Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

Exceptions to confidentiality obligations are largely standardized, but in some contracts a copy-and-paste approach could, at best, lead to uncertainty and, at worst, undermine key aims of the transaction.

A recent judgment by the High Court of England and Wales in the case of Jamp Pharma Corp v. Unichem Laboratories Limited has held that agreements reached as part of contract negotiations for contracts governed by English law may be impliedly “subject to contract” without the need to expressly state that the discussions and documents are “subject to contract” prior to a formal executed agreement.

Planning for major service disruptions and disasters, such as prolonged power failures, fires, flooding, and other extreme weather events, is an important element of strategic technology and service agreements.

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) on May 10 published final guidelines on outsourcing to cloud service providers (ESMA Guidelines) to help firms and competent authorities identify, address, and monitor the risks and challenges arising from cloud outsourcing arrangements. Subject to a few clarifications, the ESMA Guidelines are broadly consistent with the draft guidelines.

The UK Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published a policy statement (PS7/21) and a supervisory statement (SS2/21) on clarifying and modernizing regulatory expectations of outsourcing and third-party risk management on March 29. The expectations in PS7/21 and SS2/21 are relevant to banks, PRA-designated investment firms, insurers, and branches of overseas banks and insurers and apply not just to “outsourcing” but also non-outsourcing material or high-risk service arrangements. The expectations apply at a legal entity level rather than at a group level (save for expectations on intragroup arrangements).

In a March 2020 LawFlash, we highlighted that restrictions on service delivery locations and remote work could become key issues during the pandemic. Remote work was one of our five key issues in outsourcing and managed services in a follow-up article in June 2020. Our experience has since proven both articles to be correct. This Contract Corner will review the specific provisions that need to be reviewed based on continued remote work arrangements.

As we’re almost a month into the New Year, we thought this would be the perfect time to share nine areas of your service agreement templates that you should consider reviewing and updating to ensure you start 2021 on the right foot. Some of these suggestions may seem like no-brainers, but they’re on the list for a reason, trust us.

Planning for a change in service providers can sometimes feel like a logistical nightmare, but with proper planning and a long-term outlook, you can ward off operational issues that may arise during the process of transitioning back in-house or to a replacement provider. In this post, we’ll discuss at a high level some of the items to consider when planning a change in service providers, or ideally to consider and build into any new service provider agreement at the outset.

The inclusion of acceptance requirements, including acceptance criteria for key activities and deliverables, within a service agreement can provide a blueprint for a service engagement’s success, and should not be overlooked during the contract drafting process. In this post, we’ll discuss at a high level some of the items a contract drafter should consider when drafting acceptance requirements.

The European Commission (Commission) published draft Article 28 standard contractual clauses (Article 28 Clauses) last month for use between controllers and processors when processing personal data in the European Union. Somewhat confusingly, these clauses share the same name as the new Standard Contractual Clauses for personal data transfers out of the EEA, which were also published in November 2020; however, the two are distinct.