Risk Management

IACCM Council Representatives
Network Leads

This is the home page for the Risk Management Group.

Network Updates

Webinar - Year-end reality check: It's crunch time for contracts

It's year-end and time to take a reality check during this crunch time for contracts. Effectively overseeing your organizations contracts can be overwhelming, especially as quarter or year-end approaches. The pressure to get deals done is a real challenge, not just of workload, but also the risk of non-compliance, errors and oversights.


Ask The Expert: How to get really efficient at reviewing contracts!

We all have too much to do, and not enough time to do it. Getting through the stack of contracts and mark-ups is a never-ending challenge. Sometimes you wonder if your time is well spent, or if you're just pushing paper. In this insightful and entertaining webinar from Tiffany Kemp, one of IACCM's most popular speakers, we'll explore some ways you can increase your productivity, and maximize the value you bring to your organization.


Vendor financing agreements

Some (small and cash strapped) oil and gas operators are resorting to vendor financing agreements with major hardware suppliers / service providers as a way of raising the funding for their development projects. Is it really possible for the small operator, who may have limited alternatives for raising capital for his project, to negotiate a fair deal out of such arrangements. Does anyone have any experience of a vendor financing arrangement between a small operator and a major vendor which worked out well for the operator in the long run.


Limitation of liability Clause in License Agreement

Our customer is not accepting limitation to direct damages stating that "failure of the Software means we won't be able to fulfill our obligation towards customers and our liability to them. Also any limitation to direct damages is not acceptable." They are demanding 150% CAP for LoL. Can you suggest some argument or some standard guidelines on the same? How can I secure my organisation interest?


AM Contract P1 and P2 assignment based on User category

Hi, I am dealing with a contract wherein Priority 1 and 2 is assigned based on user category who raised it. If user raising Incident is VIP user then it will be raised as P1 or P2 irrespective of severity of Incident. It leads to exposure to liability to my company when any breach of single incident raised by VIP impose liability on me. Also there is no defined process as minimum number of P1 & P2 tickets quota for applicability of penalty on breach. Is there any workaround to come out of this trap ? Can I propose some changes to this arrangement ?


Additional resources

Hello everyone, Following our webinar at the end of October, I am coming back with few recommendations on the available resources on IACCM: - Ask The Expert: Mitigating Cyber Risks with Third Parties - Asia Pacific Ask The Expert: Cyber Resilience - The role of contract in the Fourth Industrial Revolution - Ask The Expert: Data Protection - the global impact of GDPR In addition to presentations above, there are few white papers that can provide more details on what what ransomware is and how it works. See, for example: - Mcafee Understanding Ransomware and Strategies to Defeat it: https://www.mcafee.com/uk/resources/white-papers/wp-understanding-ransomware-strategies-defeat.pdf - The Wannacry Ransomware: http://cert-mu.govmu.org/English/Documents/White%20Papers/White%20Paper%20-%20The%20WannaCry%20Ransomware%20Attack.pdf It would be great to see your own thoughts or resources you find useful. Kind regards, Daniela


Freight Forwarder's Liability for Cargo Loss

Hello, We are currently negotiating a contract for international freight forwarding services and would appreciate suggestions and feedback regarding liability for cargo loss/damage. Will freight forwarders agree to assume such liability and, if so, how much? And will they agree to provide cargo insurance? We understand there are international conventions and laws governing this matter which tend to limit the freight forwarder's liability, but we also understand that parties are free to contract differently if they so choose. What we don't know, are the industry norms. Any advice you may have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks


Qatar: Return of Performance Guarentee

Having an interesting debate with a PMC here just now. Our contract is NEC3, the clause regarding the return of our performance guarantee states that we will receive it "Upon completion of the contract" which is a term not clearly defined in the document (elsewhere the terminology is NEC3 and refers to "completion of delivery of the goods and services"). My view is that as with FIDIC we should be receiving our guarantee back upon completion of the works (goods and services) whereas the PMC state that it should be held for the 2 year defects liability period. Question: Is this lack of clarity sufficient to show an ambiguity and therefore as per Qatar civil code this should be interpreted in my favour?


Thank you

Great to see the inclusion of theory in this space and love the fact that you have brought back the importance of risk into this subject. Collaboration and the new ISO 11000 are seeing a real push in this area and it is great, as a training professional and change agent, that we are seeing a lot of requests for training in collaboration and customer service excellence but the link between behaviours, leadership and process are clear in this presentation and a critical part in moving forward. Cath

Network Members