biden supports removing the limits on per-country employment-based visas. In addition to that, his proposal reforms aim to exempt recent caps on Ph.D. graduates in STEM fields from US universities in an attempt to help contribute to the country’s and world’s economy. 
 
Biden also proposes to create a new visa category that enables counties and cities to increase the number of immigrants to support economic and diversity. Consequently, the plan will enable cities to petition for more immigrant visas that can help their economic development strategies. 
 
Under the Trump Administration, the denial rates for new H-1B visa applications increased from 6 percent in FY 2015 to 29 percent in the Q2 of FY 2020, says the National Foundation for American Policy.  This is because the current Administration did not provide merit-based immigration. 
 
H-1B visas allow temporarily employed skilled workers to work in the country and eventually seek permanent residency. H-1B visas also enable international students to secure employment during or after completing their education and eventually become citizens. 
 
Changes in U.S. Family-Based Immigration:
 
The Biden Immigration Plan proposes to reform the law to ensure that green card holders’ spouses and unmarried children are recognized as “immediate relatives.” This is also the case for US citizens’ parents, spouses, and children. Consequently, immediate relatives would continue to be exempt from current numerical quotas.
 
Biden’s immigration plan seeks to liberalize the “nonimmigrant” intent issue by allowing approved I-130 family members to enter the United States with a nonimmigrant visa. This is until their priority date becomes current.
 
Removing the Country’s Muslim Travel Ban:
 
The Biden Immigration Plan proposes to remove the current Muslim Travel Ban. The plan states that the ban is “morally wrong” and that there’s no evidence or intelligence that suggests that the ban increases our nation’s security. President-Elect Joe Biden can remove this ban as soon as he takes office, as the ban was part of a Presidential Proclamation—Congress did not pass a law for it. 
 
Increases in the Cap for Refugee Intake:
 
Biden’s immigration policy offers hope for asylum seekers. The document details that the cap for global refugee admissions would increase to 125,000 per year—where the existing cap is at 15,000. The document also adds that the Administration aims to raise the cap in the future in an attempt to serve “the unprecedented global need.”
 
The Trump Administration reduced the cap by more than 86 percent in FY 2021, bringing the cap down to 15,000 as opposed to 110,000 during President Obama’s last year in office. Therefore, the Biden plan would restore the rights asylum seekers had during the Obama Administration. One way it would do this is by revoking the “Remain in Mexico policy” that was put into effect during the Trump Administration. Thus, people who apply for asylum in the United States under the Biden Administration can expect better protection than during the Trump Administration. 
 
Improving CBP, ICE, and Immigration Courts:
 
The Biden Immigration Plan aims to ensure that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel operate at professional standards. Any CBP or ICE personnel responsible for inhumane treatment will also be held accountable for it. The plan would also, thus, remove workplace raids and for-profit detention centers.
 
The Biden plan would also increase the number of court staff, immigration judges, and interpreters twice fold. As a result, asylum cases and others can be adjudicated more fairly and timely. 
 
Protecting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA):
 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an immigration policy in the US. It allows certain individuals who were brought to the country unlawfully as children to defer deportation for two years and find a work permit during that time. 
 
The Biden plan would restore the DACA program, giving recipients and their parents the opportunity to seek citizenship in the US through legislative immigration reform. In addition to that, the plan would ensure that recipients of the DACA program are eligible for federal student aid. The plan would also review the Temporary Protected Status for populations vulnerable to disaster and violence. 
 
President-Elect Biden’s plan would protect this policy, but that would require legislative action to make a significant difference. Even if the Democrats gain a majority in the Senate, the Biden plan would have to compromise a legislative solution’s scope. That is to say that there could be limitations on the number of unauthorized immigrants, for example. 
 
Last Words 
 
The Biden Immigration Plan has an overall different approach than that of the Trump Administration. That said, its application and effects on immigration policy and people’s lives are still undetermined until Biden’s Administration spends enough time in office. While reform on the Presidential Proclamation level should be manageable, bringing changes at the legislative level will be more difficult. This is because the Democrats don’t control the Senate and the House of Representatives. Thus, the need for a bipartisan coalition in Congress may be necessary to restore some immigration policies, such as the DACA program. That said, the outlook, at least so far, looks promisingly positive for new immigrants in the United States.
 
If you should have any questions or need more information about the ways in which the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Laws may impact you, your family, your friends or your colleagues, please contact the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Lawyers at the NPZ Law Group – VISASERVE – U.S. Immigration and Nationality Lawyers by e-mailing us at [email protected] or by calling us at 201-670-0006 (x104). You can also visit our Law Firm’s website at www.visaserve.com
 

By: Cynthia Romano, Global Director, Restructuring and Dispute Resolution Practice & Eric Danner, CPA, CTP, CIRA, Partner, Restructuring & Dispute Resolution Practice, CohnReznick

“For 2020, I’m pretty confident we will see more bankruptcies than in any businessperson’s lifetime.” 

That’s the assessment of James Hammond, CEO of New Generation Research – which runs bankruptcydata.com – in a recent Fortune article. The economic impact of COVID-19, along with other socio-economic factors, is causing an unprecedented wave of bankruptcies in industries ranging from retail to hospitality to energy. This trend, unfortunately, is expected to continue.  

Any business can find itself in a position of financial distress that requires it to embark on a restructuring process that may involve bankruptcy. Whether the impetus comes from a stakeholder with capital at risk, the board of directors, a private equity sponsor, or a lender anywhere on the debt spectrum, the option to file for bankruptcy protection may soon find itself a consideration for leaders of the distressed business. 

Typically, bankruptcy is never the first choice. But it is part of a strategy forward for businesses saddled with angry creditors and dwindling revenues, especially during this unprecedented pandemic. Executives from companies that haven’t been through a bankruptcy process may initially be inclined to opt for the in-court route because they hear the word “protection” in bankruptcy protection. They see relief in the automatic stay and the court-ordered corralling of the many (often irate) stakeholders.

But, as we have found in our work as chief restructuring officers and financial advisors, an out-of-court process is often a better approach for many companies, depending on their specific set of circumstances. Yes, out-of-court is still expensive and requires the hiring of lawyers, accountants, and other outside advisors. But companies that initially opt for the bankruptcy route to satisfy creditors and other constituents often don’t consider both the short-term and long-term implications of a bankruptcy.

First, they fail to appreciate how much the process will remove control and expose them to second-guessing the minutiae of every action they’ve taken in the past and to be taken during the pendency of the case. Second, in some industries, the stigma of bankruptcy can have an irreversible effect on a company’s perceived value – be it brand reputation, customer loyalty, or employee morale. And finally, there’s the cost aspect. The expenses associated with bankruptcy will almost always be significantly greater than an out-of-court restructuring. This is due to the increased administrative requirements as well as the obligation that debtor companies pay for the expenses of not only for their own attorneys and financial professionals but also often those of their creditors.

An out-of-court success story: health network

We recently completed a healthcare industry case where amid criticism over our plan to restructure out-of-court, balanced cash triage, operational improvement, and asset monetization to create cash runway, get 10 non-syndicated secured lenders, 700 unsecured creditors, and the Department of Justice to stand still without court protection, keep physicians onside, improve operational profit, and create long term options for the thirty-year-old business. Here are the details of the case.

Background

In April of last year, we were hired to serve as Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO) for a Pennsylvania-headquartered for-profit health network. The entity had grown over 30 years from a small sports medicine practice to a profitable $235M healthcare operations business comprising 80 legal entities, 105 physicians, and 1,400 employees. At its peak, the network was servicing 12,000 patient visits per week and operating from 22 owned and three leased facilities across the state and into New Jersey. The health network built an outstanding reputation with low rates and high doctor and patient satisfaction scores through a process that prioritized doctor efficiency and patient coordination.

From success to distress

By late 2017, the health network began to struggle as it found itself competing more and more with not-for-profit networks. To address this, it sought partnerships with two of these networks to drive its expansion. The expansion doubled the network’s administrative staff and it began the construction of two new hospitals as the partnership deals were being finalized. In late 2018, those deals fell apart. Coupled with this, an ongoing five-year DOJ investigation into the health network’s billing practices was expanded and a whistleblower action compelled it to agree to an eight-figure settlement plus a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA).

A healthcare investment bank was hired to negotiate the sale of the health network assets to a strategic buyer as the ramifications of the failed partnerships and DOJ settlement took their toll. By April 2019, the sale process had stalled, patients stopped coming in, and the health network mounted nearly $170 million in debt owed to secured lenders and for physician buy-outs. The health network was in crisis with just eight weeks of cash left on hand.

An out-of-court solution to preserve value

When we were first chosen as CRO for the health network, we believed that competitive pressures, along with growing hostility from creditors and other stakeholders, made a restructuring combined with a transaction the company the most feasible option for a good outcome. So, in addition to overseeing the restructuring of the health network, we were supported the path to sale.

Every step of the way, most stakeholders – even our fellow professionals – told us that a bankruptcy proceeding was the optimal path forward. They advised us not to attempt the restructuring and sale without the court protection afforded by bankruptcy. But, in weighing the in-court versus out-of-court-options, we concluded that a great deal of value that still existed in the health network would be destroyed by a bankruptcy filing. The bankruptcy would not only be detrimental to the health network, its employees and the community it would also significantly diminish the proceeds that would be distributed to creditors.  So, we took what turned out to be a controversial path forward and opted for an out-of-court process.

Triage, turnaround, and an optimal outcome

To eventually complete a successful transaction for stakeholders, our restructuring work needed to improve the viability of the health network by propping up its value proposition and, consequently, its selling price. This work involved an initial cash triage to survive, an operational turnaround to drive options and value, an interim asset monetization/bridge funding to create a longer cash runway, and, ultimately, identifying the right buyer for the network and its stakeholders. All paths were pursued simultaneously and all components were critical to the success. Ultimately, the short-term cash triage, asset monetization, and operational improvement success extended cash runway from 8 weeks to 8 months and improved EBITDA from negative ($11.6.M) to positive $7.2M.  These factors formed the basis for a feasible transaction and value sufficient to satisfy stakeholders.

After a lengthy process and despite numerous obstacles, the health network was acquired by a larger, Pennsylvania-based not-for-profit network with a history of financial stability and operational excellence. All 1,400 employees (1,200 full-time) were retained and offered jobs except for the owner and two family members. Of those offered jobs, only two out of 105 physicians declined to accept a contract with the new owner.

Keeping options open

Out-of-court is not, by any means, the right path for all distressed situations. A key element to helping businesses through financial turmoil is to keep as many options open as possible.
If a business is restructuring outside of the bankruptcy process, there are creative solutions to explore. While a bankruptcy filing may trigger several important protections for the debtor, it can also reduce some alternatives and hamper the decision-making autonomy of the executives or committee who might be best positioned to turn the business around.
Bankruptcy can also impede cash flow compared to an out of court restructuring. 
​
To that end, one of the most important things to remember in choosing a venue (in or out of court) is that focusing first on an out-of-court solution doesn’t preclude an eventual bankruptcy filing. It may become impossible to get all stakeholders on board without court protection and intervention. In many cases, the related negotiations can make the court process run more smoothly. If you can develop a plan that most major stakeholders support, even if you can’t get buy-in from a few holdouts, you’re well ahead of where you would be if you’re filing with the court as a first step.