Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

In outsourcing, technology, and commercial transactions, cost of living adjustment (COLA) mechanisms linked to price indices are coming under increasing scrutiny with current global inflationary pressures.

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.

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.

Emily Lowe and Ben Klaber recently presented a webinar on key contracting considerations in life sciences supply chain and manufacturing transactions as part of Morgan Lewis’ ongoing Digital Disruption and Innovation webinar series.

The UK government is considering responses to its proposed reforms to auto-subscription rules for consumer contracts, as part of a broader consultation on reforming UK competition and consumer policy.

As 2021 comes to a close, we have once again compiled all the links to our Contract Corner blog posts, a regular feature of Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis. In these posts, members of our global technology, outsourcing, and commercial transactions practice highlight particular contract provisions, review the issues, and propose negotiating and drafting tips.

With the exponential growth of cyber threats, cloud computing and remote working, contract provisions regarding data security requirements have also expanded in size and frequency. It has become common practice to prepare schedules to detail (and limit) security requirements. Customers and vendors both have a vested interest in clearly identifying expectations and obligations for such requirements. In this week’s Contract Corner, we explore considerations when it comes to drafting security schedules.

Companies are transforming legacy systems, implementing automation and artificial intelligence tools, embedding digital capabilities into their products, shifting to cloud solutions and leveraging technology to better connect to their customers, personnel, and third parties, all at an unprecedented pace. The focus on businesses to get to market faster, reach a broader audience and provide real-time interaction has in turn put pressure on legal and sourcing documents to keep up. The complexity and volume of the numbers of projects (and contracts) can be daunting — especially for companies that have not yet elevated the importance of the technology law function within their organizations.

The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has published a set of revised outsourcing principles for regulated entities. IOSCO is an international policy forum for securities regulators and a global standard-setter for securities regulation whose membership regulates more than 95% of the world's securities markets.

During the last year, we have seen a significant shift to “as a service” models and cloud solutions, as well as heightened attention on outsourcing as a strategic business tool to enable scalability, improved service, and accelerated access to in-demand technology and resources. This increased reliance on vendor performance to enable business operations has underscored the importance of implementing a solid service level methodology in order to: establish performance metrics that align with the customer’s expectations and business requirements; measure, monitor, and report performance against the metrics; set out the remedies for service level defaults, including service level credits and termination rights; and agree to events that may excuse performance resulting in missed service levels.