United States: The EU AIFM Directive For Private Investment Fund Managers – Breakfast Seminars In NYC (May 9) And Boston (May 10) (Financial Services Alert For April 30, 2013)

Last Updated: May 1 2013
Article by Robert M. Kurucza

Edited by: Eric R. Fischer, Jackson B.R. Galloway and Elizabeth Shea Fries

In This Issue:

  1. The EU AIFM Directive for Private Investment Fund Managers – Breakfast Seminars in NYC (May 9) and Boston (May 10)
  2. The EU AIFMD Directive for Private Fund Managers – UK Proposes to Postpone Compliance for Non-EU Managers Until July 22, 2014
  3. Goodwin Procter Alert: Senior SEC Lawyer Remarks Indicate Continued Focus on Private Fund Adviser Activities and Broker-Dealer Registration Issues
  4. Basel Committee Seeks Comments on Proposal to Require Recognition of Cost of Credit Protection
  5. OCC and FDIC Issue Proposed Guidance and FRB Issues Statement on Deposit Advance Loan Products
  6. SEC Settles Administrative Proceedings Against Adviser and Top Executive Over Undocumented Block Trade Allocation Practices
  7. Rollout of New Online Form 13F Delayed Until At Least May 20

The EU AIFM Directive for Private Investment Fund Managers – Breakfast Seminars in NYC (May 9) and Boston (May 10)

Goodwin Procter attorneys Glynn Barwick, Tom Beaudoin, Elizabeth Fries and John Ferguson will be hosting a breakfast presentation and discussion on how the uniform, minimum requirements for the marketing and operation of alternative investment funds within the European Economic Area (EEA) under the European Union's Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) Directive will apply to non-European fund managers marketing to EEA investors when they become effective July 22, 2013 (subject to any extensions that may be granted, e.g., the UK proposal to provide a one-year extension to Non-EEA managers as discussed here). The seminar will focus specifically on the requirements applicable to non-European managers of venture capital funds, private equity funds, real estate funds and hedge funds. Topics include:

  • Marketing a fund to a person within the EEA
  • Updated disclosure and reporting requirements
  • Investments in EEA large private companies
  • Impacts of non-compliance

If you are interested in attending this event, which will be held in the Goodwin Procter's New York office (May 9) and Boston office (May 10), please contact us here for more information.

The EU AIFMD Directive for Private Fund Managers – UK Proposes to Postpone Compliance for Non-EU Managers Until July 22, 2014

The United Kingdom's Treasury has confirmed in a Q&A document that it proposes to amend UK law to permit non-European managers to benefit from the one year transitional provision in the European Union's Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) Directive that is currently available to European managers. This proposal would postpone from July 22, 2013 to July 22, 2014 the date by which non-European managers must comply with the marketing requirements set out in the directive. This would allow non-European managers to continue promoting funds to UK investors as they do currently, without complying with the directive's registration and information disclosure requirements.

This postponement will be more meaningful if it is also adopted by other EU member states. The Alert will report on further developments in due course.

Goodwin Procter Alert: Senior SEC Lawyer Remarks Indicate Continued Focus on Private Fund Adviser Activities and Broker-Dealer Registration Issues

Goodwin Procter's Private Investment Funds Practice and Hedge Funds Practice issued a Client Alert that discusses a recent speech in which the Chief Counsel of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets expressed concern about the potential implications from a broker-dealer registration perspective of: (i) the use and compensation of employees of private fund advisers or managers to market interests in the funds that they advise or manage, and (ii) the receipt of compensation from portfolio companies by advisers or managers of private investment funds for "investment banking" or other activities relating to securities transactions.

Basel Committee Seeks Comments on Proposal to Require Recognition of Cost of Credit Protection

In March 2013 the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the "Basel Committee") released for public comment a Consultative Document addressing recognition of the cost of credit protection purchased. In some circumstances, the risk based capital rules permit banking organizations to recognize the mitigating effect of credit protection for purposes of determining the amount of risk weighted assets of a particular on-or off-balance sheet exposure. The risk based capital rules applicable to most banking organizations in the United States, and which are based upon Basel I, permit banking organizations to recognize a guarantee provided by the central government of an OECD-based country, a U.S. government agency or government sponsored entity, a state or local government of an OECD-based country, a U.S. depository institution, or a foreign bank in an OECD-based country by substituting the risk weight applicable to the guarantor for the risk weight that would otherwise be assigned to the exposure to the extent of the guarantee. Similarly, large banking organizations that use the Basel II advanced approaches rule for calculating risk based assets may recognize the mitigating effect of credit protection obtained by an eligible credit protection provider or through an eligible credit derivative for purposes of determining the amount of risk weighted assets generated by a particular wholesale or securitization exposure in certain circumstances.

In the Consultative Document, the Basel Committee expressed concern that the current Basel II rules may create an opportunity for capital arbitrage where there is a delay in recognizing the cost of the protection in earnings (i.e., where there is no upfront credit protection payment or the cost of credit protection is payable over time) and the banking organization receives an immediate benefit in the form of a lower risk weight on the exposure. The Basel Committee noted that arbitrage may be particularly likely to occur in the context of securitization transactions where the difference in risk weight before and after buying protection can be quite large.

To address this concern, the Consultative Document sets forth a proposal under which banking organizations would be required to recognize the present value of material credit protection costs in an appropriately conservative manner if such costs have not already been recognized in earnings or otherwise reflected in the amount of common Tier 1 equity. The present value of such costs would be treated as an exposure with a 1250% risk weight. Credit protection costs would be considered material when the risk-weight on the exposure would be greater than 150% in the absence of credit protection, though the proposal outlined in the Consultative Document would reserve the right for national supervisors to require recognition of credit protection costs even when an exposure would attract a lower risk-weight. The Consultative Paper raises several issues for national supervisors to consider, including the appropriate discount rate that should be applied to determine present value and whether and how spread income should be taken into account when determining present value.

The Basel Committee is requesting comments on the proposal outlined in the Consultative Document by June 21, 2013. Even if adopted by the Basel Committee, the proposal would still need to be adopted and implemented by national supervisors before it would have any effect. As a result, it is not clear whether or how the proposal outlined in the Consultative Document would be implemented in the United States and, if implemented, whether it would affect only advanced approaches banks or would apply more generally. Banking organizations that use credit default swaps or that engage in synthetic securitization may wish to evaluate the potential implications of this proposal on their reports to bank regulators concerning capital adequacy.

OCC and FDIC Issue Proposed Guidance and FRB Issues Statement on Deposit Advance Loan Products

The OCC and the FDIC have each issued proposed guidance, and the FRB has issued a written statement highlighting concerns with deposit advance loan products ('the "Guidance") (Available here is the OCC version of the Guidance, and available here is the FDIC version of the Guidance.) The Guidance reflects a report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") regarding the use of payday loans and deposit advances in which the CFPB concluded that the products present an elevated risk both to financial institutions and their customers. While none of the OCC, FDIC or FRB (collectively, the "Agencies") has issued new rules for the offering of deposit advances, the Guidance defines this elevated risk as including both safety and soundness supervisory risks and litigation and reputational risks. The Guidance presents a two-sided message to banking organizations: on the one hand, it amounts to an unambiguous admonishment to financial institutions that offer deposit advance loans that such products must be monitored carefully, while on the other it encourages financial institutions to continue "to respond to customers' small-dollar credit needs." At the very least, institutions that offer deposit advance products should be aware of their increasing profile in the minds of regulators and the evolving legal and regulatory landscape.

Deposit advances are a type of short-term, small dollar loan product offered to a bank's existing customers whose deposit accounts reflect recurring direct deposits. The product permits a customer to take out a loan against future deposits, typically paychecks, which is then repaid automatically when the next direct deposit enters the account. Reflecting the findings of the CFPB's report, the Agencies each note that, similar to payday loans, deposit advances bear a number of high-risk features, including high fees, very short, lump sum repayments often in advance of the customer's other bills, and are routinely offered without due regard to the "fundamental and prudent banking practices" necessary to determine the customer's ability to repay the loan while meeting other necessary financial obligations.

The Guidance suggests that deposit advance loan products may bring a greater potential for harm to consumers while also presenting institutions with elevated safety and soundness, legal compliance, and consumer protection risks. The Agencies identify several categories of risk:

Credit Risk. The Guidance concludes that borrowers who obtain deposit advance loans "may have cash flow difficulties" or "insufficient credit histories that limit other borrowing options." The measure of credit risk posed by such borrowers is amplified by repeated or continuous provisions of credit to high-risk individuals. The OCC's Guidance in particular notes that higher capital requirements will generally apply to loan portfolios that exhibit higher-risk characteristics, thereby potentially increasing the cost to an institution of offering deposit advance loans.

Legal Risk. Each of the Agencies identify increased risks of consumer class action litigation and regulatory enforcement actions associated with deposit advance lending products.

Third-Party Risk. The Agencies are aware that a number of institutions rely upon third-party service providers to administer deposit advance products. As with other aspects of their operations, financial institutions remain responsible and liable for compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to their activities, including those administered by third parties.

Consumer Protection. As noted above, the CFPB and the Agencies identify deposit advance loans as, potentially high-risk products for consumers, citing their high fee structure and preemptive means of collection directly from deposit accounts. Additionally, the Guidance notes that, despite their small-dollar size, deposit advance loans potentially remain subject to a broad spectrum of federal and state laws and regulations governing extensions of credit, including the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and others. The Guidance also specifically references the Federal Trade Commission Act's prohibition on "unfair or deceptive acts."

Despite these admonitions, the Guidance neither calls for an outright ban on deposit advance loans nor does it announce the promulgation of new rules to govern their issuance. Instead, the Guidance offers a number of specific recommendations intended to lessen the risks posed by deposit advance loans to consumers and institutions. Among the most significant of the recommendations, financial institutions are advised to:

  1. review account histories of frequent users of the deposit advance product to ensure that the relationship is of sufficient duration to verify the regularity of a customer's direct deposits. The Agencies suggest six months as a minimum time period;
  2. mandate a "cooling off period" of at least one monthly statement cycle between deposit advances; and
  3. implement an ongoing review of credit eligibility on a customer-by-customer basis at least every six months.

The Agencies also announced that supervisory examinations will bring an increased focus on compliance with consumer protection laws and adherence to safe and sound banking practices in the administration of deposit advance products.

Comments on the OCC's Guidance and on the FDIC's Guidance are due by May 30, 2013.

SEC Settles Administrative Proceedings Against Adviser and Top Executive Over Undocumented Block Trade Allocation Practices

The SEC settled public administrative and cease and desist proceedings against a registered investment adviser (the "Adviser") and its majority owner, who also acted as the Adviser's CEO, Co-CIO and CCO (the "Executive" and collectively with the Adviser, the "Respondents") during various times between January 1, 2007 and September 3, 2009 (the "Relevant Period"). The SEC's findings related primarily to the Adviser's practices regarding the allocation of block trades when participating client accounts had insufficient funds to purchase their allocation. This article summarizes the SEC's findings, which the Respondents neither admitted nor denied.

Background. The Adviser, an SEC-registered investment adviser, offered its clients active investment portfolio management using several model portfolios designed to meet particular investment goals. The Adviser's clients chose particular model portfolios based on their needs and risk tolerance and delegated to the Adviser the discretionary authority to manage their accounts. During the Relevant Period, client accounts grew from approximately 1,000 accounts representing approximately $300 million in assets to over 7,000 accounts representing over $742 million in assets under management.

Aggregation of Client Orders in Block Trades. In connection with the Adviser's management of client accounts, the Adviser reserved the discretion to aggregate client orders into block trades. The Adviser exercised this discretion by buying and selling securities for all clients assigned to a particular investment strategy in large block trades. The Adviser would allocate shares in a block trade among clients based upon the clients' chosen model portfolios and their account balances.

The Adviser's trade management system was not compatible with the trading platform at the custodian for the majority of client accounts through which the Adviser executed most of the block trades on behalf of its clients. The resulting real-time trade reconciliation issues meant that the Adviser's traders did not possess accurate real-time information from the custodian regarding clients' actual current account balances at the time the Adviser was making initial allocations to clients for block trades. During the Relevant Period, due to this inaccurate information, some clients who participated in block trades did not have sufficient funds in their accounts to purchase the allocated shares, resulting in unallocated shares (a "Block Trade Surplus"). The Adviser typically learned of the existence of a Block Trade Surplus between three and five days after the original block trade was placed. The SEC found that, in approximately July 2007, the Executive was advised of the trade reconciliation issue.

Adviser's Block Trade Surplus Allocation Practice. During the Relevant Period, the Adviser followed an unwritten practice of allocating any Block Trade Surplus among those clients who fell within the same investment model portfolio and whose cash positions exceeded a previously designated cash threshold. Client accounts purchasing securities from a Block Trade Surplus did so at the execution price for the block trade, without consideration for any change in the securities' price in the interim. At the end of this process, any portion of a Block Trade Surplus that remained unallocated was sold through the Adviser's error account.

The Adviser did not categorize Block Trade Surpluses as trade errors, but treated them as administrative errors. If Block Trade Surpluses had been labeled as trade errors, the Adviser's compliance procedures required the Adviser to document them as such and perform a profit and loss analysis for the trade. The Adviser's written policy also required it to make any client whole if any trade error resulted in a loss to the client.

In over 400 instances during the Relevant Period, the Adviser allocated Block Trade Surpluses to clients other than those originally intended to receive the shares. The SEC found that these clients suffered approximately $20,183 in losses as a direct result of those allocations.

Annual Compliance Review and Books and Records Violations. The SEC found that, the Respondents failed to conduct on a timely basis the 2007 review of the Adviser's compliance policies and procedures. The SEC also found that the Adviser did not maintain complete and accurate records concerning its trading practices or the allocation of Block Trade Surpluses: the SEC determined that neither the Adviser's trade allocation spreadsheet, nor its trading records contained complete records of allocation of Block Trade Surpluses, and that no formal records of these allocations were kept or maintained.

SEC Examination and Enforcement Referral. The SEC's examination staff conducted an examination of the Adviser in 2009 and alerted it to deficiencies regarding its compliance program, including: the Adviser's failure to follow its stated policies and procedures in its compliance manual; the Adviser's failure to maintain adequate records of its trading; and the Adviser's failure to timely conduct a required annual compliance review. The SEC's examination staff referred the matter to enforcement staff for further investigation and enforcement staff determined that the Adviser's deficiencies continued after the examination period.

Remedial Efforts. In determining to accept the Offers of Settlement, the SEC considered the cooperation afforded the SEC staff and the following remedial acts undertaken by the Adviser: (1) the Adviser changed its primary custodian in 2008 and upgraded its trading platform in 2009 (effectively eliminating its trade reconciliation issues by September 2009); (2) the Respondents hired a compliance consultant to perform the 2007 and 2008 annual compliance reviews and to evaluate and give guidance regarding the Adviser's compliance practices and procedures; (3) the Adviser currently has a third party compliance consultant serving as its Chief Compliance Officer; and (4) the Adviser hired an independent accountant to analyze the impact of the Adviser's reallocation process on its clients.

Violations. The SEC found that the Adviser willfully violated:

  • Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder, which requires, among other things, that a registered investment adviser (a) implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and its rules and (b) review at least annually its written policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation; and
  • Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-2(a)(3) thereunder which requires, among other things, that a registered investment adviser make and keep true, accurate and current records relating to its business including: a memorandum of each order given by the investment adviser for the purchase or sale of any security; of any instruction received by the investment adviser from the client concerning the purchase, sale, receipt or delivery of any particular security, and of any modification or cancellation of any such order or instruction.

The SEC also found that the Executive, in his roles as CEO, CCO and Co-CIO, willfully aided and abetted and caused the Adviser's violations of Sections 204 and 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rules 204-2(a)(3) and 206(4)-7 thereunder.

Sanctions. In addition to censure and a cease-and-desist order, (i) the Adviser agreed to disgorge $20,183 (the approximate amount of client losses determined by the SEC), plus prejudgment interest, and pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000 and (ii) the Executive agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000.

In the Matter of Foxhall Capital Management, Inc. and Paul G. Dietrich, SEC Release No. IA-3590 (April 19, 2013).

Rollout of New Online Form 13F Delayed Until At Least May 20

The staff of the SEC's Division of Investment Management announced that mandatory filing of Form 13F using the EDGAR XML Technical Specification, previously scheduled to begin April 29, 2013, will now commence no sooner than May 20, 2013. The SEC staff will publish another notice once the rollout date is confirmed. The new filing requirement does not affect Form 13F or its instructions.

Goodwin Procter LLP is one of the nation's leading law firms, with a team of 700 attorneys and offices in Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The firm combines in-depth legal knowledge with practical business experience to deliver innovative solutions to complex legal problems. We provide litigation, corporate law and real estate services to clients ranging from start-up companies to Fortune 500 multinationals, with a focus on matters involving private equity, technology companies, real estate capital markets, financial services, intellectual property and products liability.

This article, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Goodwin Procter LLP or its attorneys. © 2013 Goodwin Procter LLP. All rights reserved.

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.

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

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.


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