EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: BeyondRecognition Denies Plans to Aquire EMC or Kofax

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

BeyondRecognition Denies Plans to Aquire EMC or Kofax

Independent information governance technology provider allays concerns it will seek to acquire market share through acquisitions.

Germantown TN – April 1, 2014. John Martin, CEO and Founder of BeyondRecognition, LLC, a Memphis-based technology company providing data-driven information governance technology to Fortune 500 companies, today denied trade rumors that BR had plans in place to acquire the stock or assets of either Kofax or EMC. According to Martin, “While both Kofax and EMC presently have respectable revenue numbers, we have no plans to acquire them. We believe that our organic growth will permit us to capture a significant share of their document capture and business process automation business.”

To support his view of BR’s growth potential, Martin noted that BR had signed MSA agreements with six Fortune 100 clients in Q1, 2014.

Martin went on to explain that BR’s information governance technology was based on visual similarity, enabling it to automatically classify documents without the client having to develop upfront document classification rules or select multiple exemplars for each classification. “This greatly compresses the time frame required to launch projects like content migration or file share remediation. The fact that BR classifies native electronic documents as well as scanned paper documents is also a huge competitive advantage.”

About BeyondRecognition

BeyondRecognition (“BR”) provides enterprise-scale information governance technology to Fortune 500 clients. BR’s core technology classifies electronic and scanned paper documents based on their visual similarity. Other components of BR’s offerings include zonal attribute extraction, visual deduping, and glyph recognition. BR technology enables content migration, file remediation, and other IG tasks as well as powering document-intensive business processes. BR’s clients enjoy rapid project start-up and improved accuracy in coding or extracting document attributes, and they particularly appreciate being able to finish projects in months that had originally been scheduled to take years.

For more information about BeyondRecognition, visit the BR website at www.BeyondRecognition.net, or contact Joe Howie, VP, Corporate Communications, at jhowie@beyondreognition.net, or 918-894-6943.This release valid only on April 1, 2014 – think about it and have a great day.

You can also follow BR on Twitter @BeyondRecog or join the BeyondRecognition group on LinkedIn atwww.linkedin.com/company/beyondrecognition.

Credits: Globe in graphic obtained under Creative Commons license from all-free-download.com, "Modern Globe Blue and Green Connection Vector Illustration.jpg"

Topics: Document Classification, Visual Classification, Acquisitions, Information Governance

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sedona Principles 2nd ed.

1. Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.
2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.
3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each party’s rights and responsibilities.
4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.
5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.
6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.
7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.
8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.
9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.
10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.
11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.
12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.
13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.
14. Sanctions, including spoliation ﬁndings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.
Copyright © 2007 The Sedona Conference®. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.
Go to http://www.thesedonaconference.org/ to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.