In reviewing how one of the world’s largest audit firms uses its Exari Document Assembly software and what benefits are delivered, some interesting insights have arisen that can apply to any business case that needs to justify spend on Contract Management and Document Assembly solutions.
Imagine the following scenario: You’ve been negotiating hard on a big deal for weeks. Late nights, heated disputes, neither side giving an inch. Finally, miraculously, a compromise is reached, all parties are equally dissatisfied and the contract is inked.
Brokers in the London insurance market still, largely, rely on a document called a “slip” or, more officially, a “Market Reform Contract” (MRC) to negotiate commercial insurance risks with underwriters. The process varies between the 197 Lloyd’s brokers, but generally, begins with the preparation of an MRC in MS Word. Little or no data is captured during the process, and any information needed to track the deal is rekeyed (often multiple times).
Five years ago, I was at a party for my wife’s sailing group. Bored, I started a conversation with someone I knew from volunteering in my small Massachusetts town.
As the name implies, contract management is primarily about managing your contracts: knowing what they are and where they are; and making sure you don’t miss important performance milestones and renewal dates. These are all good things, but they don't really make you a high performance contracting organization. To truly claim "high performance" status, you need to do more than just manage contracts.
Three years ago yesterday, Barack Obama signed the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the reviews are decidedly mixed.
We live in a litigious world, and most businesses are dealing with contracts that are both more numerous and more complex. So there are many good reasons to automate and improve the way those contracts are managed.
In the context of an M&A event, a "haircut" is generally not a good thing. In fact, a haircut on your company valuation can be a very bad thing, discounting your value to the tune of millions of dollars. And if your contracts contain certain valuation-shrinking clauses, it is exactly what you'll get.
It's hard enough to get lawyers to agree about things happening right now. Getting them to agree about the future? That's impossible. So it's no surprise that there were many different views of the future at Stanford's Stanford's FutureLaw Conference Conference. The event, hosted by the "CodeX" Center for Legal Informatics, brought together a broad mix of legal, technology, business, academic and finance people for a busy day of future-gazing. What follows is my personal take on the conference highlights and some impressions on where there was (or wasn't) consensus. For another perspective, you can read Tim Hwang's take on the "Stanford Consensus" here .