COVID-19 has disrupted and will continue disrupting supply chains in many important ways, as suppliers, carriers and buyers navigate the global pandemic. But does the pandemic allow activation of force majeure clauses in your contracts? If a force majeure clause is activated, what are the rights and responsibilities of each party during the pandemic? When does performance restart and how? And, what if there is a dispute?

The following five steps should serve as a starting point to evaluate the efficacy of invoking a force majeure clause or similar doctrine in the face of a global pandemic.

1. What types of events excuse non-performance?

Many contracts include force majeure clauses, but they are not all the same – not even close. Thus, the very first step in your analysis should be to read the contract. Some force majeure provisions exclude certain types of situations like unprofitability, while others may specifically include a pandemic or infectious disease as a force majeure event. Your contract may be drafted in a way that limits force majeure events and only excuses non-performance in limited instances. Your contract may also instruct how to proceed in cases of supply or labor shortages. How your contract is worded, and the law that governs it, matter a great deal.

Some contracts do not include force majeure language. If this is the case, you will need to consider which state law governs the relationship. Many jurisdictions recognize the doctrines of impossibility or impracticability and frustration of purpose. The UCC codifies similar defenses. While there may not be a significant amount of case law interpreting these doctrines in your jurisdiction, you likely will find analogous fact patterns to inform the analysis.

2. What is the cause of the disruption?

You need to ask yourself if the pandemic itself has created the disruption, or if the cause of the disruption is an intervening factor, such as a third party’s response to the pandemic. Potential reasons for a disruption may include the following:

  • An aspect of the COVID-19 disease itself
  • Government action or prohibition in response to COVID-19 (e.g., many states have limited business operations to those deemed essential)
  • Shortage of supply and/or raw materials required to perform under the agreement
  • Shortage of labor, due to illness or quarantine or some other COVID-19-related cause
  • Significant decline in demand or material drop in potential profitability of the business metrics supporting the agreement due to COVID-19 or related events
  • Curtailment of transportation modalities or facilities

Performance may or may not be excused in each situation. You should also determine whether the contract allows for alternative means of performance, which may not be excused by the claimed disruption. Some supply contracts specify a particular upstream source, which if disrupted by a cause linked to the pandemic may excuse the supplier’s performance to the buyer. Others may not limit the supplier to use a sole source, requiring the supplier to go elsewhere to perform the contract, even if at much greater cost.

3. What steps should or must you take to protect yourself?

Does the contract require notice to assert force majeure? What about timing? If you assert force majeure, are you permitted to suspend performance or terminate the contract? Are there allocation requirements for limited supply?

You should consider how any written communication or other documentation reflecting the problem may later be characterized, given the actual words of the force majeure clause and the governing law. You should think strategically about your business’s operational needs and legal risks that the business faces. Consider how the arguments you are making in this dispute could impact other disputes, including those in which you may be disputing an assertion of force majeure. Be sure to keep copies of any documentation you are relying upon, including correspondence and emails between the parties.

4. What if your counterparty stops performing?

Can you stop performance? A counterparty’s declaration of force majeure may or may not be, in and of itself, sufficient to excuse your non-performance. Whether or not performance under the contract is entirely excused will depend on a careful reading of the force majeure clause and the contract as a whole. Can you seek supplies elsewhere, i.e., cover who bears the additional risk and cost of alternative supply? Again, the answers to these questions depend on what the contract says and which jurisdiction’s law governs.

5. What if there is a dispute?

Some contracts specify a dispute resolution procedure that must be followed before going to court. Some contracts require mediation. Think about what an acceptable resolution of a dispute looks like for your business. Carefully consider other issues in the supply relationship that are unrelated to the pandemic. This may be the time to take those up with your counterparty as well.

If you cannot resolve the dispute, then what? Some contracts call for binding arbitration in a particular forum instead of litigation in court. Other contracts allow you to sue, but only in certain courts. Either way, what damages or other remedies are available? Even if you hope to resolve the dispute amicably, developing a strategy that analyzes how your dispute may play out can give you leverage.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Bryan Brewer Bryan Brewer

H. Bryan Brewer III is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Corporate, Privacy and Cybersecurity,  and International Trade groups.

Bryan is experienced in matters related to mergers and acquisitions, public securities, government contracts, intellectual property licensing and counseling, venture capital, export controls, and…

H. Bryan Brewer III is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Corporate, Privacy and Cybersecurity,  and International Trade groups.

Bryan is experienced in matters related to mergers and acquisitions, public securities, government contracts, intellectual property licensing and counseling, venture capital, export controls, and general corporate governance issues that affect both for-profit and non-profit companies. Included in this experience is a focus on the intersection of corporate and cybersecurity and privacy as well as counseling with companies focused on digital transformation issues.

In addition to his corporate transactional practice, Bryan has over two decades of experience acting as special counsel to corporate trusts and trustees in the context of complex corporate transactions. Bryan has advised trusts in transactions relating to securitization, environmental, bankruptcy/liquidation, royalty, equipment, college/university, and the insurance verticals. He has advised and coordinated counseling on a wide range of matters impacting trusts and trustees, including general corporate and trust structuring matters, trust agreements, fiduciary duties, due diligence and trustee obligations under Delaware law, public securities and SEC filing obligations of publicly traded trusts, bankruptcy, litigation, tax, and matters relating to conflict of interest.

Bryan provides counseling for both public companies and privately held corporations on mergers and acquisitions, regulatory compliance, and securities issuances. He is experienced in providing advice on the corporate aspects of technology, life sciences, and government contracts. Bryan has counseled on digital strategy and technology in the autonomous vehicle, internet of things, artificial intelligence, and other transformative technology verticals. He also has advised emerging research-based companies with respect to the legal issues associated with the development of vaccines (including vaccines based on virus-like particles) and discovery of small molecules targeting emerging infectious agents, biodefense companies specializing in the development and commercialization of medical countermeasures against chemical and biological threats, and foundations focusing on biomedical research projects bringing the public sector (NIH) and the private sector (pharmaceutical, biotech, and other companies, foundations, and academia) together to solve persistent health challenges. Bryan’s experience involves counseling with respect to awards, RFPs, solicitations, teaming agreements, joint venture agreements, subcontracts, intellectual property, and licensing issues and positioning with respect to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and other governmental agencies.

He is also experienced in providing corporate/business counseling and strategic advice for rapidly expanding start-up and pre-IPO companies. He has clients in a number of sectors including government contractors, energy, life sciences, technology, telecommunications, media and the financial markets. He has also worked on numerous matters related to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Export Administration Regulations (EAR), Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and regulatory and export compliance matters generally. He also counsels clients on transactional aspects of intellectual property rights and strategies and has experience in formulating, negotiating and implementing intellectual property licensing agreements, technology transfer programs, technology acquisitions, and copyright and trade secret protection programs.

Bryan has deep experience in working with trade associations on their transactional and corporate challenges and transactions. He has acted as outside counsel on numerous corporate matters and transactions for trade associations. Bryan has counseled numerous non-profit corporations on formation, licensing and related contract and intellectual property issues in a variety of industries. Bryan has authored numerous articles and frequently speaks on such topics as mergers & acquisitions, securities, venture capital, intellectual property, export controls and other emerging business issues.

Photo of Mara Lieber Mara Lieber

Mara Lieber is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s New York office and a member of the firm’s Litigation Group.

Mara handles complex commercial disputes from pre-litigation through appeal. Her practice focuses on consumer class actions, product liability claims, complex health care matters…

Mara Lieber is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s New York office and a member of the firm’s Litigation Group.

Mara handles complex commercial disputes from pre-litigation through appeal. Her practice focuses on consumer class actions, product liability claims, complex health care matters, and disputes involving financial institutions. She has represented managed care organizations, financial institutions, insurers, and individuals in complex state and federal litigation. Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Mara was a litigation associate at a New York law firm, where she concentrated on complex commercial, security, and bankruptcy litigation matters, as well as employment disputes.