Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Defining the Intersection of Legal and GRC
While the convergence of legal management and enterprise governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) is not new, more recent efforts to manage this development through integrated technology are fast becoming a strategic imperative. This still relatively young area of focus is already showing significant potential to help corporations better manage the risk exposure and compliance concerns that have drained so much time and finances in the past. For the intersection of legal and GRC to be fully realized, these functions must work collaboratively to define how these areas interact in holistic terms, ensuring that the overlap between the legal function and GRC tasks (e.g., assessing and prioritizing risk, creating policies in response to a new regulation, or handling a compliance incident) can be tackled effectively and efficiently to the benefit of the enterprise.
Pressures on legal organizations to reduce costs, keep up with regulatory complexity, and serve a global client base have steadily increased in recent years. Between 2012 and 2014, a growing need to control legal costs led corporate legal departments to nearly double the percentage of their budgets allocated to outsourcing work to non-law firm vendors, according to a 2014 survey of chief legal officers from Altman Weil. By 2020, according to some estimates, the share of U.S .and UK corporates expected to be using legal process outsourcing could reach as high as 75%. At the same time, in-house counsel regard regulatory issues as the number-one litigation threat, according to a 2013 study by Grant Thornton. The complexity of these efforts is compounded by the need for large organizations to operate on a global scale, managing processes, spend, compliance, and risk across international borders.
Key Areas of Overlap
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?