Canada: Fully Secured @ Gowlings: June 27, 2012 - Volume 3, Number 2

Last Updated: July 5 2012

Edited by Richard Dusome

In this issue:

  • Court Disallows Sheltering of Unsecured Debt under Prior Ranking GSA
  • Update on Bank Act Security Amendments
  • British Columbia: The Dangers of Using the Prescribed Standard Mortgage Terms
  • Security on Commercial Licences: Developments Since the Saulnier Case
  • A Banker Asked Us: What is a "fondé de pouvoir" and Why do I need one in Québec Syndicated Loan Transactions?
  • Security Granted Following Payment Default Held to be Improper Preference
  • Spotlight on Security Documents: The Forbearance Agreement

Court Disallows Sheltering of Unsecured Debt under Prior Ranking GSA

By: Lisa MacDonnell (Toronto)

A Saskatchewan court has recently struck down an unsecured creditor's attempt to elevate its position by taking an assignment of the prior ranking debt of another creditor and the security related to that debt.

The claim arose out of a dispute between two adverse shareholder groups of the borrower ("CPCN"). One shareholder group ("EE") had made several advances of unsecured debt to CFCN over a period of time.

At issue in Eagle Eye1 was whether a general security agreement ("GSA") entered into by CPCN in favour of the Business Development Bank of Canada ("BDC") could be used to secure CPCN's previously unsecured debt owing to EE.

In 2008, CPCN entered into a loan agreement with BDC. As security for the loan agreement, CPCN entered into the GSA in favour of BDC. The GSA contained an "all obligations" clause which provided that the security interest granted was intended to secure the repayment of all present and future indebtedness of CPCN to BDC. In 2011 BDC assigned the debt and related security to EE.

When CPCN tried to pay-out the BDC debt and obtain a discharge of the BDC security, EE included the originally unsecured debt in the pay-out statement and claimed that it also had to be paid in order to discharge the security due to the "all obligations" clause in the GSA.

CPCN then brought an action for the court to determine the amount of the debt required to be paid in order to obtain a discharge of the GSA. CPCN argued that the actions of EE were contrary to section 65 of the Saskatchewan PPSA2 which requires that parties to a security agreement act "in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner". Additionally, CPCN argued that the assigned security was subject to the terms of the original loan agreement and related debt documents which did not contemplate the prior unsecured loan between Eagle Eye and CPCN.

Following a review of case law in England, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, the court agreed with CPCN. It strictly construed the "all obligations" clause and determined that the amount required to discharge the GSA did not include the prior unsecured loan. In its decision the court cited several public policy reasons for not allowing EE's actions and noted:

  1. In exercising its rights under the GSA, EE had not been acting in good faith or in a commercially reasonable manner as required by the PPSA. Rather, EE had been acting to gain an advantage over the other shareholders in an oppression action;
  2. The "all obligations" clause in the GSA should be given a literal interpretation in order to limit the indebtedness secured to the indebtedness arising between the original parties to the original loan documents, and not to loans of third parties;
  3. A broad interpretation of an "all obligations" clause would be unfair to a debtor as a debtor would not reasonably anticipate that such a clause could be used by an unsecured creditor to convert itself into a secured creditor by virtue of obtaining an assignment of a security agreement;
  4. Permitting an unsecured creditor to transform unsecured debt into secured debt by way of assignment of a security agreement would have a destructive effect on the principle of pro rata sharing between unsecured creditors in bankruptcy law; and
  5. Allowing unsecured indebtedness to acquire priority over other secured claims through the assignment of a secured claim with higher priority would be inequitable to the debtor and would cause a disruption of traditional PPSA priorities. This would create uncertainty for other secured creditors in respect of their priority under future security agreements.

It remains to be seen whether Ontario courts will follow the Eagle Eye decision. As such, when planning any loan restructuring, creditors should be mindful that courts will likely not permit the conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt by virtue of an assignment of secured debt and underlying security documents.

Update on Bank Act Security Amendments

By: Christine Marchetti (Toronto)

In our last edition of Fully Secured (March 28, 2012 – Volume 3, No. 1) we reported on the upcoming amendments to the Bank Act contained in Bill S-5 (Financial System Review Act) which were designed to address the issue of priority as between registered security taken pursuant to Section 427 of the Bank Act and an unregistered (unperfected) security interest taken pursuant to the provisions of the provincial personal property security statutes across Canada. The amendments to Sections 425, 426 and 428 of the Bank Act contained in Bill S-5 were drafted to reverse the effects of the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Bank of Montreal v. Innovation Credit Union and Royal Bank of Canada v. Radius Credit Union Ltd.

As reported in our December 2010 issue, the Supreme Court had ruled in the Innovation and Radius cases that an unregistered security interest granted to a credit union by way of a general security agreement had priority over subsequent, but registered, Bank Act security granted to a bank. In each case, because the debtor had already granted a security interest in all of its present and after-acquired personal property to the credit union, the Court held that the debtor could not subsequently transfer an unencumbered interest in those assets to the bank.

The amendments have now received Royal Assent and came into force on May 24, 2012. As amended, Subsections 426(7) and 428(1) of the Bank Act now provide that the rights of a bank in respect of property subject to security taken and registered under the Bank Act will have priority over the rights of "any person who had a security interest in that property that was unperfected at the time the bank acquired its security in the property". Subsection 425(1) of the Bank Act has also been amended to add a broad definition of the term "unperfected" which, in relation to a security interest, will refer to a security interest that has not been registered or publicized to third parties under the law under which the security interest was created.

British Columbia: The Dangers of Using the Prescribed Standard Mortgage Terms

By: Annie Siu-Fun Yu (Vancouver)

In the recent case of Kalsi v. Achary3, the British Columbia Supreme Court held that a mortgagee cannot recover payment from a party signing the mortgage as a guarantor when the terms of the guarantee were omitted from the mortgage, even though there was intent to give a guarantee.

The plaintiff was a private lender who lent money to the mortgagors (the "Mortgagors"), secured by a mortgage on the Mortgagors' home. The defendants were relatives of the Mortgagors, and they agreed to guarantee repayment of the mortgage money in the event of a default by the Mortgagors under the mortgage.

The mortgage was prepared by the plaintiff's lawyer. It was signed by the Mortgagors, and also by the defendants who were described as "guarantors". The terms attached to the mortgage (the "Prescribed Standard Terms") were those as prescribed under the Land Title (Transfer Forms) Regulation.4 They contained a definition of the term "covenantor" and provisions for the obligations of a covenantor, but none for a guarantor. The intended sachedule of guarantee terms simply never got attached.

The court considered the facts of the case and reviewed the Prescribed Standard Terms for a covenantor. The judge rejected the plaintiff's argument that by signing as "guarantors" the defendants had signed as covenantors. He noted the fundamental difference between the obligation of a covenantor and a guarantor: a covenantor's liability is primary like that of a co-borrower and a guarantor's liability is secondary to that of the principal debtor. He emphasized that because section 226 of the Land Title Act allows the Prescribed Standard Terms to "be modified by making additions, amendments or deletions", provisions relating to a guarantor could have been added to the Prescribed Standard Terms.

On this basis the court dismissed the plaintiff's case with costs, as there was insufficient evidence to identify the terms of any guarantee given by the defendants. The court also rejected the notion that the defendants' signatures on the form were sufficient to constitute a basic or "bare" guarantee.

The lesson from Kalsi is that the Prescribed Standard Terms should only be used as a template. Lenders preparing their own documents should ensure that conditions not specified in whatever standard mortgage terms they use are attached in a schedule to those terms. This is especially important as courts will not "fix" the mortgage terms or related schedules to reflect the actual intention of the parties. Similarly, financial institutions who have filed standard mortgage terms with the land title office should review and update their filed terms on a regular basis. This would help ensure that their filed terms are kept current, and include definitions and clauses for common mortgage transactions. In addition, as in Kalsi, to be effective the mortgages based on a lender's own filed standard mortgage terms must be amended as appropriate to reflect any terms of the loan and security which are not dealt with expressly in the filed standard terms.

Security on Commercial Licences: Developments Since the Saulnier Case

By: Ava Kim (Toronto)

In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Saulnier5 that a commercial fishing licence constitutes 'property' within the context of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ("BIA") and the Nova Scotia PPSA6, thereby allowing the trustee in bankruptcy to seize the licence from the bankrupt. The Court recognized that although a fishing licence may not confer the full range of rights necessary to characterize something as 'property' under the common law, the licence did confer a bundle of rights sufficient to qualify it as property for the purposes of the BIA and the Nova Scotia PPSA. The bundle of rights conferred by the commercial fishing licence in Saulnier was found to be akin to a common law profit à prendre (an interest in land that gives the holder a right to enter upon another's land and take away something of value, namely, natural resources) since the licence provided a right to the fish and in turn, a right to the profits from the sale of the harvested fish. In this regard, the licence was not merely a right to do something that was otherwise unlawful.

Since then, the Saulnier decision has been followed and applied in similar cases involving commercial licences, and in one context, was given retroactive effect to apply to a proceeding that arose prior to the Saulnier decision.

In Chez Outdoors7, allocations to hunt game issued by the Alberta Professional Outfitters Society under the Wildlife Act were held to fall within the definition of 'property' under the Civil Enforcement Act. The court reasoned that the allocations were something more than a mere permission to do something otherwise illegal but rather, rationally linked through the licensing process to the entitlement acquired by the holder, both to hunt and to harvest the product of the hunt. The creditor was therefore permitted to seize and realize upon the allocations held by the judgment debtor.

In Caines8, the Saulnier decision was not only upheld but was given retrospective and retroactive effect. A commercial fisherman made an assignment in bankruptcy and was granted an absolute discharge on April 3, 2008. Prior to the bankrupt's discharge (and prior to the Saulnier decision), the bankrupt's commercial fishing licence was listed on his Statement of Affairs dated March 21, 2007 at an estimated realizable value of zero. The trustee's estimate of the fishing licence in the bankrupt's Statement of Affairs was based on the position taken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of the Government of Canada ("DFO"), that a commercial fishing licence could be revoked at any time and therefore could not constitute property. Although commercial fishing licences had considerable value when transferred contractually between commercial fisherman, there was no effective way to force the DFO to consent to transfers of licences by trustees to third parties in the context of bankruptcies and therefore they had no realizable value.

On December 22, 2009, the trustee filed a notice of motion seeking an order that the bankrupt's commercial fishing licence was vested in the trustee thereby permitting the trustee to sell the fishing licence for the benefit of the creditors of the bankrupt's estate. Although the bankrupt was discharged on April 3, 2008 based on the March 21, 2007 Statement of Affairs, the court held that the Saulnier decision should have a retrospective and retroactive effect because it constituted a clarification and declaration of the law as it existed and was not a development of new law. As such, at the time of the assignment in bankruptcy, the fishing licence was 'property' under the BIA and therefore vested in the trustee.

Finally in Genge9, the Saulnier decision was extended by the court which found that a commercial fishing licence was 'property' capable of being held in trust by one person for another by way of a constructive trust.

The Saulnier decision, and the decisions that followed, have affirmed that in the context of a bankruptcy or receivership proceeding, or under personal property security legislation, commercial licences, permits, allocations or similar rights that confer a profit à prendre constitute 'property' and are therefore subject to the potential right of a trustee, receiver or secured creditor to seize and realize upon the rights of the bankrupt in such 'property'. Despite this characterization as 'property', any sale of the licence upon a realization is still subject to all applicable government approvals provided for in the governing legislation.

On the other hand, whether agricultural quotas constitute 'property' for purposes of personal property security legislation and the BIA remains unclear. The case law is somewhat inconsistent and in many instances varies from province to province. Quotas generally give the holder the right to produce or sell a stated amount of a particular regulated good or product, which amounts can be adjusted from time to time by the applicable agricultural marketing board. As such, there is really no bundle of rights similar to that in Saulnier that flow with the quota. Perhaps due to the uncertainty, some provinces have passed specific regulations that allow some quotas to be pledged to certain financial institutions to support loans. Until the Supreme Court of Canada is called upon to directly consider quotas, the provincial variations will remain.

A Banker Asked Us: What is a "fondé de pouvoir" and Why do I need one in Québec Syndicated Loan Transactions?

By: Alain Lalonde (Montreal)

Q: What is a "fondé de pouvoir" and why do I need one in order to obtain security in Québec to support my syndicated loan transaction?

A: The expression "fondé de pouvoir" is used in Article 2692 of the Civil Code of Québec ("CCQ") which came into force on January 1, 1994. Article 2692 CCQ reads as follows:

"A hypothec securing payment of bonds or other titles of indebtedness issued by a trustee, a limited partnership or legal person authorized to do so by law shall, on pain of absolute nullity, be granted by notarial act en minute in favour of the person holding the power of attorney of the creditors."

The expression "person holding the power of attorney of the creditors" is translated in French by the words "fondé de pouvoir des créanciers".

The majority of the Québec lawyers and notaries consider that Article 2692 CCQ imposes the following structure for syndicated loan transactions in Québec: execution of a Deed of Hypothec in favour of the fondé de pouvoir before a Québec Notary, issuance of a collateral demand bond by the Borrower under the hypothec in favour of the fondé de pouvoir and pledge of the bond in favour of the fondé de pouvoir, acting for and on behalf of the initial lenders and all such persons who may, at any time, become lenders under the credit agreement.

In the context of a syndicated loan, the issuance of a bond will not be necessary if the indebtedness is already evidenced by a note, debenture, bond or similar instrument. As regards non-syndicated loans, the hypothec secures the obligations of the debtor under the commitment letter and/or the loan agreement and the issuance of a bond is not necessary.

Over the years, the drafting of Article 2692 CCQ has been criticized by numerous authors, practitioners and by the Québec Bar who have suggested amendments to this Article.

The use of the expression "person holding the power of attorney" is considered by numerous authors as being unfortunate. It gives the impression that the fondé de pouvoir is a simple agent (mandatary) and therefore Article 2692 CCQ would not be necessary since there are other provisions in the Civil Code of Québec dealing with the agency (mandate). This ambiguity has led some practitioners to conclude that the sole purpose of Article 2692 CCQ is to require the notarial form for the hypothecs securing payment of bonds or other titles of indebtedness.

The notarial act en minute is always required for immovable hypothecs (syndicated loans and non-syndicated loans). As regards movable hypothecs, the notarial form is not required for non-syndicated loans. The notarial act en minute requires that the representatives of the lender and of the debtor sign in the presence of a Québec notary. It is usual practice for lenders and debtors having their head office or place of business outside Québec to appoint a representative in Québec to sign on their behalf.

In a judgment rendered on October 3, 2008, the Honourable Judge of the Superior Court, Christiane Alary, has stated that, although there is only one creditor at the time of the execution of the hypothec, the hypothec securing the payment of bonds or other titles of indebtedness shall, on pain of absolute nullity, be granted by notarial act en minute in favour of the fondé de pouvoir.

Security Granted Following Payment Default Held to be Improper Preference

By: Richard Dusome (Toronto)

A recent Ontario case suggests that an unsecured creditor's forbearance in requiring payment, together with its offer of new payment terms for a debt, may not be sufficient to support an insolvent debtor's contemporaneous granting of security to that creditor.

In Snoek10, the Superior Court of Justice considered security granted to a group of individual creditors ("B") of the bankrupt borrower ("HSLP") in the context of a larger Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors.11

B had initially advanced a series of unsecured loans to HSLP evidenced only by multiple promissory notes. When HSLP was unable to obtain additional Ponzi loans to service payments on B's loans, B made demand for repayment and asked for security. HSLP granted security to B in the form of an undivided interest in a mortgage asset held by HSLP, and in exchange B agreed to capitalize the unpaid interest, and to accept new promissory notes with a reduced interest rate and an extended term.

The Trustee moved to have the security granted to B set aside on the grounds that it constituted an improper preference under the Assignments and Preferences Act12. It was alleged that the security had been granted to B when HSLP was insolvent and with the intent to prefer B over other creditors.13

The Court initially concluded that the security constituted an improper preference under Section 4 of the Act as HSLP had clearly granted the security at a time when HSLP was insolvent. There was a clear intent to prefer B over several of HSLP's other creditors who were also demanding repayment from HSLP at the same time but did not receive similar security.

The Court then further concluded that B had not shown the characterization of the security as an improper preference was saved by virtue of one of the exemptions available under Sections 5(1) or 5(5)(d) of the Act. In particular, B had not proven that either (i) the security was granted for a present actual advance of money, or (ii) the security was granted for a pre-existing debt and B made a new advance to HSLP in the belief that the advance would enable HSLP to continue its business and pay its debts in full.

Madam Justice Mesbur determined that the Act requires an actual advance of money to satisfy the saving provisions, and noted that Section 5 did not expand the plain meaning of the term "money" or expressly contemplate any other types of consideration like money's worth or a forbearance. However, she questioned whether B's actions in continuing to demand payment actually constituted a forbearance, and therefore she did not technically have to determine if a proper forbearance could in any circumstances be sufficient to qualify as an advance of money. In addition, in her view there was no cogent evidence to support any reasonable belief that B's actions in capitalizing interest, reducing the interest rate and extending the term would mean that HSLP would continue in business and to be able to pay its debts in full. Madam Justice Mesbur accordingly concluded that the security given to B could not be saved and must be set aside.

The Court's strict interpretation of the Act may have been based upon a desire to prevent B from elevating its status to that of a secured creditor to the detriment of many other unsecured victims of the Ponzi scheme. It is not clear if the court's determination in this case would be applied in a situation where there was an existing secured institutional lender providing an operating line to a borrower where that lender received additional shore-up security in exchange for continuing to extend the line of credit. In that situation it would presumably be easier to establish that maintenance of the line of credit was essential to the borrower being able to continue its business and ultimately pay its debts in full. We understand that the case is presently under appeal14 and look forward to the Court of Appeal providing some clarification on this issue.

Spotlight on Security Documents: The Benefits of Forbearance Agreements - A Lender's Perspective

By: Christine Mason (Toronto)

Following the occurrence of a default by a borrower, a lender may have to quickly decide on the best course of action in order to protect its investment. If the default is minor, the lender may agree to waive the default, but a lender is less likely to agree to a waiver if the default is serious or a sign of looming problems. In the latter case, entering into a forbearance agreement with the borrower and its guarantors may offer the lender an attractive option.

By entering into a forbearance agreement, the lender agrees to refrain (or forbear) from exercising its rights and remedies under the loan agreement and related security documents for a certain period (the forbearance period) in exchange for certain acknowledgements and agreements from the borrower and any guarantors. From the lender's perspective, entering into a forbearance agreement has many potential benefits, whether or not the intention of the lender is to continue the lending relationship with the defaulting borrower at the end of the forbearance period or terminate the lending relationship. Some of these benefits are:

  • Avoiding any argument by the borrower that the lender has waived the default(s), and therefore its ability to take enforcement action in respect of such default(s) at the end of the forbearance period, by including express statements in the forbearance agreement to this effect
  • Avoiding the lender having to incur the time, cost and potentially adverse connotations of taking enforcement action, by giving the borrower the time to cure the default(s) or repay the lender, for example, by arranging alternative financing or an equity injection or selling assets with the lender's consent
  • Giving the lender time to meet with its advisors to assess in more detail the financial position of the borrower and develop an enforcement strategy if the borrower is not able to cure the defaults or repay the lender at the end of the forbearance period
  • Requiring the borrower to provide additional reporting to the lender, to enable the lender to better assess and monitor the ongoing financial performance and position of the borrower
  • Allowing the lender to amend the terms of existing facilities, for example, by increasing the interest rates in certain circumstances, amending the repayment schedule and tightening existing or introducing new financial covenants
  • Allowing the lender in certain circumstances to obtain additional fee income, by requiring the borrower to pay a forbearance fee
  • Allowing the lender the opportunity to correct any deficiencies with the existing security package, or in certain situations where fraudulent preference concerns are appropriately addressed, take additional security and/or guarantees that were not previously available or forthcoming.


1 CPC Networks Corp v Eagle Eye Investments Inc, 2011 SKQB 436 (CanLII) ["Eagle Eye"]. Appealed on other grounds, 2012 SKCA 20.

2 Personal Property Security Act, 1993, S.S. 1993, c. P-6.2 ["Saskatchewan PPSA"].

3 2012 BCSC 361 ["Kalsi"]

4 Those prescribed standard mortgage terms have now been replaced by Schedule B of the Land Title Act (Board of Directors) Regulation, B.C. Reg. 332/2010

5 Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2008 SCC 58, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 166. ["Saulnier"]

6 Personal Property Security Act (Nova Scotia) ["Nova Scotia PPSA"]

7 Stout & Co. LLP v. Chez Outdoors Ltd., [2009] A.J. No. 776 ["Chez Outdoors"]

8 Re Caines [2010] N.J. No. 123 ["Caines"]

9 Genge v. Dredge, 2008 Carswell Nfld 292, 2008 NLTD 172. ["Genge"]

10 Harry Snoek Limited Partnership (Re), 2011 ONSC 6667.

11 The Trustee had initially challenged the security acquired by 3 groups of creditors. However, by the time the motion was heard, one group of creditors had settled with the Trustee, and one group did not appear on the motion, so the bulk of the court's decision was primarily focussed on the security granted to B.

12 Assignments and Preferences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.3, as amended [the "Act"].

13 It would appear that the fraudulent preference provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) were not invoked by the Trustee because the security was not given within the 90 day period prior to the bankruptcy of HSLP contemplated by Section 95 of the BIA.

14 Counsel has indicated that the appeal is currently scheduled to be heard on November 1, 2012.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
20 Oct 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada
A panel of Gowling WLG and insurance experts will offer their perspectives on current trends and solutions available in the insurance market.
8 Nov 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.

22 Nov 2016, Seminar, Ottawa, Canada

From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.