ContractWorks will present a complimentary webinar, “Surviving the NDA Nightmare: Managing Legal & Logistical Problems,” on Thursday, February 22, 2018, at 11 AM PST.

The non-disclosure agreement is among the most crucial and the riskiest of all agreements handled by general counsel and their teams, ContractWorks says on its website. Webinar presenters will discuss how to overcome common challenges when working with NDAs, minimize legal and logistical problems associated with them and save on overall time spent managing the NDA process.

The webinar will cover:

• How to identify common and unforeseen risks in your NDAs
• How to mitigate the risks your NDAs carry
• How to utilize software to improve your process, save time, and enhance security

Anyone who is unable to participate in the live webinar may register anyway, and receive a recording after the webinar.

Register for the webinar.

Charles Sartain, in a discussion involving a Texas case concerning a disagreement over the negotiation of the payment for a pipeline easement, addresses the issue of whether emails can create a contract.

Writing in the Gray Reed & McGraw Energy & the Law blog, Sartain outlines the facts in Bujnoch v. Copano. In an early email exchange, the pipeline company set the price at $70 per foot, with both sides apparently agreeing. But when the property owner receives the paperwork, the price is listed at $25.

Sartain addresses the questions of: Could the emails be read together to make a written contract? Did the emails omit essential terms? Was the description of the easement sufficient? Did “futuristic” language contemplate an agreement to be executed in the future? And, Did the parties agree to transact business electronically?

Read the article.

The Fifth Circuit en banc has handed down an historic re-working of the test for determining whether oilfield contracts are maritime or non-maritime in nature, according to a Baker Donelson post.

Christopher Hannan writes that the en banc decision in In Re Larry Doiron, Inc. simplifies decades’ worth of confusing and often inconsistent jurisprudence to give a more streamlined and hopefully predictable rule for determining whether oilfield contracts are maritime or not.

He quotes the en banc ruling:

First, is the contract one to provide services to facilitate the drilling or production of oil and gas on navigable waters? . . . Second, if the answer to the above question is “yes,” does the contract provide or do the parties expect that a vessel will play a substantial role in the completion of the contract? If so, the contract is maritime in nature.

Read the article.

Carlton Fields shareholder Eleanor M. Yost asks and answers the question: What is the difference between an employment agreement that says “I hereby assign inventions I create during my employment to my employer,” and one that says “I will assign inventions I create during my employment to my employer”?

The difference, she writes, is one word … and possibly millions of dollars.

The article on the firm’s website discusses a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that affirmed a decision that an employment agreement providing an employee “will assign” title to her inventions to her employer did not automatically transfer title or any related patent rights.

Read the article.

Melinda Burton, writing for Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing, explains how a ruling from the Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirms and clarifies law in Ohio on breach of contract, implied duty of good faith, punitive damages, releases of liability and fraud.

In the article, she writes that Lucarell v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company covers many issues that arise often in actions involving contracts, and it should be kept as handy reference to aid in briefing of issues before trial courts or explaining the current state of the law to clients.

She discusses punitive damages and the implied duty of good faith, releases of liability, and fraud.

Read the article.

Image by Montgomery County Planning Commission

Aetna has agreed to pay $17.2 million and to implement a “best practices” policy regarding sensitive policyholder data, in order to settle class action litigation brought against it arising from a mass mailing sent by one of its mailing vendors, according to a post on the website of King & Fisher.

Eric Begun explains that the newly announced settlement provides some important lessons in contract law, as well as some useful information on data breaches.

The federal class action litigation was brought against Aetna and its mailing vendor in 2017 based on the vendor’s use of glassine envelopes to communicate HIV medication information to Aetna insureds. The envelopes revealed that the named addressee was contacted about options for filling HIV medication prescriptions. The litigation alleged violations by Aetna and its vendor of several laws and legal duties related to security and privacy.

The contract lessons for customers and vendors that arise from the events in question, which were identified in the earlier post, remain the same. Do your contracts for non-IT and non-healthcare services fully consider the risk of privacy and security litigation? Do your contract’s indemnification and limitation of liability clauses contemplate the possibility of class action litigation? Before entering into a contract, have you considered whether the specific vendor services being provided to the particular customer in question implicate laws you hadn’t considered? And, have you considered which specific aspects of vendor services may directly impact potential legal liability, and have you adequately identified and addressed them in the contract?

Read the article.

In an upcoming webinar, LawGeex will demonstrate how modern legal teams are revolutionizing their daily contract review processes.

The 45-minute event will be Wednesday, Feb. 21, beginning at 2 p.m. Eastern time.

On its website, LawGeex says the webinar will show how modern legal teams are revolutionizing their daily contract review processes. This will be a practical look at using on-the-ground solutions for contract review automation.

The webinar will cover:

• What is contract review automation?
• How are leading legal teams using this technology today?
• How to dramatically reduce the time and cost of contract review and approval.
• A live demonstration of contract review automation in action.

Register for the webinar.

Tim Cummins, President & CEO of  the International Association for Contract & Commercial Management, discusses the ongoing evolution of commercial contract management in a podcast posted by Determine Inc.

He says the future of contracts will be far more versatile and adaptive, with technology and dynamic processes driving the way organizations structure.

He has seen a dramatic increase in senior executive interest and awareness of the potential that contracting holds. More and more organizations are recognizing that misalignment is stunting their ability to be flexible, agile and creative, Determine says on its website.

Listen to the podcast.

The recent Parity wallet “freeze” provides yet another example of a coding vulnerability in a smart contract (rather than a flaw in the underlying blockchain or cryptography) resulting in an exploit that compromises cryptocurrency worth millions, according to Proskauer Rose LLP’s Blockchain and the Law.

Wai Choy and Pengtao Teng write: “It again highlights some of the pitfalls of insecure code in the context of digital assets and raises questions regarding the extent to which software developers can be held liable to its users for losses suffered due to those oversights. As blockchain-related software that serve as storage vaults for digital assets continue to proliferate, it will be interesting to see how industry standards and the existing software liability regime in the U.S. and other jurisdictions evolve to reflect the critical role of secure software in the ‘Internet of Value.'”

Read the article.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an order dealing with indemnification for prior settlements, and it could have a hugely beneficial impact on potential indemnitors, including sellers of mortgage loans as well as insurers, reports Bilzin Sumberg in its Mortgage Crisis & Financial Services Watch.

The appellate court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that, when an insured seeks indemnification for settlements that encompassed both covered and non-covered claims, the insured must present sufficient evidence to establish with reasonable certainty the value that the settling parties attributed to the covered claims, explain Philip R. Stein and Shalia M. Sakona.

They discuss the background of the case, the limitations on using expert testimony to establish allocation, and the application of the holding to the mortgage industry.

Read the article.

Gabriela Smith, writing for Nearshore Americas, discusses several key standard clauses that should be included to make a contract strong and reliable.

“As lawyers, we constantly encounter less than ideal scenarios day in and day out when parties – for whatever their reasons – fail to sign a good contract, or even sign a contract at all,” she writes. “However, having a good service contract that is tailored to the particular situation can be one of the best decisions that a company can make.”

She discusses recitals, payment terms and timing, commissions, law and venue, work product, confidential information, termination, assignment, and modification and amendment.

Read the article.

Houston civil trial lawyer John H. Kim, founder of The Kim Law Firm, and attorney Tim Rothberg persuaded a Texas appeals court to drop a $2.9 million judgment against energy clients High Cotton Holdings LLC and Ranger O&G Operating LLC last week, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media and Marketing.

The Texas 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio found that the lawyer retained by the two energy companies prior to The Kim Law Firm filed an agreement in a breach of contract lawsuit without signing it, and failed to keep the companies apprised of court events. Due to those actions, both High Cotton and Ranger were not served with the complaint or made aware of the $2.9 million default judgment.

The 4th Court of Appeals reversed and rendered the judgments and remanded the case to state court for trial on the merits.

Read the article.

Washington Technology will present a complimentary webinar on Jan. 25, 2018, to discuss new compliance requirements for securing government data contractor networks. The webinar will begin at 2 p.m. Eastern time.

Speakers for the one-hour event will be Ron Ross of NIST; Maria Proestou, CEO of Delta Resources; and Susan Cassidy, partner, Covington & Burling.

Government and industry experts will:

• Offer advice and guidance on what contractors should be doing to ensure compliance.
• Provide insights on best practices in areas such as training, risk management and planning for in the future.
• Help to prepare attendees for meeting this requirement and maintaining compliance for their government customers.

Register for the webinar.

Dennis Garcia, an assistant attorney general of Microsoft Corp., offers a collection of best practices that all lawyers can embrace to help earn trust during the contract lifecycle.

“In our rapidly changing and highly competitive legal and business environments, earning trust is more important than ever—especially during contract negotiations as that may be the first opportunity for parties to work with each other,” Garcia writes for Bloomberg Law.

He discusses several practices under the headings: actively learn about the other party, be empathetic, provide thoughtful rationales on contract issues, meet face-to-face, embrace smart risk-taking, don’t over-lawyer, little things mean a lot, small and empowered negotiating teams, always keep your cool, and post-contract signing.

Read the article.

When a U.S. company decides to hire an employee in another country, the question of whether to send the applicant an offer letter inevitably arises, writes Samina Weil in the Fisher Phillips Cross Border Employer Blog.

“Sending an offer letter prior to the final contract is normal practice in the US. But this is not the case in other jurisdictions, and for good reason,” she explains.

She describes how some U.S. employment practices differ from those in foreign jurisdictions and how to approach the problems those differences can cause.

“Do not be tempted to send an offer letter (or seek legal advice before doing so), but have a contract drawn up for the position for which you are hiring and personalize it to the individual you want to hire,” she warns.

Read the article.

J. Brandon Sieg of Vandeventer Black LLP addresses the question of what is meant when a contract requires an architect or engineer to “defend, indemnify, and hold harmless” the project owner for specific (or not so specific) types of claims that might arise in the future.

Regarding duty to defend, he explains that: “If you agree to similar language in your design contract, then you are agreeing to hire the project owner’s lawyer to defend a lawsuit filed against the project owner.”

He also covers responsibilities that go with indemnification and “hold harmless.”

Read the article.

Regulatory compliance is an area of fundamental concern – not only for strategic investors – but also for financial institutions contracting for services from financial technology providers, warns Adam Chernichaw, a partner in the New York office of White & Case.

“Where a financial institution classifies a product or service being procured as an ‘outsourcing,’ its vendor risk management (VRM) function will carefully scrutinise the proposed relationship,” Chernichaw writes. “The VRM function will usually take the position that regulators will look at the service provider as an extension of the institution. Accordingly, the institution is required to impose contractual obligations on the provider so that the provider acts as the institution itself would act when it comes to compliance.”

In his article he emphasizes the importance of parties to align on the contractual VRM requirements that will be sought by the financial institution, and whether the fintech provider can meet those obligations.

Read the article.

Forum selection clauses that are not adhesive will be interpreted independently of the court’s determination of the enforceability and validity of the contract as a whole, according to a post in Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice’s Employment Law Blog.

Robert Chandler discussed the case of Reed v. The Reilly Company, LLC, in which the plaintiff, terminated by the Reilly Co., brought claims in Missouri. Reilly moved to dismiss, based on a contract provision stating that disputes must be brought in Kansas.

“Parties drafting forum selection clauses should exercise care to avoid contracts that are adhesive – i.e. agreements reached without a realistic opportunity for bargaining – and to choose forums which will be considered “neutral” and not overly advantageous to the party drafting the agreement,” Chandler explains.

Read the article.

A recent Indiana Court of Appeals decision illustrates the importance of having an overall risk allocation strategy in contracts where appropriate, and paying close attention to the language used to express that strategy, writes Christian Jones of Barnes & Thornburg.

In the post on the firm BT Policyholder Protection Blog, Jones writes that this is particularly when multiple contracts and parties are involved.

“This case illustrates the difficulty of coordinating risk allocation language across multiple contracts. [The insurer] might have attempted to pursue subrogation claims under any circumstances, but it seems possible that litigation might have been avoided if all of the contracts at issue had contained their own express waiver of subrogation clauses” Jones explains.

Read the article.

Form documents published by the American Institute of Architects can sometimes be a one-size-fits-all approach often does not adequately protect the developer when issues arise on a construction project, according to a post on the website of King & Spalding.

Robert B. Garner and Peter A. Berg write that of the biggest problems a developer faces in using the AIA forms is selecting the proper form for its project.

“One of the biggest problems a developer faces in using the AIA forms is selecting the proper form for its project,” they explain.

“Without careful thought and modification to standard forms, developers can find themselves in a difficult position in a delayed and over-budget project, even if developers signed a contract with a ‘guaranteed maximum price.’ Project development requires detailed attention to all aspects of your latest construction agreement,” the authors write.

Read the article.