Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

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.

Welcome to the conclusion of our two-part Spotlight post with Lee Harding in which we discuss key employment/labor and employment law issues in relation to UK and EU outsourcing transactions. In Part 1, we talked about key initial considerations and specific timescales involved.

In this two-part edition of our Spotlight series, we welcome Lee Harding to discuss key labor and employment law issues in relation to outsourcing transactions, predominantly in the United Kingdom and European Union.

In late 2021, the Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) published Circular CSSF 21/785 (the Circular), which introduced a more relaxed approach on the communication requirements in relation to material IT outsourcing (including to cloud-based infrastructures).

The unfolding conflict in Eastern Europe is likely going to cause a wide-ranging impact to companies with business operations or personnel in the region. For technology and commercial contracting professionals, this means potential contract disputes, force majeure issues, business continuity implications, and cybersecurity concerns.

Many organizations have longstanding sustainability initiatives for reducing waste through efforts such as recycling or reductions in printing. However, organizations are now also looking to their use of technology to help improve the sustainability of their operations.

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.