Canada: Canadian Competition And Foreign Investment Law: Trends And Developments To Watch For In 2019

We are pleased to present our forecast of key trends and developments to watch for in Canadian competition and foreign investment law enforcement in 2019.

Competition in the Digital Economy to Remain Top Priority

The Competition Bureau's enforcement efforts and public statements relating to the digital economy in 2018 were wide-ranging and preview what is to come in 2019 and beyond.

Competition enforcement in digital economy cases will continue to be a top priority with the Bureau placing the digital economy first in its list of priorities in its annual plan.1  The Bureau defines digital economy cases as those that "support innovation and the competitiveness of the digital economy (including but not limited to e-business, online promotions, sales and transfers, infrastructure support) by deterring anti competitive conduct such as impeding new entrants, products or services and stopping deceptive marketing practices online" 2.  In the summer of 2018, the Bureau said it would commence 10 digital economy investigations and in the fall, it reported that it was advancing 41 digital economy investigations.3  To build enforcement capacity in this area, the Bureau created a new position: Chief Digital Enforcement Officer

The Bureau has set its sights on digital economy investigations with high impact and consumer focus, such as drip pricing practices.4  Stemming from a series of investigations into drip pricing practices by car rental companies, the Bureau reached consent agreements5 with two car rental companies to correct what the Bureau concluded were misleading advertisements.  Each company also had to pay an administrative monetary penalty.6 The Bureau concluded that the companies' prices, advertised across various media (including online, mobile applications and emails), were not attainable due to mandatory fees added later during the purchasing process.  The Bureau has also launched an action against Ticketmaster for allegedly using drip pricing in its online sports and entertainment ticket price advertising. 7  The Bureau alleges that Ticketmaster's mandatory fees often inflate the advertised price by more than 20% (in some cases by 65%).  Given that most businesses have an online presence and use digital media to advertise, the Bureau can be expected to continue to pursue deceptive marketing practices impacting this area.

One of the biggest stories in 2018 was the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to refuse leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision in the Toronto Real Estate Board case.  The Federal Court decision affirmed the Competition Tribunal's holding that the Toronto Real Estate Board ("TREB"), a trade association, had abused its dominant position by restricting the manner in which its member real estate agents could use and disseminate information from the multiple listing service it controls, including historical listings and sales prices.  The Supreme Court's decision, which the Bureau touts as a "win for innovation"8,  marks the end of a saga that took more than seven years to litigate.  Among other reasons, the case is important as it confirms that an organization could be found to be engaged in an anti-competitive practice when it restricts access to data.  For other important takeaways from the case, see our previous article, The End of a 7-Year Saga: Supreme Court of Canada refuses leave to appeal in abuse case against Toronto Real Estate Board

The Bureau is also scrutinizing competition in the digital economy in other ways.  It is studying pricing practices in the digital economy, including new and evolving pricing techniques.  In its Big Data white paper, it reported on key competition policy themes for Big Data.  Although Big Data is rapidly changing the way that business is conducted, the Bureau's view is that its existing analytical principles and enforcement tools remain appropriate for evaluating Big Data cases.  For further insight, see our previous article, Bureau Releases Key Competition Policy Themes for Big Data.  In respect of FinTech, the Bureau plans to carry out 10 FinTech-focused advocacy interventions.9   In the area of broadband internet services, the Bureau has commenced a market study to assess whether changes to internet regulations may enhance competition in the broadband sector.10  In the realm of social media marketing, the Bureau recently published guidance on influencer marketing best practices.  The key takeaway: conspicuous disclosure.  To learn more, see our previous article, Influencer Marketing: Understanding Disclosure Best Practices.  

Cartel Enforcement: Increased Burdens and Uncertainties under Updated Immunity and Leniency Programs

In September 2018, fundamental and controversial changes to the Bureau's immunity and leniency programs came into effect with the release of the new immunity and leniency bulletin.11   The changes carry with them increased burdens and uncertainties for applicants which has led many to question whether such changes undermine the immunity and leniency programs.12 

For example, a new "grant of interim immunity" stage - a conditional immunity agreement setting out the applicant's obligations in order for immunity to be finalized - will increase uncertainty as it would result in a final immunity agreement only being provided several years after the initial proffer.  The new privilege review process is also concerning, specifically in relation to whether external counsel's notes and other documents created during the internal investigation (in Canada or in other countries) would have to be disclosed and whether such disclosure could result in a waiver and loss of privilege in other jurisdictions.  In addition, the new bulletin emphasizes the risks of revocation of immunity or expulsion from the leniency program which also creates uncertainty for applicants of the programs.  Furthermore, the updated immunity and leniency programs have been criticized for not containing an express debarment exemption for leniency applicants, who therefore face debarment from federal public procurement under the Canadian government's Ineligibility and Suspension Policy after pleading guilty as part of the leniency process.  A draft revised Ineligibility and Suspension Policy was recently published for consultation, and sets out the circumstances in which a supplier may be declared ineligible or suspended from being awarded a federal public procurement contract.  The draft provides information on the suspension/ineligibility process, including the criteria for entering into an administrative agreement.  However, it remains to be seen whether the final version (expected in early 2019) will include a debarment exemption for leniency applicants.   Only time will tell whether the updated immunity and leniency programs will continue to be what the Bureau considers a "powerful means of detecting criminal activity", or whether would-be applicants will be deterred by the increased burdens and uncertainties associated with the changes.

For further detail about the updated immunity and leniency programs, including the key changes from the former programs, see our previous article, Cartel Enforcement: Fundamental changes on the way as Competition Bureau publishes new immunity and leniency bulletin.

Fewer Investments by Foreign Investors will Require Approval under the Net Benefit Regime, but National Security is under the Spotlight

Over the last two years, the review thresholds under the Investment Canada Act's (ICA) net benefit regime have increased significantly.  The review threshold that applies to direct acquisitions of control of Canadian businesses by non-state-owned investors from the U.S., E.U., Australia, Chile, Columbia, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam  (referred to as private sector "trade agreement investors") has risen to C$1.5 billion in enterprise value.   The threshold for direct acquisitions by non-state-owned investors from other World Trade Organization member states (referred to as private sector WTO investors) also increased to C$1 billion enterprise value.  As the thresholds are subject to an annual adjustment to reflect changes in Canada's nominal GDP, the current (2019) private sector trade agreement investment threshold and private sector WTO investment threshold are C$1.568 billion and C$1.045 billion, respectively.  Generally speaking, one of these review thresholds will apply to most direct acquisitions of control of Canadian businesses by non-state-owned enterprise investors from WTO member states, which means that fewer investments will require approval under the ICA's net benefit review regime.  As reported in the most recent Investment Canada Act  Annual Report, there has been a significant decrease in the number of transactions subject to a net benefit review (falling from 22 in 2016-2017 fiscal year, to 9 in 2017-2018 fiscal year) which is attributable in part to the significant increase in the review threshold.13

While the above thresholds represent a shift in the Canadian government's focus whereby it will scrutinize fewer investments under the net benefit review regime (which focuses on economic benefit to Canada), national security is increasingly in the spotlight.  To the extent that the Canadian government believes that a transaction may be injurious to Canada's national security, such a transaction can be blocked, subjected to conditions, or, if already implemented, subject to remedies up to and including a divestiture of the acquired business.   The ICA's national security review regime applies not only to significant acquisitions of control (as is the case for the net economic benefit regime), but to any investment  that involves a non-Canadian -- regardless of size and whether control was acquired.  Certain industries attract greater scrutiny, such as high-tech, critical infrastructure and defence.  The Canadian government's relatively recent Guidelines on the National Security Review of Investments set out a non-exhaustive list of activities that may be engaged in by the parties that can relate to national security.  Although these guidelines provide some insight as to the circumstances that may draw an investment into the realm of a national security review, there are notable gaps.  For example, the guidelines make it clear that technology is a significant focus of what the government will consider as potentially leading to national security concerns, but there is no specific guidance as to when technology is sensitive.  As a practical matter, it is our experience that foreign investors will receive limited transparency during the national security review process.

In the six years since 2012, when the Canadian government started publishing aggregated statistics regarding the national security review process, four transactions were reported as blocked and various others have been subjected to conditions or were abandoned.14  In 2018, CCCC International Holding Limited's (a state-controlled Chinese investment firm) proposed acquisition of Aecon Group Ltd (a leading Canadian construction company) was blocked.  This transaction garnered significant media attention and public scrutiny.  In light of the public scrutiny surrounding the deal, ISED Minister Bains released a public statement after the decision was announced which indicated that "in order to protect national security, we ordered CCCI not to implement the proposed investment".  He further noted that "[o]ur government is open to international investment that creates jobs and increased prosperity, but not at the expense of national security."15  Minister Bains' statement is notable both because the government rarely comments on national security review under the ICA, and because it did not provide any further detail as to the national security concern raised by the transaction. 

The combination of heightened regulatory scrutiny with little transparency in respect of the national security review process and considerations raises questions as to whether Canada has become a less friendly destination for inbound foreign investment.  In this context, it goes without saying that national security considerations will be crucial for investors and targets in deal planning and risk allocation in 2019. 

Future of Competition Class Actions: Supreme Court of Canada to Decide on Key Issues Related to Certification, Limitation Period, Common Law Claims Based on Competition Act Violations and Umbrella Purchasers

On December 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal from the British Columbia (BC) Court of Appeal decision in Godfrey v. Sony Corporation.16

In this case, the plaintiff initiated a class action alleging that the defendant companies had participated in a price-fixing cartel that had raised the price paid by British Columbians for optical disc drives and products containing such devices between 2004 and 2010. The proposed class consisted of both direct and indirect purchasers, as well as purchasers of products that were not manufactured or supplied by the defendants, i.e. umbrella purchasers. The plaintiff alleged five causes of action, including a breach of section 45 of the Competition Act, the tort of civil conspiracy, the unlawful means tort, unjust enrichment and waiver of tort. With certain exceptions, the certification judge conditionally certified the action as a class proceeding. The BC Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the certification judge's decision.

The defendants have appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and its decision is anxiously awaited as it is expected to clarify many aspects of competition class action law which will greatly impact future cases.

First, this appeal offers the opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify whether the discoverability principle and fraudulent concealment rule apply to the limitation period for a claim under section 36 of the Competition Act. While there exists contradictory case law on this issue, the BC Court of Appeal adopted the reasoning of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology v. AU Optronics Corporation,17 and concluded that it was not plain and obvious that the discoverability principle, according to which a limitation period does not begin to run until the basis of the claim is reasonably discoverable, and the fraudulent concealment rule, which has the effect of suspending the limitation period, do not apply to section 36 claims. Whether this principle and rule are found to be applicable could have a significant impact on the assessment of risks by companies for past conduct.

Second, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to decide on the validity of umbrella purchaser claims at certification. The theory behind the inclusion of umbrella purchasers is that the cartel's price-fixing leads competitors who are not part of the conspiracy to also set their prices higher than they otherwise would have under competitive conditions. This allegedly causes harm to umbrella purchasers even when they buy their products from non-defendant suppliers.

The BC Court of Appeal first observed that the law governing the claims of umbrella purchasers in Canadian class action proceedings was still in its nascent stages. It noted that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in Shah v. LG Chem, Ltd.18, had refused to certify the umbrella purchaser claims, on the basis that doing so would expose the defendants to indeterminate liability, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Imperial Tobacco.19 However, the BC Court of Appeal disagreed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and concluded that indeterminate liability would not be a concern, notably because sections 36 and 45 of the Competition Act offered internal limitations, the class period was temporally limited, the class definition constrained, the claims related to a specific product, and the umbrella purchasers likely represented a smaller proportion of customers than direct and indirect purchasers. The BC Court of Appeal also refused the proposition that non-defendant manufacturers and suppliers made decisions that were truly autonomous and independent given the distorted market price allegedly fixed by the defendants.

The Supreme Court's decision on the validity of these umbrella purchaser claims will have a significant impact on the extent of potential damages for which a company may be found liable.

The third issue on appeal and perhaps the most significant, is whether there is a requirement on plaintiffs, at certification, to demonstrate a methodology to show harm to all class members. With respect to this issue, the interpretation of previous Supreme Court decisions, including its decision in Microsoft,20 is key to the arguments on both sides. The BC Court of Appeal disagreed with the defendants' contention that the methodology must establish that each and every class member suffered harm. Instead, it found that the methodology must offer a reasonable prospect of establishing that overcharges have been passed through to the indirect purchaser level.

These are important issues since, as noted by the Intervener the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, certification is often a very important decision in the context of a proposed class action due to the enormous costs of class action litigation and the risk of potentially ruinous liability which put intense pressure on defendants to settle even unmeritorious claims rather than proceed to trial.

Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada will have the opportunity to clarify whether Competition Act violations can form the basis of a claim under the common law or whether the Competition Act is a "complete code". In analyzing this issue, the BC Court of Appeal turned to two of its recent decisions, which the defendants argued were contradictory, Wakelam21 and Watson.22 It concluded that Watson already answered the question and confirmed that a breach of s. 45 of the Competition Act could form the "unlawfulness" element for various common law causes of action in tort, and refused to find a contradiction with Wakelam

As for this last issue, it is interesting to note that the possibility for Competition Act violations to form the basis of a claim under article 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec has already been recognized by the Supreme Court23. One of the interveners, Option Consommateurs, in fact draws a parallel and argues that the same reasoning should apply in common law jurisdictions. However, given that civil law and common law are two very distinct legal systems, it is a rather simplistic parallel to make, and the Court is not likely to simply equate the reasoning. That being said, if the Supreme Court concludes that there is no possibility for Competition Act claims to form the basis of a common law claim, this could mean that consumers would benefit from additional causes of action in case of a Competition Act violation in Quebec, as compared to anywhere else in Canada.

Post-TREB Evolution – Who Falls within the Abuse of Dominance Prohibition?

In the TREB case, the Competition Tribunal and Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that a non-market participant, i.e. a party who does not compete in the relevant market where the effects of the anticompetitive conduct are witnessed, can have market power, and be found to have met the first criterion of an abuse of dominance case. This represents a significant expansion of the previously-understood scope of the abuse of dominance provision24.

Since TREB, the Competition Bureau has instituted proceedings against another non-market participant, the Vancouver Airport Authority (VAA), for abuse of dominance. The hearing took place at the end of 2018 and the parties are awaiting a decision. In this case, the Commissioner of Competition alleges that VAA has abused its dominant position by excluding and denying the benefits of competition to the in-flight catering marketplace at the Vancouver International Airport.

The Commissioner alleges VAA, which is a non-market participant, controls (as in the TREB case) both the upstream market (the market for access to the airside at the airport for the supply of galley handling) and the downstream market (the market for the supply of galley handling at the airport). VAA allegedly controls the downstream market as it controls access to it and is generally able to dictate the terms upon which it sells or supplies access to the airport airside.

To be found to have abused a dominant position, however, the non-market participant, VAA, according to the TREB case, must also be found to have a plausible competitive interest in the relevant market. In the TREB case, the Competition Tribunal concluded that the trade association did have "a horse in the game": as a trade association with the core purpose being supporting the success of its realtor members, the Tribunal found TREB had a vested interest in how competition amongst its members occurred. In that case, the Tribunal found that TREB's competitive interest was in protecting its members from new entrants or disruptive competitors.

More generally, the Tribunal noted in TREB that, in the case of an upstream entity, a competitive interest may involve demonstrating that the entity has a plausible interest that is different from the typical interest of a supplier in cultivating downstream competition for its goods and services. The Competition Tribunal noted that this competitive interest requirement would ensure to limit who may be subject to the abuse of dominance prohibition. This is so even if an entity's conduct might incidentally adversely impact upon competition.

In the VAA case, the Commissioner alleges that VAA shares in the revenue generated from the downstream market (supply of galley handling and in-flight catering at or from the airport), and benefits financially (through the lease and access fees) from the prevention of competition it creates in the downstream market.  The Tribunal will have to determine whether this constitutes a sufficient competitive interest.  This case will be an opportunity for the Tribunal to delineate this new concept of "competitive interest" and potentially better define its scope. Until then, there appears to still be uncertainty as to who may be held responsible under the abuse of dominance provisions.

On March 7, 2019, the Bureau published new Abuse of Dominance Enforcement Guidelines, which incorporate, notably, key findings from TREB.  For further detail, see our previous article, Competition Bureau Releases Updated Enforcement Guidelines on Abuse of Dominance and Intellectual Property.

Other Signs of Things To Come...

Below are additional developments to watch for in 2019 and beyond:

  • Bureau to seek more interviews under oath? One of the Bureau's principal investigative tools is its ability to apply for a court order under section 11 of the Competition Act to gather a broad range of information to assist in its inquiries (known as section 11 Orders).   Under section 11, a person may be ordered to provide oral testimony, records and/or written responses to questions.  Historically, when using its section 11 powers, the Bureau typically sought records and/or written responses.   However, in recent high profile investigations, the Bureau has obtained court orders requiring individuals to appear and answer questions under oath.  For example, the Bureau recently announced that it had obtained a court order requiring executives to be interviewed under oath in connection with its conspiracy investigation of the Postmedia and Torstar deal.25  We expect an increase in the frequency with which the Bureau will seek oral testimony under section 11.  
  • New rules will subject previously non-notifiable transactions to mandatory notification. The affiliation rules under the Competition Act were expanded in 2018. Among other things, the new affiliation rules may result in a greater number of transactions being subject to pre-merger notification.   For more detail, see our previous article Broader Affiliation Rules Now in Force.
  • New direction under the new head of Canada's Competition Bureau? Matthew Boswell has been named the new head of Canada's Competition Bureau after John Pecman stepped down in May 2018. While Commissioner Boswell was interim commissioner of competition he said that the Bureau will "continue on the course we have been on for over five years now" 26.  All will be watching to see if this holds true in 2019 and beyond.

Footnotes

1           2018-2019 Annual Plan: Building trust to advance competition in the marketplace, May 3, 2018. Enforcement in the digital economy to ensure that Canadian consumers enjoy the full benefits of innovation is a theme that figured prominently in all of the 2018 speeches made by the past and current Commissioner of Competition.   

2           Competition Bureau Year at a Glance, Performance Update for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, May 24, 2017.

3          Crossing challenging waters: a time of transition, Remarks by Interim Commissioner of Competition Matthew Boswell, CBA Competition Law Fall Conference, September 27, 2018.

4          2018-2019 Annual Plan: Building trust to advance competition in the marketplace, May 3, 2018

5           A consent agreement has the force of a court order and is in effect for 10 years, which means that, even after paying their penalties, the rental car companies will have to continue honouring the other terms of the agreement or face criminal consequences.

6          Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada to pay a $1 million penalty for advertising unattainable prices, February 22, 2018; Discount car rental penalised for advertising unattainable prices, October 11, 2018.

7          The Bureau has investigated Ticketmaster on the basis that its advertised prices for sports and entertainment tickets are deceptive because consumers must pay additional fees that are added later in the purchasing process, which results in consumers paying much higher prices than advertised.  In early 2018, following its investigation, the Bureau sued Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation, for allegedly making deceptive claims to consumers when advertising prices.  The Bureau is seeking an administrative monetary penalty of an unspecified amount.

8         Crossing challenging waters: a time of transition, Remarks by Interim Commissioner of Competition Matthew Boswell, CBA Competition Law Fall Conference, September 27, 2018.

9          2018-2019 Annual Plan: Building trust to advance competition in the marketplace, May 3, 2018

10           Competition Bureau Broadband Market Study Update, October 16, 2018. The Bureau expects to publish results of the study no later than June 2019. 

11          On March 15, 2019, the Bureau issued a further update to its Immunity and Leniency Programs to clarify that participants in the programs are cooperating witnesses and not confidential informers.  The identity of participants will continue to be kept confidential, except in the specific circumstances outlined in the programs. 

12          The release of the new bulletin follows two rounds of public consultations spanning 2017 and 2018.

13         Annual Report, Investment Canada Act, 2017-2018, March 1, 2019.

14         Since the implementation of a formal national security review process in 2009, 15 national security review orders were issued between 2012 and 2018.  In all 15 cases, the transaction was blocked, abandoned, or subjected to conditions. The majority of the national security reviews that have been ordered were in respect of investors from China (10 orders) and Russia (2 orders). 

15          Press Release: Minister Bains statement on CCCI's proposed acquisition of Aecon.

16         2017 BCCA 302.

17        2016 ONCA 621.

18        2017 ONSC 2586.

19         R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42.

20          Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. V. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57.

21         Wakelam v. Johnson & Johnson, 2014 BCCA 36 ("Wakelam").

22        Watson v. Bank of America Corporation, 2015 BCCA 362 ("Watson").

23        Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, 2013 SCC 59.

24        In the Tribunal's original decision in TREB it held that because TREB (a trade association) does not compete with its members, its actions in relation to those members are not subject to review under the abuse of dominance provision.  For further detail, see our previous article, Competition Tribunal Dismisses Abuse Case Against Toronto Real Estate Board.

25        Competition Bureau obtains court order to advance ongoing investigation of Postmedia and Torstar, December 4, 2018.

26        Crossing challenging waters: a time of transition, Remarks by Interim Commissioner of Competition Matthew Boswell, CBA Competition Law Fall Conference, September 27, 2018.

To view the original article click here

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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