Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014
Timestamp: 2016-10-23 21:21:09
Document Index: 317821313

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 757', '§ 101', '§ 1681', '§ 6501', '§ 160', '§ 164', '§ 160', '§ 6801', '§ 6802', '§ 6803', '§ 6802']

Database M&A - What's Different? | Pryor Cashman LLP - JDSupra
Database M&A - What's Different?
In modern society, as electronic databases continue to grow in size, complexity, and sophistication, databases have emerged as a highly valuable asset for many companies. Indeed, the information contained within a database, and the database’s ability to manipulate that information in specific ways, can make each database a desirable commodity in a variety of commercial applications. With increasing frequency, databases are becoming a primary target of many merger and acquisition transactions.
Pryor Cashman Corporate Partners Jeffrey C. Johnson and Steven J. Pierce, along with associate David E. Parsly, have authored an informative article entitled “Database M&A – What’s Different?” The article, which has been published in the Spring 2008 edition of the Bloomberg Corporate Law Journal (Volume 3, Issue 2) explores legal issues that are particularly critical, and in some cases unique, to the purchase and sale of database assets.
Download PDF '2 -Database M&A -What's Diferent? Jefrey C. Johnson, Steven 3. Pierce and David E. Parsly Pryor Cashman LLP Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014By Jefrey C. Johnson,* Steven J Pierce** and David E Parsly *** INTRODUCTION In modern society, as electronic databases continue to grow in size, complexity, and sophistication, databases have emerged as a highly valuable asset for many companies. Indeed, the information contained within database, and the database's ability to manipulate that information in specifc ways, can make each database a desirable commodity in a variety commercial applications. With increasing frequency, databases are becoming a primary target of many merger and acquisition transactions. This article will explore legal issues that are particularly critical, and in some cases unique, to the purchase and sale of database assets. What Is a Database? As a preliminary matter, it is important to consider what exactly constitutes a database. A database is simply a collection of information organized in a way that is accessible, and can be something as large and sophisticated as Lexis® or Westlaw® or as simple and mundane (by today's standards) as a Rolodex®. However, the focus of this article is electronic * Jefrey C. Johnson is a partner in the New York offce of Pryor Cashman LLP. He specializes in the transactional aspects of technology and intellectual property exploitation. In particular, he shiagsnifcant experience in all aspects of mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic alliances, private placements and licenses in the biotech, entertainment, Internet, pharmaceutica6 software and telecommunications industries. He has been an invited speaker and panelist at a variety of public and private events, including the Digital Commerce Summit in 2006. Mr. Johnson is a co-author of the S. Law chapter of the Wrld Online Business Law Digest, and is also a co-author of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-Compliant Merger and Acquisition Transactions, 2 BLOOMBERG CoRP, L.J 355 (2007). Mr Johnson can be reached at (212) 326-0118 orjjohnson@,Inyorcashman.com. * * Steven j Pierce is a partner in the New York offce of Pryor Cashman LLP. His practice area general corporate and commercial law, with particular concentrations in public and private mergers and acquisitions and commercial transactions. He also has extensive experence in private equity and venture capital fnancing transactions for established and newly-formed business entities. Mr. Pierce also advises clients on structural, fnancing and governance issues associated with varied entities, including corporations, joint ventures, partnerships, limited liability companies and similar alternative business entities. The clients for whom he provides services are in varied industries, with a signifcant number in the technology, computer software, media, entertainment, apparel publishing and other similar industries. Mr Pierce can be reached at (212) 326-0139 or spierceC pryor*c*a*s Dhmavaind. cEo.m P. arsly is an associate in the New York offce of Pryor Cashman LLP He represents public and private companies in a variety of general corporate matters, including corporate Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014the data; it endows a database with useful functions, such as the ability to search the included data, to organize the data in a particular way e.g., alphabetically), and to modify the data or add new data. IssuesDatabase transactions raise questions and issues that, for many lawyers, are unique or rarely encountered. In conducting due diligence, it is crucial to inquire into how the data was obtained, who has the right to access the data, and what types of uses are permissible, including whether third parties given access to the data may disclose it to others. It is typically the case that both the data and software elements of a database consist of some data and software that is proprietary to the seller, and some data and software that is licensed to the seller. Securing licensed rights typically involves consents and, in some cases, negotiations, with third party licensors. The transfer of the data and software also raise attendant intellectual property questions, such as whether the data is subject to copyright or contains trade secrets, and even, in unusual cases, whether the proprietary software is covered by patents. Moreover, database transactions may run up against regulatory compliance issues if the data, for example, constitutes private health information subject to stringent privacy and nondisclosure mandates of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).I Finally, in addition to regulatory compliance, lawyers must review the contractual compliance issues involved in the transfer of the database. The data may be subject to certain privacy policies or nondisclosure, subscription, or end-user agreements. As "Database M&A" becomes a more common practice, it is critical for M&A lawyers to consider these issues as they plan for, negotiate and complete database transactions. DUE DILIGENCE We are all aware that due diligence of the target company's assets plays an essential role in every M&A transaction. In a transaction where a database is perceived to be a signifcant asset of the target company, however, due diligence must be conducted not only with respect to the data within the database (including the source(s) and permitted uses of the 1. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014company to convey to the purchaser legal title to the software (if owned) that controls the database, or the right for the purchaser to continue to use that software on the same terms and conditions which the target used it (if licensed), would likely have a material impact on the value of the database to the purchaser. Proprietary Software If the software is purported to be owned by the target, issues typical of M&A transactions for the acquisition of software must be considered. For instance, due diligence must be performed to determine whether the target company properly acquired exclusive ownership rights to the software which can be transferred to the purchaser. Counsel for the purchaser will need to review whether the development of the software was performed solely by bona-fide employees of the target company (ideally each of whom will have executed an effective assignment to the target company of`all proprietary rights in and to the software), or whether all or any portion of the software was created by third-party independent developers. To the extent third-party developers were engaged by the target company, the purchaser will need to satisfy itself that each third-party developer (including each independent contractor of that third-party developer) has conveyed to the target company all intellectual property rights in and to such software. In addition, as software development is increasingly outsourced to non-U.S. developers, counsel to purchasers may also need to consider the efect foreign laws may have on ownership of the software. Issues concerning the incorporation of "open-source" or government-funded software should also be considered and may materially impact the value the purchaser ascribes to the software. Government march-in" rights may limit the buyer's ability to build or expand its customer base. Reliance on "open-source" software may open the window for prospective competitors to more readily develop a database with comparable functionality. Third Party Software If the software, or any portion thereof, is licensed from a third party, the purchaser will need to carefully review the relevant license agreement(s) to ensure itself that the licensed software can be conveyed to the purchaser, and that the continued use, or expanded use, of such licensed Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014version of the software, in which case the purchaser will need to duplicate those customizations, and ensure that it has access to the resources necessary to maintain and update that software in its customized form. Source of Data When analyzing the source of the data comprising the database, purchaser's counsel must also determine whether the data was compiled by the database owner itself, was acquired from one or more third parties in purchase transactions or whether it was licensed from one or more third parties. To the extent that data was compiled by the target company, the purchaser will need to ensure itself that the data was lawfully compiled and/or mined by the target company, in compliance with any applicable regulations and any subscription agreements or "terms and conditions" applicable to the target company's customers or end-users. To the extent that data was licensed from third parties, the relevant license agreements should be reviewed to ascertain whether that data could be conveyed to the purchaser in the sale transaction, or whether that data is subject to restrictions on use that would prevent its resale to the purchaser, even if the transaction in question is a sale of the stock of the target company or substantially all of the assets of the target (or of a particular division or line of business). Use of Data Typically, data is subject to restrictions on use, access and resale, whether by statutes, contract or a combination of both. Statutory Restrictions There are several statutes that govern the collection, access, use and distribution of electronic data. For instance, private health information is subject to signifcant restrictions on its disclosure pursuant to HIPAA, while fnancial institutions are subject to similar limitations arising pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley).2 The purchaser may need to satisfy certain criteria to ensure that it is lawfully permitted to review and/or obtain the data fom the target company in accordance with HIPAA or Gramm-Leach-Bliley. A discussion of HIPAA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley and other statutes which must be consid-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014governing the collection and use of such data. Typically, website privacy policies and "terms of use" commit collectors of data to certain restrictions on re-use. Similarly, the terms of any contracts entered into with more traditional suppliers of data, such as media companies and data aggregators, and the terms and conditions to which customers of the target company agree when providing personal information, may contain privacy and/or other restrictions on the use or further disclosure of such data that are binding on the target company. In addition, if these contracts contain absolute restrictions on disclosure of such data to third parties, then, unless an exception. is contained therein for disclosure to a prospective purchaser of the target company or its assets, even the preliminary step of disclosing the data to the prospective purchaser of the database in the due diligence process may be problematic and result in a technical breach of the applicable agreement. From the perspective of counsel to a company which is entering into arrangements to acquire data from third parties, by license or otherwise, it important for any such license or acquisition agreement to expressly permit disclosure in the context of a potential sale of the business. The right of the purchaser to access and use the data contained within the database will be determined after consideration of a number of factors. As illustrated above, frst it must. be determined if the purchaser is permitted, in accordance with applicable law and contractual restrictions, to acquire the data and use it either in the continuation of the existing business of the target company or in a use which is an extension of that business or a "new" business altogether. That is, is the purchaser's intended use of the data also permitted in accordance with applicable statutes and contractual restrictions applicable to the data. IP COVERAGE The sale or other disposition of a database will implicate intellectual property rights. If the data is covered by copyrights, registration of those copyrights may or may not be an issues The data may alternatively constitute trade secrets. In the United States, trade secrets are a creature of state common and statutory law. A trade secret is generally defned as non-public information that has economic value by virtue of its not being generally known and not being easily determined by others to whom its 3. Broadly speaking, copyright covers any original work of authorship that is fxed in a tangible medium of expression (see, 17 U.S.C. § 102 (2006)); however, in the United Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014upon, and likely the scope and enforceability of those patents.5 Copyright In Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural El. Seru. Co.,6 the Supreme Court determined that databases themselves are not inherently "original" copyrightable works. Thus, aggregations of data cannot be protected by copyright if the data itself is incapable of alternative means of expression. By way of example, there is only one way to identify a particular person's social security number, whereas there are infinite ways to describe, in words, a person's work experience. As a result, copyright protection for a database consisting solely of individual names, each matched with the individual's social security number, will probably not be available, whereas a database consisting of narrative descriptions of the work experience of those same individuals may well be protectable. Even if a database is capable of copyright protection, it is necessary register the copyright in order to' enforce it against alleged infringers. many cases, the value of a database is inextricably tied to the fact that it a trade secret, or is otherwise not widely available to the public. Registration of the copyright requires, with limited exceptions, public disclosure of the contents of that copyright. As a result, many database businesses limit, or avoid altogether, registration of the copyright in their databases. In the United States, eforts to pass statutes ofering copyright or comparable protection for databases, without requiring the necessary copyright element of originality (i.e., information that is capable of being expressed in'multiple ways), have not yet succeeded. In many cases, however, a prospective purchaser anticipates exploiting the database on a world-wide basis. Accordingly, a prospective purchaser's counsel must also consider intellectual property protection in other jurisdictions. In Europe, the 1996 European Union Database Directive7 ignetnroedrius c"eswd eaa ts oufi the brow" concept to protect the efort put into compil-4. See, e.g, UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT § 1(4), 14 U.L.A. 402-03 (1985 & Supp. 1990) (defining "trade secret"). 5. See, e.g, In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Generally, in order to be patentable, software must cause a computer (i.e., a machine) to do something it cannot otherwise do; the software "creates a new machine" because, as a result of the new programming, "a general purpose computer in efct becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions from program software" Id. at 1566. 6. 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014Trade Secret Rights To the extent a database that is the subject of an acquisition transaction is not widely disseminated and consists of non-public information access to which requires that the user agree to maintain the database in confidence, that database is a quintessential form of trade secret. This is because the mere fact of payment of consideration to acquire the database establishes that, at least in the purchaser's eye, the database has economic value. Most large M&A transactions for databases have a significant trade secret element. A database that is protected as a trade secret affords the owner the limited protection of a right to seek monetary damages against those who misappropriate the trade secret and, in many cases, a right to enjoin further unauthorized disclosure of the relevant trade secret. It is.critical to appreciate, however, that once publicly disseminated, the ability to regain control of the relevant data may be impossible, particularly in light of the speed with which data can be distributed via the Internet and other means of telecommunications. In order to rely on trade secret laws to protect that database, the owner will have to take reasonable steps to maintain the confdentiality of the database. Typically, this is accomplished with a subscription agreement, terms and conditions or other binding agreement between the owner and the end-user. These agreements will typically identify, and prohibit further disclosure of, confdential information contained in the database, and prohibit reverse engineering, decompiling or other techniques for discovering the source code for proprietary software included in the database. However, even with customary limitations on further disclosure, the disclosure of trade secrets to a large enough audience may erode the necessary element of secrecy and limit or destroy the enforceability of a claim of trade secret status.9 8. Id. Article 3 of the Directive states that "databases which, by reason of the selection arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by copyright." 9. The Restatement, regarding the importance of secrecy to trade secret status, states: [T]he subject matter of a trade secret must be secret... Matters of which are completely disclosed by the goods which one markets cannot be secret. Others may also know of it independently, as, for example, when they have discovered the process or formula by independent invention and are keeping it secret. Nevertheless, a substantial element of secrecy must exist, so that, except by Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014based on general principles or pre-closing due diligence; rather, the buyer should be prepared to devote the time and effort necessary to understand how, if at all, the primary features of trade secret protection in the jurisdiction where the buyer intends to conduct its business difer from the jurisdiction where the business was previously conducted. It may that diferences in state law will require changes in the way the business is conducted after the transaction is closed. Patent Rights As indicated above, databases are rarely (if ever) protected by patents. The contents of the database themselves are not patentable subject matter.12 It is, however, possible to patent software.ls As a result, purchaser's counsel should be attuned to the possibility (though unlikely) that the software used with a database is covered by one or more patents is the subject of one or more pending patent applications. If a database's software is covered by one or more issued patents, that protection can be very valuable. It afords the patent holder a period of years ordinarily, twenty from the date the patent application is first fled) during which it can prevent others from practicing the patented invention without its permMisasnioy nn.e1w4 businesses like to trumpet pending patent applications as means of enticing investment. As a quick review of the "Risk Factors" section of any private placement memorandum or any Form S-1 fled with the SEC will reveal, however, the mere existence of a pending patent application, or even a patent, does not necessarily provide useful or robust protection. A purchaser will still need to determine whether any existing patents in fact cover the software that is used with the' database and, if so, whether those patents are valid and enforceable. Similarly, if the protection is attributable to pending patent applications, rather than an issued patent, the status of that pending application will need to be evaluated; RESTATEMENT OF TORTS § 757 (1939). 10. See JERRY COHEN & ALAN S. Gu=RMAN, TRADE SECRETS PROTECTION AND EXPLOITATION 69 (Bureau of National Affairs 1998). 11. The UTSA has been adopted in forty-fve states. Only Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Texas have not adopted the UTSA, or some variation thereof. 12. Patentable subject matter is limited to processes, machines, methods of manufacture and compositions of matters. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). Mere descriptions of those processes, machines, methods and compositions are not covered by the patent. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014Lawyers in database transactions should be aware of diferent regulatory compliance issues depending on the database, or more specifcally, the types of data comprising the database. This section will discuss a few, but by no means all, of the statutes that may apply in certain situations, including HIPAA, Gramm-Leach Bliley, the Fair Credit and Reporting Act15 (FRCA) and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act16 COPPA). HIPAA As briefly discussed above, HIPAA protects the privacy of consumer health information by establishing privacy and security standards to guard against inappropriate uses and disclosure of such information when it is stored or transmitted electronically. HIPAA regulates how certain "covered entities" handle individually identifiable health information, called "protected health information" (PHI).17 The health information is considered PHI if it can, or reasonably could, identify an individual. Doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, drug companies, health insurers, and companies that support the healthcare industry commonly store and process PHI using sophisticated databases. These databases can be very valuable to the healthcare industry. HIPAA thoroughly regulates how PHI is stored and transmitted, and to whom it is disclosed. Generally, HIPAA prohibits the disclosure of PHI to persons or entities that do not qualify as either "covered entities" (i.e., health care providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses who transmit PHI electronically) or "business associates" (i.e., providers of administrative services to covered entities) unless that PHI has been "deidentified" (i.e., rendered anonymous).18 Before PHI can be disclosed to any other persons, it must be "de-identifed."19 The de-identification process can be burdensome, requiring either the specifc deletion of eighteen enumerated personal "identifiers" from the PHI, or the encryption of the PHI into a form that cannot be readily re-identifed, as established by statistical analysis.20 15. The Fair Credit and Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (2006). 16. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506 (2006). 17. 45 C.F.R. § 160.103 (2005); 45 C.F.R. § 164.302 (2005). 18. Id. § 160.103 (2005) Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014consumer information collected by fnancial institutions.21 The fnancial privacy rule mandates that the financial institution maintain a privacy policy protecting the consumer's nonpublic information.22 Additionally, Gramm-Leach-Bliley requires fnancial institutions to provide their clients with a privacy notice explaining what information about the client the institution has, when and if the information is shared, and the types of safeguards in place to protect that information.23 The Fair Credit and Reporting Act (FCRA) requires that the privacy notice explain to the consumer her right to "opt-out" of the dissemination of her fnancial information to third parties.24 The FCRA itself regulates the collection and reporting of consumer credit information, and regulates credit reporting companies. However, the FRCA may apply to compilers of databases who would not describe themselves as credit reporting companies, but who collect similar information and distribute enough information covered by the FRCA to fall within the purvew of the statute. Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the FCRA apply to Database M&A. deals in a similar way as HIPAA. As with HIPAA, both parties must be careful to know the contents of the relevant database, make sure that disclosure of the data to the purchaser is authorized under Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the FCRA, and ensure that Purchaser's intended use of the data will also be in compliance with these statutes. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) applies to the online collection of information relating to children under thirteen years of age.25 COPPA imposes upon website operators a duty to protect the safety and privacy of young children, and. identifes when express consent must be obtained from a parent or guardian before that information can be collected or disseminated, and imposes restrictions on the type of marketing that may be directed at young children.26 Similar to the statutes discussed previously, COPPA raises regulatory compliance issues in database transactions when databases contain information collected from the online activity of children under thirteen. 21. 15 U.S.C.§§ 6801-6809 (2006). 22. Id. § 6802 (2006). 23. Id. § 6803 (2006). 24. Id. § 6802(b) (2006). Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014distribution of that data, but must also be prepared to delete or otherwise destroy any such data upon the request of a parent or guardian of the child to whom such data relates.28 If that data is stored in a database that utilized as part of the operation and maintenance of a website directed to children under thirteen, the website itself must also include functionality necessary to allow parents of users under thirteen to learn what information about their children is stored in the database, and to revise or delete that data.29 CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE Similar to the intellectual property and regulatory compliance issues discussed above, database transactions also raise contractual compliance issues. Many databases are assembled through contracts allowing the database developer to incorporate into the database particular data or aggregations of data. Such contracts include website privacy policies and terms of use," nondisclosure agreements and traditional contracts pursuant to which data aggregators (e.g., financial institutions) provide data to compilers and distributors of that data (e.g., credit reporting agencies). On the opposite side of the process, when commercializing a database, it usually subject to some form of distribution, subscription or other agreement between the owner of the database and the end-users of that database. In either case, it is important to avoid making the assumption that, simply because data is included in a database, there are no contractual restrictions on its re-use or disclosure. Data Sourcing Contracts Even if the aggregation, use or dissemination of particular data is not subject to regulation, the entity acquiring that data may very well enter into contracts that restrict or otherwise limit how that data is subsequently stored, accessed, re-used or disclosed to others. Sometimes, the data is provided by individual consumers. Perhaps the most well known type of agreement in this category is the website privacy policy. Websites routinely describe for their users how they collect, store and re-use information provided by those users. Sometimes, these policies are separately set forth in the website's "terms of use" section. In either case, if a database includes information provided by users of a website, that web-27. Id. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014used by the recipient. In many ways, these arrangements amount to database sub-licensing relationships, where a recipient is authorized to incorporate the sourced data into a larger database that is then made available to others. Examples of this type of entities that rely on this type relationship are. credit reporting agencies and large data service providers like Lexis/Nexis. In each instance, the critical question is what limitations, if any, are imposed on use and dissemination of the data by the sublicensee. These are substantively the same concerns that an end-user must consider when it subscribes to a database as discussed below. Data Dissemination Contracts Data dissemination contracts are agreements between the entity that owns the database and its customers. For example, when a law frm subscribes to Wstlaw, there is a detailed agreement. pursuant to which the firm and its employees are permitted to access, use and extract information from the database, but the agreement will set forth certain specifc restrictions on the use of that information. Typically, those restrictions expressly include a prohibition on redistributing the information or making more than a limited number of copies of the information. From the purchaser's perspective, a critical concern with these contracts is ensuring that they do not grant to end-users sufcient rights to effectively redistribute the database in competition with the company to be acquired. Ordinarily, confdentiality requirements, limitations on copying and redistribution, and security provisions (e.g., password-protected access) can be sufficient protections, but enforcement of these contractual limitations can be diffcult in the context of electronic databases. Accordingly, it is critical to ensure that appropriate limitations, and robust security provisions, are not only contractually required, but also in fact properly and consistently implemented. CONCLUSION While Database M&A on the surface is quite similar in practice to any ordinary M&A deal, the complexity of dealing with the issues specifc to databases make Database M&A a unique practice. The purpose of this article was to illustrate the issues germane to database transactions, and alert lawyers to the potential pitfalls involved. It is crucial to appreciate the complexity involved in determining the legal status of all the data contained in the database amidst the intellectual property, regulatory, and contractual minefelds discussed in this article. When the database is Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=c8c2d1ac-bd84-4479-809d-e0ba45394014