Canada: Litigation: Recent Developments Of Importance

Originally published in Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2007


Courts and securities regulators have recently released significant decisions in three areas of transaction-related corporate litigation: (1) contested plans of arrangement, in which the test for approving arrangements were considered; (2) challenges to takeover bids based on financing conditions; and (3) the takeover bid rules regarding poison pills and collateral benefits.


The approval of plans of arrangement was contested in the courts in Alberta, Yukon Territory and British Columbia, leading to important decisions that considered and confirmed the test for court approval of arrangements.

In considering a challenge to the plan of arrangement involving PetroKazakhstan, an Alberta court clarified which considerations are relevant to court approval of an arrangement. The challenge came from Lukoil, which was neither a party to the arrangement nor a securityholder of the corporations involved in the transaction. Rather, Lukoil had a business relationship with PetroKazakhstan and objected to the arrangement because Lukoil's interests would be damaged by the arrangement. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the challenge, making it clear that Lukoil's concerns were not relevant to the approval of the arrangement.1

The arrangement involved the acquisition by CNPC International (the Chinese state-owned oil company) of PetroKazakhstan's shares. The arrangement was approved by over 99 per cent of PetroKazakhstan's shareholders and optionholders, and also by over 99 per cent of the minority shareholders. The court applied the well-known test for the approval of an arrangement: (1) the statutory requirements must be satisfied; (2) the arrangement must be put forward in good faith; and (3) it must be fair and reasonable.2

Lukoil objected to the approval of the arrangement. Lukoil and PetroKazakhstan were engaged in an oil project in Kazakhstan and were parties to a shareholders' agreement. Lukoil alleged that the arrangement would result in a breach of the shareholders' agreement in that PetroKazakhstan's shares in the oil project would become the property of CNPC International in violation of Lukoil's pre-emptive right to acquire those shares. Lukoil argued that a plan of arrangement that was contrary to law could not be put forward in good faith, nor be fair and reasonable.

The court was satisfied that the arrangement met the three-part test for approval. The only issue was Lukoil's objection, which the court dismissed. The court held that Lukoil was a stranger to the proposed arrangement and that its concerns could not defeat the transaction on the basis that it was not fair and reasonable. The concerns that Lukoil raised were extraneous to the court's approval of the arrangement since they did not bear on whether the transaction was fair and reasonable to PetroKazakhstan. The interests of its shareholders were fundamental to that consideration.

In Scion Capital v. Bolivar Gold Corp.,3 a shareholder of Bolivar objected to a proposed plan of arrangement and raised concurrent allegations of oppression. The Bolivar decision is significant in addressing the extent to which procedural flaws at the negotiation and securityholder approval stages will affect the determination that an arrangement is fair and reasonable, and in confirming the applicability of the business judgment test when determining the substantive fairness of an arrangement.

The proposed arrangement involved the acquisition by Gold Fields Ltd. of Bolivar's outstanding shares, options and warrants. Scion, the holder of 16 per cent of Bolivar's shares as well as some warrants and options, objected to the arrangement (with some other shareholders) because the consideration that Gold Fields offered was insufficient. At the securityholders' meeting to consider the arrangement, 76.65 per cent of the shares were voted in favour of the arrangement, and it was also approved by securityholders representing 82 per cent of the options and warrants. Scion and some other shareholders asked the court to decline to approve the arrangement because it was not fair and reasonable due to a number of flaws in the process by which Bolivar's directors negotiated the arrangement and the process by which its securityholders approved the arrangement.

In attacking the procedure, Scion attacked Bolivar's independent committee and its financial advisers because, for example, a fairness opinion was not provided before a letter of agreement was signed. The court agreed that this procedure was not perfect but rejected the allegation as a basis for defeating the arrangement. Scion challenged the conduct of the securityholder meeting, before and during which procedural changes were made that were, arguably, favourable to the approval of the arrangement.

The court held that it was required to consider both procedural and substantive fairness. With respect to the former, procedural imperfections do not necessarily result in unfairness. In a consideration of substantive fairness, the business judgment of the securityholders as a whole is significant. Although the court found that there were minor procedural flaws, they did not, absent bad faith, amount to procedural unfairness. The court observed that while it was not in a position to pass judgment on the commercial merits of the arrangement, it nonetheless had to consider substantive fairness. In that regard, the court applied the business judgment test and noted that the securityholders approved the arrangement and that Scion had an opportunity to dissent. Further, the basis for Scion's opinion that the consideration that Gold Fields offered was insufficient could have been, but was not, placed before the other securityholders at the meeting when the arrangement was considered. The court concluded that the arrangement was fair and reasonable.

The grounds of Scion's objections to the arrangement also formed the basis for its oppression claim, which was also dismissed. The court commented on the interrelationship between the arrangement test and the oppression remedy. It observed that an arrangement that was fair and reasonable could not be oppressive, but that lack of oppression did not necessarily mean that an arrangement was fair and reasonable. The Court of Appeal for Yukon Territory affirmed the lower court's conclusion with respect to the oppression claim, but without addressing the application judge's reasoning. The relationship between the approval of an arrangement and the oppression remedy therefore remains uncertain in other jurisdictions.


The 2005 takeover of Financial Models Co. (FMC) resulted in regulatory and court proceedings in Ontario relating to the rules and practice regarding takeover bid financing, and led to regulatory reform in this area.

FMC was owned by individuals (Katotakis and Waters), by BNY Capital Corp. and by minority public shareholders. Katotakis, Waters and BNY were parties to a shareholders' agreement that included mutual rights of first refusal. Given the size of their shareholdings, a party's exercise of those rights would trigger an obligation under Ontario's Securities Act (the Act) to make a takeover bid. The acceptance of a selling notice under the shareholders' agreement required compliance with the Act, including s. 96, which deals with the financing of takeover bids and requires an offeror to make "adequate arrangements" to ensure that the bid is financed.

FMC struck a special committee that favoured an acquisition by Linedata Services S.A. In accordance with the shareholders' agreement, Waters and BNY delivered selling notices giving Katotakis the right to buy their shares and therefore to make a bid for all the shares of FMC, failing which they would sell to Linedata.

On December 29, 2004, the last possible day to accept the offer, Katotakis accepted the selling notices, agreeing to make a bid for all the shares of FMC. Katotakis published a notice of his offer. Among other things, the notice stated: "ABRY [Mezzanine Partners L.P., the lender to the bidder] shall have the right to terminate its commitment to provide the Funding . . . if the FMC Board of Directors or any committee thereof recommends that the holders of FMC Common Shares reject the Offer." The Ontario Securities Commission raised concerns about the financing conditions expressed in this notice, which appeared too extensive. Katotakis later issued a modified notice of the takeover bid, disclosing more conventional financing conditions.

The OSC held a hearing to consider an application by the special committee of FMC's board of directors for an order cease trading the sale of FMC shares to Katotakis. The issues that were to be considered at the hearing included the financing conditions for Katotakis's takeover bid and compliance with s. 96 of the Act. The OSC hearing proceeded, but not on that issue. With respect to the remaining issues, the OSC dismissed the application.

BNY commenced an application in the Superior Court of Justice to determine whether Katotakis's takeover bid complied with s. 96 of the Act, thereby requiring BNY to sell its shares to Katotakis.

Justice Ground found that Katotakis's acceptance of selling notices from BNY and Waters under the shareholders' agreement did not comply with s. 96 of the Act, and therefore BNY and Waters were not contractually obligated to sell their FMC shares to Katotakis.4 Justice Ground found that as of December 29, 2004, the date the selling notices expired, Katotakis had not accepted them in accordance with s. 96 of the Act because of the conditions placed (at that time) on the financing of his takeover bid. For that reason, there had been no valid acceptance of the selling notice, and BNY and Waters were not obligated to sell their shares to Katotakis.

With respect to s. 96 of the Securities Act, Justice Ground made this statement regarding bid financing conditions:

"Adequate arrangements" has been interpreted to mean that there must be accurate, clear and unequivocal assurance that the financing is in place in the sense that a public shareholder contemplating tendering his or her shares to the bid can be unequivocally assured that the funds are available to complete the purchase.5

He concluded that "this requirement [i.e., adequate arrangements] was not met by the wording of the first funding letter and the advertisement as of December 29, 2004."

Justice Ground's comments with respect to s. 96 of the Act suggested that the financing for a takeover bid must be free of conditionality. This was not previously the view of practitioners, nor of the OSC, as reflected in its written submissions in the OSC proceeding:

Although section 96 uses the word "ensure," it is generally accepted that the arrangements between the bidder and the lender can include some conditions to cover unexpected events. Virtually all bid financing arrangements have at least some standard conditions; otherwise, such financings would unlikely be available.

Justice Ground's decision poses potential difficulties for takeover bids that include conditional financing. It could be used, for example, by target companies to obstruct a takeover bid. In response to the FMC decision, the OSC made Rule 62-503:

For the purposes of section 96 of the Act, the financing arrangements required to be made by the offeror prior to a bid may be subject to conditions if, at the time the bid is commenced, the offeror reasonably believes the possibility to be remote that, if the conditions of the bid are satisfied or waived, the offeror will be unable to pay for securities deposited under the bid due to a financing condition not being satisfied.

Rule 62-503 has now been approved. It was kept general in nature so that it can be applied flexibly, depending on the specific facts, and can allow bidders and lenders to tailor their conditions to the specific circumstances of their transaction.


There have been a number of important recent decisions in the regulation of takeover bids and the enforcement of the rules applicable to those transactions. The decision in Re Falconbridge Ltd.6 may signal a different approach to evaluating poison pills. In Re Sears Canada Inc.,7 the OSC considered a challenge to a takeover bid on the basis of allegations that a collateral benefit had been offered to certain shareholders, shedding important light on this issue.

Poison Pills

The OSC's decision in Falconbridge is an important development in the approach taken by the OSC to poison pills. Although the decision is based on what the OSC called "unique circumstances," it appears also to represent a greater willingness by the OSC to defer to the business judgment of the directors of a target company that implements a poison pill.

The decision in Falconbridge arose in the context of the bidding war between Inco Ltd. and Xstrata plc for Falconbridge Ltd. In August 2005, Xstrata acquired a 19.9 per cent interest in Falconbridge. On September 22, 2005, after having had discussions with both Xstrata and Inco, Falconbridge's board adopted a shareholder rights plan. Inco commenced its bid on October 10, 2005. Inco and Falconbridge entered into a support agreement that required Falconbridge to support the Inco transaction and not to solicit other offers, subject to a "fiduciary out" for unsolicited superior proposals.

The Inco offer was extended three times in 2005 and 2006 while the parties sought regulatory approval for the acquisition. In the interim, the shareholder rights plan adopted in September 2005 was not put to the Falconbridge shareholders for approval, as required by its terms. Before the original shareholder rights plan was set to terminate in March 2006, the Falconbridge board adopted the replacement rights plan, which was substantively similar to the original. Under the replacement rights plan, a "permitted bid" was an offer to all Falconbridge shareholders to acquire all of their shares, and included an irrevocable condition that a majority of Falconbridge shares, other than the bidder's, be tendered under the bid.

Inco made an improved offer for Falconbridge on May 13, 2006, and the support agreement was amended accordingly. Five days later, Xstrata made a competing offer to acquire all the Falconbridge shares it did not already own. The Xstrata offer included a waivable minimum tender condition. Both outstanding bids contained a majority-of-the-minority tender condition, as required by the replacement rights plan. Under the terms of that plan, the Inco bid was a permitted bid because that condition was irrevocable. However, because Xstrata's minimum tender condition was waivable, its bid was not a permitted bid.

After Xstrata commenced its bid, Inco announced a proposed combination between Inco, Falconbridge and Phelps Dodge Corp. It also announced an increased offer for Falconbridge. Xstrata applied to the OSC to cease trade the replacement rights plan. Falconbridge made a cross-application for an order prohibiting Xstrata from making further acquisitions of Falconbridge as allowed under s. 94(3) of the Act. In its decision released on August 17, 2006, the OSC allowed the replacement rights plan to continue for a further four weeks, and it allowed Falconbridge's cross-application.

Whether to allow a poison pill to continue is a matter of weighing "the public interest regarding the right of the shareholders of the target to tender their shares to the bidder of their choice against the duties of the target board to maximize shareholder value."8 The OSC considered the full range of factors relevant in balancing these interests and decided that the Falconbridge poison pill should continue for another four weeks. In the circumstances of this case, the outcome of the OSC's balancing arguably favoured deference to the business judgment of the Falconbridge directors who adopted the replacement rights plan.

A number of factors appeared to weigh against allowing the poison pill to continue: (1) it was not approved by the shareholders; (2) it had been in place for a very long time, taking into account the original rights plan as well as the replacement rights plan; and (3) Falconbridge had adopted other defensive measures through the Inco support agreement.

The main arguments in favour of the continuation of the poison pill were the effect it was likely to have on the auction process and the potential for the Xstrata bid to be coercive to Falconbridge shareholders. The OSC found that the support agreement made it unlikely that a competing bid would come forward—under the terms of the agreement, only an unsolicited superior offer could be entertained. However, the OSC also found that there may be further and better offers by either Inco or Xstrata, and therefore the auction process was not necessarily inhibited by the poison pill.

The OSC also found that the size of Xstrata's shareholding, together with its waivable minimum tender condition, gave rise to the significant risk that Xstrata could achieve a blocking position. That would have a detrimental effect on the auction process—a result that would not be in the public interest and was potentially coercive. It was on that basis that OSC also allowed Falconbridge's cross-application to prohibit further acquisitions by Xstrata under s. 94(3) of the Act, because further acquisitions could assist Xstrata in achieving a blocking position.

It remains to be seen whether the OSC will continue to show equal deference to the target directors' judgment in future poison pill cases.

Collateral Benefits

The Sears decision arose in the context of a takeover bid for Sears Canada by its parent, Sears Holdings Corp. The bid was challenged on the basis that the bidder had offered a collateral benefit to certain shareholders and that it was abusive or coercive. When its takeover bid was commenced, Sears Holdings owned more than 50 per cent of the shares of Sears Canada. The offer was for the remaining shares of the target, and contemplated a second-step going-private transaction. On the basis of an opinion from its financial adviser that the price offered by Sears Holdings was inadequate, the special committee of Sears Canada recommended that Sears Canada shareholders reject the offer.

The offer initially was to expire on March 17, 2006, but was extended to March 31, 2006. On March 28, 2006, Sears Holdings entered into a support agreement with Scotia Capital Inc. and the Bank of Nova Scotia; on April 1, 2006, it entered into a deposit agreement with Vornado Realty Trust; and on April 5, 2006, it entered into a further support agreement with the Royal Bank of Canada. These agreements gave Sears Holdings the votes it needed to complete the second-step going-private transaction.

The deposit agreement with Vornado increased the offer price and gave price protection and a release to Vornado. The support agreements provided that the expiry of the bid would be extended to August 31, 2006, and that the second-step transaction would take the form of a share consolidation or a plan of arrangement to be completed in December 2006. As part of the support agreements, the banks agreed to vote in favour of the second-step transaction. The restructuring of the bid—the extension of the expiry date and the timing and form of the second-step transaction—allowed the banks to take advantage of favourable tax treatment on the disposition of their shares.

Three minority shareholders challenged the restructured bid on the basis that, among other things, it violated Ontario's takeover bid rules by providing Vornado and the banks with illegal collateral benefits. Section 97 of the Act prohibits a bidder from entering into an agreement with a shareholder that has effect of providing consideration greater than that offered to the holders of the same class of securities.

The OSC found that the release granted to Vornado in the deposit agreement, and not extended to other Sears Canada shareholders, was a collateral benefit. The OSC also found that the restructuring of the bid through the support agreements allowed the banks to realize tax benefits, and that the banks were therefore being offered collateral benefits. The OSC noted that, while there is nothing wrong with bidders taking into account the tax-planning objectives of shareholders in structuring a bid, and while the after-tax consequences of an offer will be different for different shareholders, in this case the bid was restructured after it was commenced specifically to accommodate the banks. It was this midbid restructuring that led to the OSC's conclusion on the issue of collateral benefits, and which will likely provide guidance in future transactions.

The OSC cease traded the offer until changes were made to Sears Holdings' takeover bid circular, disclosing (1) the terms of the support agreements, and the fact that the shares of the banks will be excluded from the majority-of-the-minority vote on any second-step transaction; and (2) the terms of the Vornado release, and the fact that an identical release will be granted to all shareholders who tender to the bid, and that the shares of Vornado will be excluded from the majority-of-the-minority vote on any second-step transaction. The OSC stated that it would have made this order based on either the breach of the takeover bid rules or, even if there was no breach, based on its public interest jurisdiction, taking into account all the circumstances of the bid.9

Although the circumstances of the Sears decision are unusual, the OSC's reasons are an important consideration of the issue of collateral benefits. It sheds important light on the issue of collateral benefits in takeover bids, and because it involves standard kinds of agreements between bidders and shareholders, it may also affect the way that takeover bids are structured and carried out in the future.


1. PetroKazakhstan Inc. v. Lukoil Overseas Kumkol B.V. (2005), 12 B.L.R. (4th) 128 (Alta. Q.B.) [PetroKazakhstan].

2. Ibid. at para. 21.

3. [2006] Y.J. No. 17 (Y.T.S.C.), aff 'd [2006] Y.J. No. 11 (Y.T.C.A.) [Bolivar].

4. Linedata Services S.A. v. Katotakis (2005), 2 B.L.R. (4th) 71 (Ont. S.C.J.), aff 'd (2005), 1 B.L.R. (4th) 168 (Ont. C.A.) [FMC].

5. Ibid.

6. (2006), 29 O.S.C.B. 6783 [Falconbridge].

7. Available online: .pdf [Sears].

8. Falconbridge, supra note 6 at para. 33.

9. On September 18, 2006, an appeal of the OSC's order to the Ontario Divisional Court was dismissed. Sears Holdings announced that it will seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions