Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

On November 18, days before the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 was due to start, Anheuser-Busch InBev (the owner of Budweiser, a World Cup sponsor since 1985) was dealt an unexpected yellow card: FIFA issued a statement that appeared to renege on certain terms of their $75 million (£63 million) commercial sponsorship agreement.

The US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security released an interim final rule (IFR) on October 7 imposing new export controls on certain advanced computing and semiconductor manufacturing destined for the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In their LawFlash, partners Giovanna Cinelli, Kenneth Nunnenkamp, and Carl Valenstein; of counsel Heather Sears; and associates Katelyn Hilferty, Christian Kozlowski, Patricia Cave, and Jiazhen Guo discuss the scope of the new export controls, open issues and questions regarding the regulation, and potential courses of action to consider.

The financial services regulations relating to outsourcing by Luxembourg-headquartered financial institutions have been significantly simplified by the introduction of the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) outsourcing circular CSSF 22/806 (Outsourcing Circular).

With the COVID-19 pandemic, many industries experienced a major shift in how the personnel of key suppliers worked, with “nonessential” personnel in large part working remotely. When this shift to remote work first happened (rather abruptly for many companies), security was a critical consideration, but one that was handled in many instances outside the supplier contract, with both parties focusing on keeping business operations going with must-have data and security safeguards in place.

As part of our Spotlight series, we spoke with Mike Pierides, the deputy leader of our technology, outsourcing, and commercial transactions team and a co-leader of our digital solutions industry team, on outsourcing in the financial services (FS) sector.

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented challenges, requiring companies to adapt quickly to the way their personnel work, changes in their business offerings, and how they interact with their customers and suppliers. With some time to adjust to the “new normal” of the pandemic (and hopefully soon, the post-pandemic), many companies are looking ahead—with a potential economic downturn being top of mind.

The race to improve, automate, and modernize business operations has led many companies to reexamine their foundational digital platforms to assess whether it is time (or past time) to transform these platforms to better support and keep pace with current and future business needs and leverage state-of-the-art technologies. While the possibilities of platform transformations are exciting—from disruptive functionality and analytics to enhanced user experience—they can also be daunting from a project management, timeline, and cost perspective.

A new Morgan Lewis White Paper, Bipartisan Proposal Attempts to Provide Solutions for Comprehensive Regulation of Digital Assets, analyzes the proposed Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA) in the United States from several different angles, including with respect to issues such as key definitions in this emerging space, jurisdiction, ancillary assets (which are not fully decentralized), stablecoin issuance, taxes, disclosures, and money transmission. 

As we discussed in Part 1 of this blog series, many SaaS providers are seizing opportunities to expand their offerings and become a go-to marketplace or network, but their original contract terms and procedures often don’t fit their evolving business models.

As more and more SaaS providers, in digital health, fintech, and other industries, look for ways to integrate with and offer third-party applications (in their quest for powerful network effects), they eventually reach a point where the reality contemplated by their original standard terms and the world (or metaverse) of their now-envisioned business model diverge.