Worldwide: Claims Against Insolvent Funds

This article originally appeared in Offshore Funds Today. To read the magazine in it's entirety please click here.

The drafting changes just discussed are primarily intended to ensure that funds do not become embroiled in contractual disputes, but in a global recession more and more funds are finding themselves in disputes that threaten to end up, and sometimes do end up, before the courts. In this chapter we analyse the legal issues surrounding key matters in the current litigious environment and cover the following:

  • NAV restatements and clawbacks
  • claims against service providers
  • shareholders status as creditors and/or members
  • recent changes in Cayman's insolvency regime
  • international co-operation in liquidations

Recalculation of Published Net Asset Values

A recurring question, which is still untried in the Cayman courts, and which has arisen in the context of several liquidations in which we are involved, is whether it is possible for a fund to restate a NAV once it has been published. If so, can a fund or its liquidator clawback payments made to investors following the discovery of an overstated NAV?

The Cayman courts are yet to determine whether, in the discharge of their duties, liquidators of Cayman companies are able, as a matter of principle, to recalculate NAVs (and the individual values attributed to a company's assets) which were finalised prior to the commencement of the liquidation.

In our view, it is unlikely, subject to certain fraud related exceptions and the particular terms of the fund documentation, that a fund or its liquidator may unilaterally adjust previously settled NAVs.

Many funds, within their governing documentation, make specific provisions allowing their directors to recalculate published NAVs in circumstances where a NAV was based on mistake or error. The reasoning behind this is simple: the NAV should reflect the true value of the fund, and where a mistake or error is evident, that mistake or error ought be capable of being rectified. However, such provisions are usually limited to a "hold back period", usually after the NAV has been calculated but prior to a year -end audit, and during which time a percentage (usually 5% or 10%) of the redemption price is withheld pending completion of the fund's audit. Should an adjustment to the NAV be necessary, the Fund is able to recover any "over payment" from those monies withheld, and remit the balance to the redeeming investor. Whether such a hold back provision, of itself, will be sufficient to enable a unilateral recalculation of a NAV will ultimately be a matter of construction of the particular document. It is, therefore, not uncommon for provision within a fund's governing documentation to provide that the NAV is not finally determined until completion of the year-end audit.

Even if such provisions are present, it is not clear that this entitles the fund to recalculate the NAV in the light of information available only after the date for which it is calculated.

There are opposing views on this: on one side, a NAV is to be recalculated to its true value, in light of information available subsequently. On the other side, the view is that the NAV is to be calculated on the notional basis of what would have been realised if disposed of on that date - and which necessarily excludes information not available on that date. Our position is that the latter position is correct.

Most funds' governing documentation includes some form of final and binding provision with respect to NAVs, to the effect that once a certificate is issued declaring the NAV, this is a final determination binding on all parties.

In In the Matter of Livingston International Fund Ltd. (In Liquidation) (Unreported 2004, High Court of Justice, British Virgin Islands, Rawlins J.) the BVI Court was required to determine whether there was any legal basis to recalculate previously settled NAVs. There, the Court was required to determine the point based on documents with a "final and binding NAV" clause, and no holdback provision. It was not disputed that the NAV, calculated on a monthly basis, was significantly wrong (to the tune of 50%) for three months during 2001. In finding that the liquidators were not entitled to recalculate the NAV, the presiding judge commented as follows:

"...However, [the final and binding NAV clause] of the Articles of Association of the Fund is intended to promote certainty and business efficacy. Investors, particularly significant investors in private funds, make far reaching decisions and, in turn, incur significant financial obligations on the basis of reported NAVs. [One investor], for example, ... relied on the NAVs that the Fund issued in arriving at the decisions and managing the Funds of its own investors. For purposes of business efficacy in this case, I see no good reason to find that the published NAVs are not binding ...".

A Bermuda Court was likewise unwilling to allow a recalculation of the NAV. In In the Matter of Stewardship Credit Arbitrage Fund, Ltd (Unreported, 266 of 2008, Supreme Court of Bermuda, Bell J) the Court was faced with the issue as to whether a recalculation of the NAV was, as a matter of law, possible. As with Livingston a provision providing for finality was included in the fund's governing documentation. That provision was in the following terms:

"Any certificate as to the Net Asset Value, a Class NAV, a Series NAV or the Net Asset Value per Participating share of any Class or Series or as to the Subscription Price or Redemption price therefore given in good faith by or on behalf of the Board shall be binding on all parties".

The overstatement necessarily arose as a result of a fraud committed by Mr. Petters. Mr. Petters was the controlling mind of a number of companies in which the company in question, Stewardship, invested approximately 70% of its assets. As a result of Mr. Petters' actions, the real value of Stewardship's investments in the "Petters companies" was significantly lower than recorded in Stewardship's book and records, as reflected in its NAV. In finding that the NAV was unable to be recalculated, the Court commented as follows:

"...There is no logic in simply recalculating the NAV at the redemption date for the Gottex Funds of 31 March 2008, when the Petters Fraud was not discovered until some months later; there would also be a need to effect a recalculation of the position when the Gottex Fund first invested, and no doubt also in relation to all other redemptions and subscriptions. As Mr. Potts puts it, it would be necessary to unravel the entire operation of the fund and the magnitude of such a task cannot be over emphasised. It also seems to me that to do the exercise properly, the Company would need to know the true position in relation to the value of the underlying loan collateral for each revision date, or, put another way, the extent of the Petters Fraud in relation to each such collateral, a truly impossible task. No doubt that is precisely why the relevant bye-law contained the provision which it did, making for certainty once the NAV had been determined".

The Courts' rulings in each of Livingston and Stewardship are, in our view, compelling. Whilst these decisions would not be binding on the Cayman Court, they would be highly persuasive.

There does, however, appear to be one avenue which remains untested - fraud. There is a long standing legal maxim "fraud unravels everything". Whilst Stewardship did arise in circumstances where a fraud had been committed, that fraud was committed within the context of a group of companies in which the relevant fund invested, not within the fund itself. It may be open to argue that the NAV ought be recalculated in circumstances where the NAV has been overstated as the result of a fraud having been committed against the fund itself.

Clawback Claims

If it is possible to restate a published NAV, the question then necessarily becomes: what action can be taken to recover those sums already paid out to investors at the inflated value?

We expect to see a number of cases relevant to this issue arising out of the Madoff affair. Irving Picard, the SIPC trustee (Securities Investor Protector Corp.), has already made it clear he will be looking to clawback the profit element of Madoff redemption funds from direct customers. Whilst this will be played out in the US courts we expect that some of these direct investors may look to their own investors to pass on the clawback liability.

Any such claim in either Cayman or the BVI would be brought either under the contractual provisions in the relevant fund's articles, or under common law principles of mistaken payment or unjust enrichment. Unlike private equity partnership provisions, corporate hedge funds do not typically include contractual clawbacks.

Unless there is some express contractual provision allowing clawback, it seems highly unlikely that any liquidator or fund may be able to clawback payments once paid out. The common law provides any bona fide recipient of funds paid out in error or arising out of a mistake with a "change of position" defence, which makes it inequitable for the redemption proceeds to be restored. A recipient in such circumstances is able to resist a claim if it has received the funds and paid them on, for example, to its own investors. If a BVI or Cayman fund which has received a payment from Madoff is subject to a claim from the SIPC trustee, then we would expect the liquidator to reject the claim (on the basis of innocent receipt and a change of position). The SIPC trustee might appeal to the court and if the court reverses the rejection, the liquidator might consider clawback claims against the shareholders. However, the possibility of succeeding with such a claim seems very remote and accordingly we do not expect to see such speculative actions being initiated.

It remains to be seen whether the Cayman courts will follow Bermuda and BVI in the question of restatement of NAVs. It also remains to be seen whether the Madoff clawback claims by the SIPC trustee trigger clawback claims against indirect Madoff investors. Amongst the claims that have been made to date are claims against Fairfield Greenwich's three BVI funds: J Ezra Merkin's funds, including Ascot Partners, a US fund; Ariel Fund, a Cayman fund; and against Harley International, a Cayman fund. Accordingly, it is not yet clear whether funds' documents should provide additional flexibility to restate NAVs in the event of error or fraud. For now, on balance, we prefer to stick with the current provisions. Any provisions that allowed for revisions of NAV may increase litigation and claims.

Claims Against Directors And Service Providers

Looking beyond claims brought or threatened against funds themselves, we are seeing an increase in actual or potential claims by liquidators (or by shareholders by derivative action) against directors or other service providers. In neither Cayman nor BVI is there statutory regulation of indemnity or exculpation clauses and it remains common practice to include such provisions in the constitutional and contractual documents. By way of example, set out below are indemnity provisions from Ogier's standard form of Articles of Association:

163. Every Director (including for the purposes of this Article, any alternate Director appointed pursuant to the provisions of these Articles), managing Director, agent, Secretary, or other officer for the time being and from time to time of the Company and the personal representatives of the same shall be indemnified and secured harmless out of the assets and funds of the Company against all actions, proceedings, costs, charges, expenses, losses, damages or liabilities of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising incurred or sustained by him otherwise than by reason of his own Gross Negligence or wilful default in or about the conduct of the Company's business or affairs or in the execution or discharge of his duties, powers, authorities or discretions, including without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any costs, expenses, losses or liabilities incurred by him in defending (whether successfully or otherwise) any civil proceedings concerning the Company, its business or its affairs in any court whether in the Islands or elsewhere.

164. The Administrator, the Investment Manager and any other agent which the Company has appointed shall be entitled to such indemnity from the Company under such terms and subject to such conditions and exceptions and with such entitlement to have recourse to the assets of the Company with a view to meeting and discharging the cost thereof as shall be specified in the relevant contract or instrument appointing such agent.

The meaning of terms such as fraud, dishonesty, personal dishonesty, wilful default, gross negligence and the like are matters for determination by the Court. There can, in any event, be no exculpation or indemnity for fraud or dishonesty as any such provision would be contrary to public policy in Cayman and BVI and would not be given effect to. In addition, there is first instance Cayman authority that it is not permissible for directors to exclude or be indemnified for liability arising out of their own wilful default or wilful neglect as the court held that this would be inconsistent with the core fiduciary duties to which they are subject.

In many instances, the term "gross negligence", which has no statutory definition in Cayman or BVI, may be afforded a contractual definition such as "a standard of misconduct beyond negligence whereby a person acts with reckless disregard for the consequences of his action or inaction" to provide guidance to and clarification for the courts in interpreting such a clause.

We have seen many posturing and pre-litigation letters, but in the light of broad indemnity provisions and the difficulty in establishing that a director or service provider has been grossly negligent, we have not seen any court action by investors. We expect that some claims by liquidators may yet be pursued and we anticipate that the Court decisions arising will provide important guidance and authority on the fiduciary and contractual duties owed by directors and service providers and permissible exculpation and indemnification provisions.

Shareholders: Creditors Or Members?

We have already discussed the recent Cayman Court of Appeal decision in In the Matter of Strategic Master Partnership Limited which confirmed that, in general terms:

  • where an investor has served a redemption request and the redemption day to which it relates falls before the commencement of the liquidation, that investor is a creditor in respect of any unpaid redemption price due; and
  • where an investor has submitted a redemption request but the redemption day to which it relates falls after the commencement of the liquidation, the redemption will not be capable of enforcement and so no obligation to pay the redemption price will arise. As such, that investor will remain a member of the fund in respect of those shares.

In Cayman, the "commencement of the liquidation" is either the time at which the resolution to commence winding up is passed by the members, or the time at which a petition for the appointment of a liquidator is presented to the Court. This timing for Cayman Court petitioned liquidations is worth highlighting as the petition may be presented to the Court several weeks and sometimes months before the Court grants the petition to appoint the liquidator. In contrast, liquidation under BVI law is deemed by statute to commence on the granting by the Court of the petition to appoint the liquidator or on the passing of the resolution. From an operational and administrative standpoint, Cayman law provides that any disposal of property and any change in the status of members in the period between the petition being presented and it being granted by the Court (such as any redemption) is void unless the Court determines otherwise.

It is also worth noting that the Insolvency Act in BVI goes further and prevents "past members", being members who have redeemed during the period of one year before the commencement of a liquidation, from making a formal creditor's claim in a liquidation for unpaid redemption proceeds. As such, a past member of a BVI fund will, in respect of any unpaid redemption proceeds, rank alongside members who have not redeemed their shares.

The significance of whether an investor is truly a creditor or a member arises in terms of the priority of the relevant claim:

Creditors - investors who are determined to be creditors upon the commencement of the liquidation of the fund rank behind secured and unsecured third party creditors (i.e., those whose debts do not represent payments in respect of their shares) but ahead of the members.

Members - investors who are determined to be members upon the commencement of the liquidation of the fund are entitled to participate only in the surplus assets of the fund following settlement of all of the fund's liabilities to its creditors.

Recent Changes In Cayman's Insolvency Regime

Liquidation is often regarded as the refuge of last resort, when all other means (such as the use of liquidating trusts, synthetic side pockets, successor funds, new share classes etc.) have failed. However, recognising that liquidation is a fact of corporate life, the liquidation regime has been updated and amended in Cayman with effect from 1 March 2009.

The new regime, as set out in the Companies Law (Revised), the Foreign Bankruptcy Proceedings (International Cooperation) Rules and the Grand Court Rules, provides Cayman with a comprehensive, flexible, self contained, creditor-friendly regime for corporate liquidations which includes specific provisions to facilitate international co-operation in cross-border insolvencies. The BVI has a similar insolvency regime provided for within its Insolvency Act.

There are a number of important changes which are the subject of separate detailed Ogier briefing notes. In order to understand the changes in the insolvency environment we review below the principal changes to the winding up options available as a result of the new insolvency regime and also review the new provisions dealing with international co-operation on cross-border insolvencies.

Under the new regime, there remain three kinds of winding up: compulsory, voluntary and voluntary under court supervision (for all practical purposes the same as compulsory winding up).

Compulsory Winding Up

The new regime retains the previously existing cash flow test for solvency, namely that the fund concerned must be able to pay its current debts from its currently available assets to maintain solvency. In addition, a balance sheet test evidencing that long term liabilities exceed long term assets, can provide a basis for a petition on the grounds that it is just and equitable that a fund be wound up. The just and equitable basis for petitioning was traditionally the refuge of shareholders and was commonly regarded as the option of last resort by the Courts. We anticipate that the Courts will remain conservative in their granting of petitions sought on a just and equitable basis, but the new regime does enhance the Courts' powers by specifically authorising various alternative orders in the face of such a petition, including:

  • to regulate the future conduct of the fund's affairs;
  • to restrain the fund from doing or continuing the act complained of or to order that an omitted act be completed;
  • to authorise the petitioner to bring civil proceedings in the name, and on behalf, of the fund concerned; and
  • to order the purchase of shares held by a shareholder by any other shareholder or by the fund itself, so that the court can require majority shareholders or the fund to pay out minority shareholders who are being prejudiced or potentially prejudiced by the actions of the majority.

Those entitled to petition for compulsory winding up are:

  • the fund itself, by special resolution of its members;
  • the directors of the fund without a members' special resolution (limited to funds incorporated after 1 March 2009 with provision in their articles);
  • creditors, which includes contingent and prospective creditors but excludes claims disputed by the fund; and
  • shareholders holding partly paid shares or who have held fully paid shares for at least six months or who have become entitled to shares following the death of the former registered holder.

The principal reason for these restrictions on the right of shareholders to petition is to place constraints on so called "vulture funds" or asset strippers from acquiring shares with intent to liquidate the fund for the purposes of releasing specific assets.

Voluntary Winding Up

Generally, voluntary liquidation (without the supervision of the Court) is the preferred practice for funds as this enables the manager to run off the portfolio, pay out all creditors and redeem shareholders following which the fund is formally wound up and dissolved. The circumstances for voluntary winding up have been clarified, expanded and in certain respects, narrowed.

A voluntary winding up of a company will now commence automatically in cases where a period fixed by its memorandum or articles of association expires, without the need for a resolution of the shareholders (resolving the present controversy as to the need for such a resolution in those circumstances). A special resolution is otherwise required, save that an ordinary resolution suffices for winding up because the company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due.

A significant change is that, where a company is being wound up voluntarily, the liquidator must apply to the Court for an order that the liquidation continues under the supervision of the Court, unless within 28 days of the commencement of the liquidation, the company's directors have signed a declaration of solvency in the form prescribed in the new rules. This brings all insolvent voluntary liquidations into the control of the Court. Additionally, the new regime requires that all Court supervised liquidations must be conducted by suitably qualified insolvency practitioners.

Provisional Liquidators; Shadow Directors; Voidable Preferences

The new regime introduces the concept of provisional liquidators and provides for their appointment where there is a prima-facie case for the winding up of the fund and where the appointment is deemed necessary for the prevention of the dissipation or misuse of the fund's assets, the oppression of minority shareholders or the mismanagement or the misconduct on the part of the directors.

In addition, provisional liquidators may be appointed on application by the fund, ex parte, which is a particularly useful protection for a fund where a compromise arrangement with creditors or an agreed restructuring or reorganisation to allow the fund to continue, is proposed.

The new regime also introduces into Cayman law and practice:

  • the concept of shadow directorships, such that any person who exerts such influence over the conduct of duly appointed directors as to make them comply with his or her directions, will be subject to the same personal liabilities as a formally appointed director and may (there is no Cayman case law on this issue) acquire some or all the fiduciary duties of a director;
  • the power for the Cayman courts to make winding up orders in respect of companies incorporated outside Cayman where such company has property in Cayman, is carrying on business in Cayman, is a general partner of a Cayman exempted limited partnership or is registered in Cayman as a foreign company pursuant to the Companies Law; and
  • new provisions relating to fraud, voidable preferences, avoidance of dispositions at under-value and fraudulent trading which clarify those transactions entered into prior to the commencement of a liquidation, which may be voidable, thereby allowing the liquidator to recover additional assets. Thus, any payment made to a "related party" (which includes any party exercising control or significant influence over the affairs of the company) at a time when the company is insolvent is voidable.

Winding Up Of Exempted Limited Partnerships

Cayman has also recently brought into effect amendments to the Exempted Limited Partnership Law which apply many of the new corporate insolvency and liquidation principles and procedures to the winding up and dissolution of exempted limited partnerships. A Cayman exempted limited partnership will continue to be wound up in the circumstances set out in its partnership agreement (such as on the expiry of a contractual term or the occurrence of some other specified event) but, in addition, will be wound up:

  • by means of a resolution of all of the general partners and a two thirds majority of the partners as a whole (unless the partnership agreement specifies different majorities); and
  • upon Court order, on application of a partner or a creditor of the partnership, if the Court is satisfied that the winding up is just and equitable.

The changes also extend to partnerships the voidable preferences provisions.

International Co-Operation On Cross-Border Insolvencies

The final component of the recent legislative changes is the introduction of specific provisions, akin to Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code, aimed at promoting cooperation in cross-border insolvency cases in application of the model law promulgated by UNCITRAL. The new provisions empower the Cayman courts to:

  • recognise the right of a foreign representative to act within Cayman on behalf of the entity;
  • stay proceedings or enforcement of judgments against the entity in Cayman;
  • require the production of information relating to the business of the entity; and
  • turn over to the foreign representative any property belonging to the entity.

Whereas the recent Bear Sterns and Sphinx cases have suggested that the US bankruptcy courts are adopting a restrictive approach to relief under Chapter 15 through stringent application of the "centre of main interests" test, the Cayman provisions require only that the debtor is a foreign entity subject to a foreign bankruptcy proceeding in the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated or established.

Additionally, by virtue of the new provisions, Court appointed or supervised liquidators are under a duty to consider whether or not it is appropriate to enter into international protocols or agreements, sanctioned by the Court, with foreign representatives. We have already seen this provision in action, even before the legislation was enacted, in connection with the cross-border proceedings relating to the Lancelot and Colossus group of funds. In December 2008, the Cayman Court ordered a stay on the appointment of Cayman liquidators to allow the proposed liquidators and US trustee in bankruptcy to negotiate and conclude a protocol on the conduct of the proceedings. We have been advised recently by the Cayman liquidators that, pursuant to the proposed protocol, they will undertake responsibility for the recovery of the assets and settlement of the liabilities of the Cayman entity subject to certain reporting obligations, particularly with regard to remuneration, to the US bankruptcy court, leaving the US trustee in bankruptcy to attend to the US entities.

BVI has similar cross-border insolvency provisions within Part XVIII of the Insolvency Act, although these provisions are not currently in force. In light of the coalescing of standards amongst jurisdictions and the focus on co-operation internationally, there may be some momentum to bring these provisions into effect during 2009.

The changing international landscape brings us on to our final module in which we look at the tax and regulatory initiatives which are reshaping the environment in which offshore funds operate.

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
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

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