United States: Increased Public And Private Scrutiny Of High-Frequency Trading

Keywords: high frequency trading, HFT

Following the publication of Michael Lewis' new book, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt ("Flash Boys"), plaintiffs' lawyers and US government regulators have increasingly focused their attention on financial institutions participating in high-frequency trading ("HFT"). Less than three weeks after the release of Flash Boys, private plaintiffs' lawyers filed a class action lawsuit against 27 financial services firms and 14 national securities exchanges (with additional defendants likely to be named later) alleging that the defendants' HFT practices in the US equities markets violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs' lawyers filed a separate action against The CME Group, Inc. ("CME") and The Board of Trade of the City of Chicago ("CBOT") containing similar allegations in US derivatives markets.

In addition, the US Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") and Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") announced that they were actively investigating HFT practices. The New York State Attorney General is currently pursuing an initiative to crack down on what he referred to as "unseemly practices" in the HFT business. Thus, it is clear that trading firms, brokers, and exchanges engaged in HFT activity are coming under increasing pressure in the US from private litigants, securities regulators and criminal law enforcement authorities. As HFT techniques are increasingly used in non-US markets, the strategies and tactics used by private litigants and regulators in the United States may soon be exported outside of the United States as well.

Private Litigation

On April 18, 2014, in City of Providence, Rhode Island v. BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al ("City of Providence"),1 private plaintiffs sued 12 high-frequency proprietary trading firms, 14 national securities exchanges and 15 brokerage firms in a federal class action for purportedly violating the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to provide high-frequency proprietary trading firms with material non-public information that those firms used to manipulate the United States stock market. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants purported scheme violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs further claim that the brokerage and high-frequency proprietary trading firms violated Exchange Act Section 20A by engaging in insider trading, and that the exchanges violated Exchange Act Section 6(b) by deliberately failing to operate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and in a fair and equitable manner. Significantly, the plaintiffs seek certification not only of a plaintiff class but also a defendant class that they contend includes hundreds of financial firms not currently named in the action. Thus, it is likely that the plaintiffs will attempt to add additional defendants in the case.

The City of Providence case comes on the heels of a separate private class action filed one week earlier against CME and CBOT.2 In that case, the plaintiffs allege that CBOT and CME charged high-frequency proprietary trading firms for the ability to obtain price and order information before all other market participants, and that they allowed the firms to trade using that purportedly non-public information. The plaintiffs further maintain that the defendants charged other market participants for "real time" market data without disclosing that the data had previously been provided to high-frequency proprietary trading firms. According to the plaintiffs, this alleged conduct violates Sections 1, 4, 6, and 9 of the Commodities Exchange Act.

SEC, CFTC and FBI

Government regulators are also scrutinizing HFT practices. On May 1, 2014, the SEC imposed penalties on The New York Stock Exchange, LLC ("NYSE") for a number of violations, including the manner in which it offered "co-location" services.3 On April 29, 2014, SEC Chair Mary Jo White testified before Congress that the SEC has numerous ongoing investigations into practices by high-frequency traders and dark pools.4 She also explained that high-frequency and algorithmic trading will be a focus of the SEC's National Exam Program. 5 SEC Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney further warned, in a separate speech to industry members, that, "the Enforcement Division has a number of ongoing investigations into HFT and automated trading to ferret out possible abuses such as market manipulation, spoofing and related issues."6 The acting chairman of the CFTC similarly indicated that the agency is reviewing HFT practices to see if they constitute "spoofing" or other manipulative conduct that could violate the Commodities Exchange Act or CFTC rules.7 On April 4, 2014, US Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed in Congressional testimony that the Department of Justice was also investigating whether HFT practices violate insider trading laws.8 The Attorney General's testimony came a few days after the Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI is investigating HFT related practices, including whether high-frequency proprietary trading firms are using non-public information to front run orders placed by other investors or are placing groups of orders and then cancelling them to create the false appearance of market activity.9

State Regulators

State attorneys general have also set their sights on HFT. Reuters reported on May 2, 2014, that the New York State Attorney General's office is expected to issue subpoenas to exchanges and alternative trading platforms to gather data on the manner in which high-frequency proprietary trading firms obtain information.10 This planned action is likely part of a larger investigation into HFT that the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, announced in March 2014.11 In addition, the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sent a survey to 1070 investment advisers in the state, including advisers to hedge funds and private equity firms, asking for information about their HFT practices.12 The survey includes questions about the use of co-location and direct data feed services. It also asks firms to briefly describe any HFT strategies they employ.

Although federal and state authorities have been conducting inquiries into HFT for some time, the publication of Flash Boys, and its attendant publicity have significantly raised the stakes for government investigations. It may also encourage private plaintiffs to file additional actions against high-frequency proprietary trading firms, exchanges and brokerage firms.

Market Manipulation

Private plaintiffs and regulators will likely focus their attention on high-frequency proprietary trading firms pursuing strategies that resemble traditionally prohibited forms of market manipulation such as spoofing, layering, marking the close and painting the tape. Spoofing and layering occurs "when a trader creates a false appearance of market activity by entering multiple non-bona fide orders on one side of the market, at generally increasing (or decreasing) prices, in order to move that stock's price in a direction where the trader intends to induce others to buy (or sell) at a price altered by the non-bona fide orders."13 Marking the close is a strategy that "involves the placing and execution of orders shortly before the close of trading on any given day to artificially affect the closing price of a security."14 Painting the tape is the placing of "successive, small-amount buy orders in increasing prices to simulate increased demand."15 The SEC has long contended that these practices violate Exchange Act Sections 9(b) and 10(b) as well as Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. As recently as April 4, 2014, the SEC imposed an industry bar and monetary sanctions of $1.9 million on the owner of a trading firm for misconduct that included spoofing and layering.16

"Quote stuffing" and "price fade" are additional HFT practices that may attract attention from regulators and plaintiffs lawyers. Quote stuffing is a strategy that "floods the market with huge numbers of orders and cancellations in rapid succession, ... creating a large number of new best bids or offers, each potentially lasting mere microseconds."17 This tactic may be used to generate buying or selling interest in certain securities or compromise the trading decisions of other market participants by forcing them to process false order information.18 Order fade— sometimes referred to as price fade—is a trading practice that involves the rapid cancellation of orders in response to other trades.19 It results in "volume disappearing immediately after a trade on the same venue."20 High-frequency proprietary trading firms that engage in strategies similar to any of these practices may face examination, investigation and perhaps, enforcement action from regulators, in addition to private plaintiff actions.

Insider Trading

The plaintiffs in City of Providence allege that high-frequency proprietary trading firms engaged in insider trading by using material non-public information obtained through colocation and individual direct data feed arrangements with exchanges. Co-location is a service whereby a trading center "rents ... space to market participants that enables them to place their servers in close physical proximity to a trading center's matching engine. Co-location helps minimize ... [latency times] between the matching engine of trading centers and the servers of market participants."21

Exchanges also sell data feeds that deliver order and trade information directly to individual customers. In addition, exchanges generally report their trades and best-priced orders to the consolidated tape which is widely available to the public. The individual data feeds contain the same information as the consolidated tape and may include additional information such as quotations at prices inferior to an exchange's best-priced quotations.22

Significantly, the SEC does not prohibit exchanges from offering co-location and direct data feed services. In fact, it allows and regulates those services. The SEC requires that exchanges offering co-location and direct data feeds do so on terms that are "fair and reasonable," and not "unreasonably discriminatory."23 Exchanges offering co-location services must also have an SEC-approved exchange rule in place governing those services.24 Moreover, Regulation NMS Rule 603(a) prohibits exchanges from independently transmitting their own data any sooner than they transmitted data to a processor for inclusion in the consolidated tape.25 The SEC has expressly acknowledged that, under Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS, information in the individual data feeds of exchanges generally reaches market participants faster than the same information in the consolidated tape because of the time required to consolidate data from multiple exchanges and distribute it to the public.26

During recent Congressional testimony, Representative Garrett asked SEC Chair Mary Jo White, "Does the use of what you call an exchange data feed which is approved by the SEC, to make changes to your bids, does that ... constitute insider trading."27 Chairman White responded, "If properly used, no."28

High-frequency proprietary trading firms facing allegations of insider trading may be able to use these facts to argue that market information obtained through co-location and direct data feed arrangements is public information . Exchanges must, however, be careful to comply with all applicable rules regarding co-location and direct data feeds. On May 1, 2014, the SEC brought an enforcement action against the NYSE for, among other things, offering co-location without any SEC approved exchange rule in place governing that service.29 The SEC also brought an enforcement action against the NYSE in 2012 for violating Regulation NMS Rule 603 by providing information to individual data feeds before sending it to the processor for inclusion in the consolidated tape.30

Order Flow Payments

The City of Providence plaintiffs also claim that some brokerage firms failed to obtain best execution for their customer orders and otherwise engaged in securities fraud by routing customer orders to trading venues in exchange for allegedly undisclosed order flow payments. It is important to note, when evaluating this claim, that brokers are usually required to disclose order flow payments. Regulation NMS Rule 606 requires brokers to report quarterly on their order routing and to make those reports available to the public. The reports must include the venues where significant amounts of orders were executed, the broker's relationship with each venue, and any compensation arrangements like payment for order flow or profit sharing.

Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 also generally requires a broker to disclose on trade confirmations it provides to each customer whether it received payment for order flow with respect to US-exchange traded equities. These trade confirmations must also inform the customer that the broker will, upon written request, furnish the source and nature of that order flow compensation. It is critical for brokers to comply with all of these requirements to maximize their defense against claims like those in the City of Providence case and avoid regulatory enforcement action. Of course, brokerage firms must also comply with their duty of best execution.31

Conclusion

Federal and state law enforcement authorities are actively investigating HFT. Private plaintiffs have begun class action litigation against exchanges, brokerage firms and proprietary trading firms engaged in HFT. The private plaintiffs have also signaled their intent to bring HFT related claims against additional financial services firms not currently included in existing actions. Moreover, as HFT techniques are increasingly used in non-US markets, the strategies and tactics of private litigants and regulators in the US may soon be exported abroad.

It is critically important in this environment for US equity and derivatives market participants to be mindful of their HFT practices. High-frequency proprietary trading firms must continue to avoid trading strategies that resemble traditionally prohibited forms of market manipulation. Exchanges should continue to be conscientious about complying with all SEC rules governing co-location and data feed services. Brokerage firms should similarly continue to comply with all applicable regulations requiring disclosure of order flow payments and seeking best execution of customer orders. All financial services firms that participate in HFT activity will also need experienced counsel to help them respond to increased regulatory inquires and potential private litigation arising from HFT.

Footnotes

1 City of Providence, Rhode Island v. BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al, 14-cv-2811 (S.D.N.Y. April 18, 2014)

2 See Braman et al. v. The CME Group, Inc. et al., 14-cv-02646 (N.D. Ill. April 11, 2014).

3 In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange, LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15860 (May 1, 2014).

4 April 29, 2014 Hearing of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, Oversight of the SEC's Agenda, Operations, and FY 2015 Budget Request, available at http://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=377131

5 Id., http://www.sec.gov/News/Testimony/Detail/Testimony/1370541674457.

6 YinWilczek, SEC Decision to Seek Admissions Unilateral, Not Open To Negotiation, Head Enforcer Says, Bloomberg BNAWhite Collar Crime Report, (April 30, 2014).

7 Douwe Miedema, U.S. Futures Regulator CFTC Probing Speed Traders, Reuters, (April 3, 2014), http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/ushedgefunds-speed-trading-cftcidUSBREA321QU20140403.

8 Del QuentinWilber, Keri Geiger, & Patricia Hurtado, Holder Vows High-Speed Trading Probe to Protect Markets, Bloomberg, (April 4, 2014), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-04/holdervows-high-speed-trading-probe-to-protect-markets.html.

9 Scott Patterson & Michael Rothfeld, FBI Investigates High-Speed Trading,WSJ.com, Mar. 31, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304886904579473874181722310.

10 Karen Freifield & Nadia Damouni, Exclusive - New York Attorney General Eyes Exchanges in High Frequency Probe: Sources, Reuters.com, May 2, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/ushighfrequency-nyag-exclusive-idUSBREA4101120140502.

11 A.G. Schneiderman Calls For New Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Advantages Provided by Trading Venues To High Frequency Traders, New York State Attorney General Press Release, March 18, 2014, http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-calls-new-effortseliminate-unfair-advantages-provided-trading-venues.

12 Margaret Collins, Massachusetts Surveys Investment Firms on High-Frequency Trading, Bloomberg (April 2, 2014), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-02/massachusetts-surveys-investment-firms-on-highfrequency-trading.html; Matthew L. Brown, Galvin Joins the Herd, Presses Massachusetts Advisers on High-Frequency Trading, Boston Business Journal, (April 4, 2014), http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bottom_line/2014/04/galvin-joins-the-herd-pressesmassachusetts.html.

13 In the Matter of Biremis Corp. et al. Admin. Proceeding 3-15136 (December 18, 2012) at 3. See also, In the Matter of Visionary Trading LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15823 (April 4, 2014) at 2, 6.

14 In the Matter of Eric DavidWagner et al. Admin. Proceeding 3-14676 (July 2, 2012) at 4.

15 SEC v. Competitive Technologies, Inc., 2005WL 1719725, *1 (D. Conn. July 21, 2005); In the Matter of John R. Glushko, Admin. Proceeding 3-12888 (March 5, 2008) at 2.

16 In the Matter of Visionary Trading LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15823 (April 4, 2014) at 2, 6.

17 Jonathan Tse, Xiang Lin, and Drew Vincent, Credit Suisse AES Analysis: High Frequency Trading – Measurement, Detection and Response, December 6, 2012, at 2, https://edge.credit-suisse.com/edge/Public/Bulletin/Servefile.aspx?FileID=23285&m=923226224.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 4

20 Id.

21 SEC Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Exchange Act Release No. 61,358 (January 14, 2010) (the "SEC Concept Release") at 58.

22 Id. at 22 - 25.

23 Exchange Act Sections 6(b)(4) and (5); Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS; SEC Concept Release at 26, 58.

24 SEC Concept Release at 58; In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange, LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15860 (May 1, 2014).

25 Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS; SEC Concept Release at 62.

26 SEC Concept Release at 62.

27 April 29, 2014 Hearing of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, Oversight of the SEC's Agenda, Operations, and FY 2015 Budget Request, available at, http://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=377131.

28 Id.

29 In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange, LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15860 (May 1, 2014).

30 In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange, LLC et al., Admin. Proceeding 3-15023 (September 14, 2012).

31 Brokers are subject to a duty of best execution, which requires them to seek the best execution reasonably available for their customers' orders. Best execution is not decided solely based on the best price. A broker seeking best execution must consider other factors in addition to price including, the speed of execution and the likelihood a trade will be executed. Moreover, a broker is not required to evaluate best execution on an order by order basis. To satisfy its duty of best execution, a broker evaluates orders it receives from all customers in the aggregate and periodically assesses which market venues offer the most favorable terms. See SEC Best Execution, http://www.sec.gov/answers/bestex.htm.

Originally published on May 14,2014

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

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
 
In association with
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