Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

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.

When two parties engage in a merger or acquisition, there are several processes that must take place before the transaction can be completed, including due diligence of the seller’s assets—and particularly the seller’s relevant and material intellectual property (IP).

When two parties come together to discuss a new idea or potential collaboration, the parties are usually operating under the protection of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). If the parties decide to work together, they will most likely enter into a services agreement outlining their respective rights and obligations, including intellectual property (IP) ownership and commercialization rights. Occasionally, parties operating solely under an NDA may start collaborating in a way that’s not fully covered by the NDA prior to entering into a services agreement because they’re just not at that stage of the relationship yet. Regardless of whether the parties are ready to enter into such an agreement, if there is any potential for IP to be created in connection with such a collaboration (even if it’s fairly informal), the agreement between the parties needs to address the rights of each party with respect to any such IP.