Canada: Restructuring Insolvency Report - September 2014


By David Ward, Larry Ellis

In the context of cross-border insolvencies, Canadian courts have consistently encouraged comity and co-operation with courts in other countries.

The winding-up of Banners Broker International Limited ("Banners Broker") illustrates the flexible nature of the relief available and the ability of our courts to deal with peculiar and unusual circumstances.

Banners Broker was an internet advertising business based in the Isle of Man. It had an online business presence that was international and is believed to have involved a significant Canadian dimension.

In August 2014, the Joint Liquidators of Banners Brokers appointed by the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man came to Canada to seek recognition of their insolvency proceeding as a "foreign main proceeding" pursuant to Part XIII of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).

The request for foreign recognition proved non-controversial and was granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the "Court").

The Banners Broker cross-border proceeding is novel, however, in several important respects.

  • First, the Joint Liquidators requested and were granted the appointment of an investigative receiver (the "Receiver") in Canada. The Receiver has been charged by the Court with identifying and realizing on Banners Broker's local assets.
  • Second, an information officer was not appointed. Information officers, who have a monitoring and creditor liaison function, are generally appointed by the court in Canadian foreign recognition proceedings. In the Banners Broker proceeding, however, the Court accepted that the Receiver, the Court-appointed officer, was appropriately positioned to undertake what are typically an information officer's responsibilities.
  • Finally, Banners Broker is believed to be the first cross-border insolvency case between Canada and the Isle of Man.

The investigation and liquidation of Banners Broker is ongoing. Cassels Brock acts as counsel to the Joint Liquidators as well as the Receiver.


By Seema Aggarwal, Jane Dietrich, Shayne Kukulowicz

Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision regarding amending a receivership order and re-allocating the proceeds of sale in a receivership proceeding (Romspen v Edgeworth, 2014 ONSC 4340). The effect of the decision is to confirm that, notwithstanding any final orders made in the proceedings, the court has the authority to ensure that the proceedings achieve a commercially reasonable result.


Edgeworth Properties Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtor") have been operating as a property, investment and development enterprise in Alberta, Canada. In 2011, the Debtor obtained protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the "CCAA"). At the same time, a receiver (the "Receiver") under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") was appointed over sixteen of the Debtor's Alberta properties (the "Receivership Properties" and the "Receivership Order", respectively).

The Initial Order made in the CCAA proceeding provided that the Debtor held the residual interest from the sale of the Receivership Properties after (i) the satisfaction of any charges granted under the Receivership Order; and (ii) the discharge of any first mortgages registered on title. Normally in a receivership proceeding, the court will grant a priority charge in favour of the receiver on all of the receivership property to secure any borrowings made by the receiver (a "Borrowing Charge"). However, in this instance, the Receivership Properties were segregated and the Borrowing Charge was granted on a property by property basis. Accordingly, contrary to the normal course, the proceeds of sale of one Receivership Property arguably could not be used to repay the Receiver's borrowings with respect to another Receivership Property.

The effect of this segregation, however, was to prejudice the Debtor's subordinate creditors. The secured creditor, who held certain of the first mortgages registered on title to the Receivership Properties, a second mortgage that was cross-collateralized across all sixteen of the Receivership Properties (the "Blanket Mortgage") and who was also the lender in respect of the Receiver's borrowings (the "Secured Creditor"), proposed that, upon the sale of a Receivership Property, the proceeds would be applied first to repay the Receiver's borrowings for that particular property, second to any first mortgage registered on title to that particular property, and third to the Blanket Mortgage. Given that the Blanket Mortgage bore interest at approximately 12% per annum whereas the Receiver's borrowings bore interest at approximately 24% per annum, applying the proceeds of sale of one Receivership Property to repay the Blanket Mortgage before the Receiver's borrowings in respect of the other Receivership Properties (the "Receiver's Other Borrowings") resulted in less residual funds flowing from the Receivership proceeding to the CCAA proceeding for distribution to the Debtor's subordinate creditors.

The Debtor brought a motion to vary the Receivership Order pursuant to Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario) (the "Rules") so that any proceeds of sale would be applied to repay the Receiver's Other Borrowings before the Blanket Mortgage. In the alternative, the Debtor sought an order pursuant to Section 248 of the BIA for similar relief. The Secured Creditor opposed the motion.

Decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Court ruled in favour of the Debtor and amended the Receivership Order pursuant to Rule 59.06 of the Rules so that the proceeds of sale were applied to repay the Receiver's Other Borrowings before the Blanket Mortgage. The Court also granted an order pursuant to Section 248 of the BIA directing that the proceeds of sale be applied in a commercially reasonable manner.

(a) Rule 59.06: Amending the Receivership Order

The Court held that Rule 59.06 provides a limited set of circumstances where an order may be varied or set aside including on the basis of facts arising or discovered after it was made. Based on the evidence, the Court was satisfied that the Secured Creditor's interpretation of how the proceeds of sale were allocated was not what the parties had intended when the Receivership Order was granted, and that new facts had arisen since the Receivership Order was issued which made it apparent that the Secured Creditor's proposed allocation was not commercially reasonable.

The Court further held that the Secured Creditor would not be prejudiced as it would still recover interest owing in respect of the Receiver's borrowings and the Blanket Mortgage at the proposed lending rates, and that the Debtor did not delay in bringing this matter forward.

While the Court appreciated the Secured Creditor's argument that there was a need for certainty and finality in court orders, it nevertheless held that, in this case, the allocation of proceeds was not finally decided, the Secured Creditor's proposed allocation was inconsistent with the intention of the parties at the time the Receivership Order was issued, and new facts had arisen.

(b) Section 248 of the BIA: Applying the proceeds of sale in a commercially reasonable manner

In the alternative to the Rule 59.06 relief, the Court granted an order under Section 248 of the BIA to apply the proceeds of sale in a commercially reasonable manner.

Where the court is satisfied that a secured creditor, receiver or insolvent person is failing or has failed to carry out any duty imposed by Sections 244 to 247 of the BIA, Section 248 allows the court to make an order, "on such terms as it considers proper," among other things, "directing the secured creditor, receiver or insolvent person, as the case may be, to carry out that duty."

The Court noted that Section 247(a) of the BIA requires the Receiver to deal with the property of an insolvent person, "in a commercially reasonable manner" and held that repaying the Blanket Mortgage bearing interest at 12% per annum before repaying the Receiver's Other Borrowings bearing interest at 24% per annum was not commercially reasonable. The Court also relied on Section 250 of the BIA, which enables it to make an order under Section 248 notwithstanding any order made under section 243(1) of the BIA. 


This decision demonstrates that courts will be flexible to changing circumstances in proceedings commenced under the BIA or the CCAA, and will require parties to act in a commercially reasonable manner throughout. While the Court in this instance did not explicitly state it was doing so, it effectively balanced the interests of the various stakeholders in both the CCAA proceeding and the Receivership proceeding and, therefore, reached a fair result. Stakeholders of companies undergoing BIA or CCAA proceedings should be aware that attempts, inadvertent or otherwise, to better one's position vis-a-vis other stakeholders will be scrutinized by the courts.  

Cassels Brock continues to act as counsel to the Debtor. As at the date of this article, the Secured Creditor has issued a Notice of Appeal of the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.


By David Ward, Larry Ellis

In the recent decision of Royal Bank of Canada v. Atlas Block Co. Limited 2014 ONSC 3062 ("Atlas Block"), the Honourable Mr. Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) confirmed that trust claims pursuant to section 8 of the Construction Lien Act (Ontario) ("CLA") do not survive bankruptcy.

The case is significant for at least two reasons. First, it clearly held that a CLA deemed trust, like other trusts created by provincial statutes, will not create priorities or change the scheme of distribution under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") because of the constitutional principle of federal paramountcy.

Second, and perhaps of more interest, was the court's consideration of whether a court appointed receiver has a positive obligation to try and segregate accounts receivable collections during a receivership administration in furtherance of a CLA trust.

To the first point, Justice Penny held that the CLA deemed trust provisions are not an exception to the "long line" of Supreme Court of Canada authorities summarized by the Ontario Court of Appeal in GMAC Commercial Credit Corp. Canada v. TCT Logistics Inc., (2005) 7 C.B.R. (5th) 202, as follows:

A consistent series of cases from the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the effect of provincial statutory deemed trusts in a bankruptcy...

These cases hold that because bankruptcy is a matter under federal jurisdiction, provincial statutory deemed trusts that do not conform to general trust principles cannot operate to reorder the priorities in a bankruptcy. Therefore, although such deemed trusts are effective in accordance with the provincial legislation when a person or business is solvent and operating...Upon bankruptcy the funds that are subject to a deemed trust, but are not held in accordance with general trust principles, will not be excluded from the property of the bankrupt under 67(1)(a) of the BIA and will be distributed in the priority prescribed by the BIA.

As far as the obligations of the insolvency representatives are concerned, the court's conclusion was that "the Receiver's obligations cannot exceed what the debtor was obliged to do." The receiver was accordingly under no obligation to establish and maintain a separate account for funds received as payment for products sold containing the deemed trust claimant's product.

The court's reasoning turned on the fact that the provincial legislation only went so far as to designate a "deemed trust," which is in a sense a legal fiction. Unlike other legislative schemes, for instance in the area of carriage of goods, the CLA did not place specific regulatory obligations on the debtor (or a successor receiver) to establish and maintain a separate account for collections designated as a trust account.

Accordingly, although the receiver stepped into the shoes of the debtor upon its appointment, the court held that the receiver was under no legislative obligation to keep the putative trust funds separate and apart from other funds received in the ordinary course. This conclusion rests on the theory that the CLA only deems a trust and does not impose a duty to create one.

As a result of this decision, the materials supplier in Atlas Block was left without a common law trust, or a statutory deemed trust, sufficient to improve its bankruptcy priority.

It should be noted that within a few weeks of the release of the decision in Atlas Block, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reached an identical conclusion on the interplay between the deemed trust provisions of that province's Builders' Lien Amendment Act, and the federal bankruptcy legislation. In Iona Contractors Ltd. Re. 2014 ABQB 347, the Alberta court ruled that provincially created statutory deemed trusts – including those established by builders' lien legislation – will not supercede the distribution directions in the BIA.


By Bruce Leonard

Chapter 15 is the adoption by the United States in the US Bankruptcy Code of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the "UNCITRAL Model Law"), which Canada has also substantially adopted (see Parts IV and XIII on Cross-Border Insolvencies under the CCAA and the BIA, respectively).

A recent case in the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals has added a new wrinkle for debtors seeking Chapter 15 protection in the United States.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the most respected commercial Appellate Courts in the United States and is one of the two Appellate Circuit Courts that are involved in a large volume of international insolvency cases.

The case involved the liquidator of an Australian company who sought recognition in the United States for its Australian liquidation proceedings. Recognition was opposed by a creditor on the basis that, among other things, the liquidator had failed to prove that the debtor had assets, property or carried on business in the United States. The UNCITRAL Model Law does not contain that requirement but the Court of Appeals focused on the definition of "debtor" in section 109(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a "debtor" must reside in or have a place of business or property in the United States. The Court of Appeals ruled that the liquidator's failure to prove that the debtor had tangible assets or a business in the United States was consequently fatal to its application for Chapter 15 protection.

The threshold for proving the availability of assets in the United States for purposes of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is not high. In one celebrated case, the unearned portion of a retainer paid to the foreign debtor's United States bankruptcy counsel was held to be sufficient property to support the debtor's bankruptcy proceeding in the United States.2 Consequently, it would seem that the statutory construction in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code adopted by the Second Circuit can be easily satisfied but it is important for insolvency administrators seeking Chapter 15 relief to be aware of the requirement and to provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to satisfy it.

Treating the decision of the Second Circuit as only a modest setback, however, the liquidators applied again for Chapter 15 recognition and this time they were successful. By the time of the second application, the liquidators had commenced formal proceedings in New York against, among others, the objecting creditor. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the claims comprised in those proceedings constituted property of the debtor in the United States which was sufficient to establish jurisdiction for relief under Chapter 15 (as did the modest, undrawn retainer provided to their U.S. counsel).3 Relief under Chapter 15 was accordingly granted, proving once again that, if at first you don't succeed....


1 Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 2013 WL 6482499 (2d Cir. 12/11/2013).

2 In re Global Ocean Carriers, Ltd., 251 B.R. 31, 39 (Bankr. D. Del. 2000)

3 Re Octavira Administration PTY Ltd., Case No. 14-10438 (SCC) (Bankr. SDNY, June 19,2014)


By Bruce Leonard

Pursuant to a statutorily-mandated process for the review of Canada's insolvency legislation, Industry Canada is conducting public consultations to obtain submissions from interested Canadians regarding potential changes and updates to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. In this regard, Industry Canada has published a discussion paper that sets out numerous issues identified from key stakeholder input and is intended to provide a framework for the public consultations. The discussion paper includes a summary of the issues identified under the following three headings: consumer insolvency issues; commercial insolvency issues; and administrative and technical issues. The discussion paper may be viewed by clicking here.  


We are acting as Canadian counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Nortel Networks Inc. ("Nortel U.S.") in connection with Nortel's proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the "CCAA") and global restructuring. In May and June of this year, a joint trial was conducted by the Canadian CCAA Court (Toronto) and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Wilmington, Delaware) to adjudicate the allocation dispute involving approximately US$7.3 billion of proceeds from previously completed sales involving Nortel entities worldwide. The parties are currently preparing post-trial briefs and closing arguments are scheduled to take place in September 2014.

We are acting as counsel for Grant Forest Products Inc. and its affiliates in connection with their CCAA proceedings. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Services has now perfected its appeal of an order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell made last fall which, among other things, held that the CCAA stay should be lifted to permit an unsecured creditor to bankrupt Grant Forest Products Inc. affording no priority to outstanding wind-up deficits for two defined benefit pension plans whose wind-up had commenced during the CCAA proceedings. The appeal hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Eleonore Morris was appointed to the Turnaround Management Association NextGen Global Committee on February 28, 2014.

Jane Dietrich and Shayne Kukulowicz attended the INSOL International Annual Regional Conference in Hong Kong on March 23-25, 2014.

Shayne Kukulowicz moderated a panel on "Construction Liens and Director Liabilities" at the Canadian Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Professionals (CAIRP) 10th Annual Commercial Insolvency & Restructuring Program in Toronto, Ontario on March 27, 2014.

Joseph Bellissimo and Jonathan Fleisher spoke about "Cross-Border Financing and Restructuring" at the Equipment Finance and Leasing Association Legal Forum Conference in Fort Worth, Texas on May 5, 2014. 

Shayne Kukulowicz spoke on "Sovereign Debt" at the Inter-Pacific Bar Association 24th Annual Meeting and Conference in Vancouver, B.C. on May 9, 2014. John Birch and David Ward attended this event.

Jane Dietrich spoke on "Professionalism and Ethics" at the Canadian Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Professionals (CAIRP) Insolvency & Restructuring Forums in Halifax, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto on May 5-15, 2014.

Seema Aggarwal attended the R3 Annual Conference in Vilamoura, Portugal on May 14-16, 2014.

Jane Dietrich was inducted into the International Insolvency Institute NextGen Leadership Program in Mexico City on June 8, 2014. Larry Ellis attended this event, having been admitted to the NextGen Leadership Program in 2012.

Bruce Leonard co-chaired the International Insolvency Institute 14th Annual Conference in Mexico City on June 9-10, 2014. Cassels Brock was a Platinum sponsor of this event.

Eleonore Morris taught the Creditor Remedies and Tax segment of the Spring 2014 Bar Exam Prep Course offered by the University of Toronto in Toronto, Ontario on June 15, 2014.

Bruce Leonard, David Ward and Eleonore Morris taught the course on International Insolvency Law as part of the University of Toronto's Global Professional LL.M. program in Toronto, Ontario on July 5-6, 2014.

Larry Ellis spoke about "Current Developments in Canadian Insolvency Law" at the Europena University Institute's Conference titled "Current Developments in International and Comparative Insolvency Law: Corporates, Financial Institutions and Sovereigns" in Florence, Italy on July 24, 2014.

Jane Dietrich spoke about borrowing base reserves and potential priority amounts at the Commercial Finance Association's field examiner course in Toronto, Ontario on September 4, 2014.

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.

Bruce Leonard
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.