Improving Contract Management Post-COVID-19: Beyond Force Majeure
There are many contract risks tied to the COVID-19 pandemic as the nation and the world adjust to the "new normal." These contract risks will also impact the contracting process for years to come. Organizations need to rethink their approach.
May 26, 2020 at 07:00 AM
5 minute read
|
Over the past 10 weeks, there has been more talk and attention on force majeure than most lawyers have experienced since law school. This almost omnipresent clause in contracts is usually just buried in boilerplates. We are not saying the current attention isn't warranted, but there are many other contract risks tied to the COVID-19 pandemic deserving of consideration, as the nation and the world adjust to the "new normal." These contract risks will also impact the contracting process for years to come. Organizations need to rethink their approach.
First, current contracts should be reviewed and analyzed to determine what conditions need to be met before the performance requirements can be changed. Can the timing be changed? Can the duties be adjusted due to the current conditions? This is often covered in the force majeure provisions but can be governed by other clauses in the agreement. It is important to know that.
Contracts may also need to be reviewed to better understand the costs incurred if the contract is to be terminated and to better understand the potential litigation risks that may arise if you do so. What are the limits on liability? Is there an indemnification clause? Are there notice requirements? Most contracts will include language around how disputes may be resolved as well as the governing law. These all need to be weighed to understand the potential risk when canceling or terminating an agreement or, as a last resort, employing an efficient breach.
|Optimized Contract Management Process
To ensure the contracts are properly analyzed and reviewed, the process must be thorough and accurate and the resulting data should be presented in an intelligible and actionable format. Consider the following areas:
Scoping, Collection and Chase: The first step in contract review is collecting all the target contracts. If the organization does not have them centrally located in a repository or contract lifecycle management (CLM) solution, then a discovery effort may be necessary to find and collect them. An important sub-step would be a scoping exercise to determine which contracts are active and relevant. It is also critical to ensure your efforts sweep up all related papers to the relevant contracts (e.g., amendments, exhibits or others). Creating family structures between and among the contracts is necessary to understand the potential effect each contract and its provisions have on another.
Review and Extraction: The second step is to perform a review and information extraction exercise against the target contracts. Depending on the volume and complexity of the contracts, a CLM software may be employed for this review. Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and language-based analytics are terms used to describe the software that attempts to automatically review and extract information from contract documents. There are many solutions in the market with a wide range of capabilities and effectiveness. Even with the best AI solutions in the market, a second pass human review is often required to gain a more complete and accurate view of the contract level and contract family level.
Negotiation: The third step is analyzing the results of the review to determine your legal and business options and then make decisions on the course of action for each contract.
After reviewing the data, organizations should prioritize their contracts by their importance to the business—the potential risk presented, the identification of contracts most likely to fail, and the resulting impact on the business, should they do so. At this point, the proper remediation can be determined. Depending on the volume of contracts and the nature of the decisions, a CLM solution could aid in executing mass amendments and/or termination transactions.
|Adapting to New Risks and Challenges
Going forward, a good contract lifecycle process should ensure updated force majeure clauses, which anticipate labor and supply chain challenges related to diseases, illnesses or pandemics, are included in the contract templates. Also, where practicable, current contracts are amended with the updated clause. Organizations may want to pay special attention to termination provisions, disputes resolution clauses, notice requirements and insurance requirements. At a basic level, the above exercise is generally good business practice simply for the sake of having the agreement handy for when it is needed.
This may all seem daunting; however, proper AI-enabled technology, a proven process, and the right expertise will help one handle not only COVID-19 but also any other crisis that may arise in the future.
Tyler Marion is a managing director in the Legal Management Consulting practice at Duff & Phelps. Tyler brings more than 13 years of combined practice and legal operational experience, and has particular expertise in contract management, mergers and acquisitions, and legal operational consulting.
Michael Stevens is a managing director in the Legal Management Consulting practice at Duff & Phelps, and has more than 26 years of experience providing operational and technology consulting services to leading corporations and law firms. His experience lies in the areas of contract management, matter management/eBilling, intellectual property management, document management, and operational and business process improvements.
Rich Vestuto is a managing director in the Legal Management Consulting practice at Duff & Phelps. He leads the firm's information governance, records and contract management capabilities, leveraging his over 20 years of experience in contract lifecycle management (CLM), information governance and eDiscovery supporting complex litigation, M&A and regulatory engagements.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Trying a Case for Abu Ghraib Detainees Two Decades After Abuse
- 2The Distribution of Dangerous Products Via Online Marketplaces
- 3The Products Liability Case Against Tianeptine: The Deadly ‘Dietary Supplement’ Found at Your Local Store
- 4The Evolving Landscape of Joint and Several Liability in Pa.: A Post-'Spencer' Analysis
- 5A Deep Dive Into the Product-Line Exception in Pennsylvania
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