Many IBOR remediation projects raise a basic question: How do you find, collect, review, and remediate the right contracts? A company might have thousands of contracts that need to be repapered, and those contracts might be scattered throughout electronic file systems and hardcopy records.
Fortunately, litigators have spent the past few decades wrestling with very similar questions, which crop up in the discovery process in any large-scale modern litigation. As the number of discoverable electronic documents exploded over time, litigators began developing sophisticated processes for finding, collecting, and reviewing them so that they could be produced to opposing counsel or used at trial. Those time-tested e-discovery techniques can be applied to IBOR remediation projects.
An important distinction, however, is that while discovery and IBOR remediation involve many similar techniques, the two differ in their goals. In discovery, one of the primary goals is (unsurprisingly) to comply with discovery obligations. Those obligations do not hold litigators to the standard of perfection. Instead, a party is generally required to produce all the responsive documents that turn up with a “reasonable inquiry.” Thus, the overall measure of a document production is “reasonableness” as opposed to a Platonic ideal of “perfection.”
Not so with an IBOR remediation. There, we strive for a higher level of accuracy. Ensuring this high level of accuracy requires added diligence at all stages of the project. For example, when trying to locate all contracts that need to be amended, it typically will be better to err on the side of over-identification, even if that means that the review population includes a relatively high percentage of documents that do not contain IBOR provisions. As we explained in our prior blog post, IBOR: A New Frontier for Digital Contract Management, employing a modern contract-management tool also can be expected to increase accuracy. Finally, when contracts actually are amended, the related remediation workflow should have sufficient safe-guards in place (such as a rigorous Quality Control process) to ensure that mistakes are avoided.
With the cessation of LIBOR on the horizon and thousands of contracts at stake, we expect the decades of experience of litigators with e-discovery tools to be very helpful in aiding the transition.
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.
