Are Corporate Counsel Being Too Cutthroat About Contract Enforcement During COVID-19 Outbreak?
Legal departments and in-house lawyers are in a unique position amid the coronavirus pandemic. They could take "strong, uncompromising positions" on contract enforcement, but that might be a losing strategy in the end.
April 13, 2020 at 03:06 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
With all the hand-wringing over contract litigation and negotiation surrounding force majeure clauses, some in-house counsel might have lost sight of the importance of maintaining business relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a blog post titled "You Don't Always Win by Being Right All the Time," Rich Gorelick, president of consultancy firm General Counsel Strategies, warned about the dangers of taking a win-at-all-costs approach to coronavirus-related legal issues, particularly when it comes to the enforceability of contracts.
Gorelick urged corporate counsel to "consider what 'winning' means for your company at this time," when businesses throughout the world are struggling and unable to fulfill certain contractual obligations.
"At the end of the day, you want to get whatever your contract is for. You don't want damages," he said Monday in an interview. "My advice to everybody would be to help with the recovery. You have to be a self-advocate, but hopefully your clients can see the picture that perhaps winning is defined differently than maybe what it was before this."
Gorelick, who formerly served as the top lawyer and corporate vice president for medical tech firm Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp., asserted that legal departments are in a unique position amid the coronavirus outbreak.
In-house lawyers and their companies could take "strong, uncompromising positions," ignore the plight of their foundering business partners and demand payment or performance under the black letter language in their contracts.
"Technically, you will be 'right' to adopt that course of action, especially if the contract does not have a force majeure provision that excuses performance," Gorelick wrote in the post.
Instead, Gorelick said corporate counsel should be focused not on winning contract disputes but on crafting "solutions that are meant to preserve and fortify relationships that will endure this crisis and crises in the future."
Tim Voss, senior vice president, chief technology officer and chief information security officer for The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. in New York, said firms that have a more "people-based, relationship-based" perspective are better positioned now and will have an advantage later over counterparts who have taken a rigid approach to contracts.
"I think at this point it's a matter of leveraging the relationships that you have and trying to maintain that relationship through this and beyond," Voss said. He agreed to share his personal opinions on the issue and was not speaking for Estee Lauder.
"Technology changes so rapidly … that you need to make sure you have fluidity in your agreements and you get that by having a relationship where you can work through problems and challenges together," he added.
Gorelick's post resonated with Ed Hansen, a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough in New York who is focused on deals that transform how companies do business. He said he has urged clients for years to be less ruthless about contract negotiation and enforcement.
"Mainly because of the types of deals that I do, the relationship that you form with the client is in all ways more important than the contract that you end up with," said Hansen, who is a member of a LinkedIn group called "Negotiating for Humans."
Hansen hoped that the pandemic would be a turning point and spur more empathetic contract negotiations. But, so far, he said the coronavirus seems to have "amplified everything that everyone was doing before this hit."
"If you're the type of company that's cutthroat with you vendors, this is an opportunity for you to really cut their throats," he said. "If you're the type of company that is more relationship-based in the ways that you worked with your vendors then this is an opportunity to work through it together."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
- 2Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 3The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 4Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
- 5Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250