United States: The War On Buckyballs: "Park" Doctrine Gone Awry

This article examines a federal regulatory agency and administrative law judge's (ALJ) recent and unprecedented expansion of the responsible corporate officer (RCO) doctrine, also known as the Park doctrine.

Under an expanded formulation of the RCO doctrine, the founder of a now defunct company, which the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) drove out of business by effectively banning its main product, could have been held personally responsible for the cost of a $57 million product recall, even though no one contended that any underlying crime or other violation had been committed by the company or its founder.

In limited circumstances, the Park doctrine allows for criminal prosecution of an individual for a corporate violation without proof of the individual's knowledge or participation in the wrongdoing. We have previously argued that application of this doctrine should be reserved for cases involving, at a minimum, serious harm to the public and proof of the individual's negligence in failing to prevent that harm.1 In this article, we argue that applying the doctrine where there is no allegation of wrongdoing and in an effort to make an individual former corporate officer responsible for an alarmingly high product-recall cost represents an unwarranted case of regulatory overreach.

Park Doctrine: Responsible Corporate Officer

The Park doctrine allows for criminal prosecution of individuals, typically high-ranking corporate executives of pharmaceutical companies, for violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), even absent any proof of the individual defendant's knowledge of or participation in the violation.

The seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases of United States v. Dotterweich2 (1943) and United States v. Park3 (reaffirming Dotterweich in 1975) established the RCO/ Park doctrine, providing that a corporate agent who stands in a ''responsible relation'' to misconduct may be held criminally liable even without having played any direct role in the misconduct.4 Standing in such a ''responsible relation'' means the corporate agent must have had, ''by reason of his position in the corporation, responsibility and authority either to prevent in the first instance, or promptly to correct, the violation complained of, and that he failed to do so.''5

Park liability provides a mechanism for holding corporate executives vicariously responsible for violations that occurred under their watch, even if they were not aware of and did not personally participate in those violations. The first occurrence is a misdemeanor (albeit one that, in the pharmaceutical context, is often accompanied by the career-ending consequence of exclusion from participation in federal health care programs by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), with subsequent felony liability for a reoccurrence.

Although this doctrine originated in the food and drug context, it also has been applied in the context of other public health and welfare statutes. For example, the Clean Water Act provides that a ''responsible corporate officer'' may be held liable for violations of the Act.6 The same is true of the Clean Air Act7 and the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act.8 At the heart of the limited cases in which a corporate officer has been held individually responsible under the Park doctrine is a predicate violation of law by a corporate entity. The Buckyballs case, however, involved no such violation.

CPSC vs. Buckyballs

In 2009, entrepreneur Craig Zucker and a friend formed a small start-up company called Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC for the purpose of importing tiny, powerful, rare-earth, spherical magnets known as Buckyballs (and later, their cubical offshoots, Buckycubes) to be packaged and sold as adult executive desk toys.9 Buckyballs, each only a few millimeters in diameter, can be placed together to form infinitely many shapes and patterns—an activity that, judging by how quickly the product gained traction, is a welcome diversion for many.10

What began as a small internet business in 2009 quickly grew into an overwhelming success story. In 2011, Buckyballs were named one of People Magazine's five hottest trends of the year.11 By 2012, Maxfield & Oberton had established a distribution network of 5,000 stores and was doing $10 million in annual sales.12 Before the company's demise in 2012, more than 2.5 million sets of Buckyballs had been sold.13

In its first few years of existence, Maxfield & Oberton seemingly had a good relationship with the CPSC, collaborating with the agency on safety and labeling. Buckyballs were initially labeled ''Warning: Not intended for children. Swallowing of magnets may cause serious injury and require immediate medical care. Ages 13+.''14 At that time, the CPSC defined a ''children's toy'' as one intended for children 12 and under.15

In 2010, Maxfield & Oberton conducted a voluntary recall because of a new legal standard that changed the definition of children's toys from products intended for children 12 and under, to products intended for children 14 and under.16 Maxfield & Oberton also revamped the packaging for Buckyballs to include explicit new warnings, including: ''Keep away from all children!'' and ''Do not put in nose or mouth. Swallowed magnets can stick to intestines causing serious injury or death. Seek immediate medical attention if magnets are swallowed or inhaled.''17

The company went further, developing a comprehensive safety program that the CPSC approved in May 2010.18 In November 2011, Maxfield & Oberton and the CPSC issued a joint press release and video highlighting the importance of keeping Buckyballs away from children.19 The chairman of the CPSC even commended Maxfield & Oberton on its safety program when the video was filmed.20 In March 2012, the company developed a new website focused on safety and created a safety video shown both on the new website and on the company's main website.21

Following these early years of collaboration between Maxfield & Oberton and the CPSC, the agency changed course abruptly, apparently determined to take Buckyballs off the market.22 In July 2012, seemingly without warning, the CPSC issued a preliminary determination that Buckyballs were defective because they posed a swallowing hazard to children.23 Thankfully, no deaths have been reported, but the CPSC has claimed there have been approximately 1,700 emergency room visits involving children who ingested various brands of high-powered magnets, among them Buckyballs.24 According to the CPSC, from the release of Buckyballs in 2009 through July 2012, approximately 22 children had been non-fatally injured, which came out to approximately 1 injury per 21.5 million individual magnets sold.25 (Another source put the figure at 53 instances of ingestion requiring medical invention.)26 Some of these injuries were serious, requiring surgery to treat.27 The agency also determined that Maxfield & Oberton's safety program—the same program that had been developed over the preceding years in close cooperation with the CPSC and which the agency had previously commended—was not sufficient to mitigate the risk.28

The CPSC immediately began contacting the company's major retailers and requesting that they voluntarily stop selling Buckyballs.29 Although Buckyballs were hot-ticket items, and although the CPSC acknowledged when asked by one retailer that it was ''not a violation of any law . . . for any retailer to continue to sell Buckyballs and Buckycubes . . . until we have obtained a court order,'' most of the retailers promptly acquiesced to the federal agency's request to stop selling the products.30 As a result, Maxfield & Oberton, which relied on Buckyballs and follow-on ''Bucky'' products for 95 percent of its sales, was out of business in a matter of months, filing its certificate of cancellation in Delaware in December 2012.31

Meanwhile, the CPSC filed an administrative complaint against Maxfield & Oberton, seeking a determination that Buckyballs are defective—a question that was never adjudicated due to a settlement ultimately reached in May 2014.32 But for the already-destroyed company, the answer to this question was largely a moot point. In February 2013, the CPSC asked the ALJ for permission to amend its complaint to add Mr. Zucker as a defendant.33 The CPSC's amended complaint sought an order that would require Mr. Zucker personally to conduct and bear the cost of a full recall of Buckyballs and Maxfield & Oberton's related products at an estimated price tag of $57 million (the CPSC's estimate).34 Complying with such an order would require Mr. Zucker personally to notify all distributors to stop distributing the products, notify state and local public health officials, mail notice to each distributor and retailer, refund consumers the purchase price, reimburse retailers for their expenses resulting from the recall, submit monthly progress reports to the CPSC, and retain records of these actions for a period of five years—a daunting and costly to-do list for a company, let alone an individual.35

In support of its motion to add Mr. Zucker as a defendant, the CPSC relied on the Park doctrine and the fact that Maxfield & Oberton no longer existed (due of course to the agency's own preemptive actions in asking retailers to conduct a voluntary recall before obtaining a court order). In May 2013, ALJ Dean C. Metry of Texas granted the motion, concluding that because the Consumer Product Safety Act (the statute establishing the CPSC), ''like the statute at issue in Dotterweich and Park, relates to the public's health and safety . . . the rationale in Dotterweich and Park is both legally relevant and persuasive.''36

Mr. Zucker Fights Back . . . and Settles

In November 2013, Mr. Zucker filed a federal lawsuit against the CPSC in the District of Maryland, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would invalidate the ALJ's decision to apply the Park doctrine in this case, and prohibit the agency from exercising adjudicative authority over Mr. Zucker in his individual capacity. 37 The complaint alleged, inter alia, that through an ''unprecedented expansion'' of the Park doctrine, the CPSC acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and ''far beyond the boundaries of its legal authority.''38

Tellingly, Mr. Zucker's complaint was promptly endorsed by Nancy Nord, a recently retired commissioner (2005–13) and acting chairman (2006–09) of the CPSC, and the only commissioner who voted against filing an administrative action against Maxfield & Oberton to begin with.39 Ms. Nord wrote in an op-ed, ''As a former CPSC chairman, I believe in regulations and rigorous industry standards. But there is a line between safety regulation and overreach. That line has been crossed in the government's action against Buckyballs and their creator, Craig Zucker. . . . I hope he wins his suit.''40

In May 2014, following half a year of motion practice in Mr. Zucker's lawsuit, including an amicus brief filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in support of Mr. Zucker, the parties settled.41 Mr. Zucker agreed to recall Buckyballs and to establish and pay $375,000 into a trust fund for the recall—a small fraction of the $57 million cost that the CPSC initially sought to impose on him.42 He touted the settlement as ''a victory for me and for small-business owners across the United States.''43 The settlement left open the legal question of whether the Park doctrine can be used to hold an executive in Mr. Zucker's situation responsible where there is no allegation of an underlying criminal violation by the corporation.

Why the CPSC and ALJ Got It Wrong

The CPSC's decision effectively to ban Buckyballs would seem to be an arbitrary agency action to begin with. As Ms. Nord observed in her op-ed:44

The CPSC sees countless reports of children choking on balloons, swallowing detergent pods or being injured from riding adult-size ATVs. We haven't banned these products—they come with warnings. Buckyballs were always marketed and sold for use by adults. Each set came with five conspicuous warnings to keep the product away from children.

One can only speculate about the agency's motivations for seizing suddenly upon Buckyballs in the way that it did in mid-2012, after several years of a more collaborative approach.

What seems more clear-cut, however, is the patent misapplication of law that occurred when an ALJ accepted the CPSC's view that the Park doctrine allowed Mr. Zucker to be held personally responsible for conducting a $57 million product recall. The CPSC and ALJ failed to appreciate that this doctrine is an exceptional one that has been reserved for limited circumstances that simply did not exist here. Every case in which it has been applied, whether civil or criminal, has involved a predicate violation of law by a corporate entity.45 Here, even the CPSC itself acknowledged that nothing illegal had occurred.46

This case was manifestly different from the underlying facts of Park or its progeny. In Park, the CEO of a large national food chain was personally and repeatedly notified by the FDA of rodent infestation in the company's warehouses—itself a violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act—and failed to take any corrective action.47 As one analysis found, ''Of the few cases that invoke 'responsible corporate officer' liability, the overwhelming majority (if not all) have involved a defendant who was aware of the conduct giving rise to the violation but failed to correct it.''48

But here, there was no underlying violation to speak of. All that occurred was a preliminary determination by the CPSC that Buckyballs are defective by virtue of the swallowing hazard they pose to children—a determination that was never endorsed by any court order, and despite the obvious issues with treating an object that could be swallowed by a child as defective regardless of how it is marketed or labeled. As the CPSC admited, without such an order, it remained perfectly legal to continue selling Buckyballs, although Maxfield & Oberton no longer existed to sell them, largely as a result of the CPSC's actions.49

This is not to mention the practical impossibilities posed by the CPSC and ALJ's approach. It would seem to be virtually impossible for a single individual without the support of a large business organization (or any business organization for that matter) to conduct a $57 million recall of a product that sold more than 2.5 million units over the course of several years. This cannot be what Congress had in mind when it granted the CPSC statutory authority to adjudicate an order for remedial actions, including product recalls.50 Indeed, the statute in question gives the CPSC jurisdiction over manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, none of which accurately describes Mr. Zucker.51 Thus, in addition to far exceeding any legal authority under the Park doctrine and taking a wildly overbroad view of what constitutes a defective product or a feasible recall, the CPSC may also have exceeded the boundaries of its statutory legal authority.

If Mr. Zucker had lost his case and the ALJ's decision to apply the Park doctrine was afforded precedential value, that would have been an extreme and unprecedented expansion of the Park doctrine with legal and commercial ramifications. It may perhaps be inevitable that the Park doctrine will gain traction in other areas given the government's extensive and effective use of it in the pharmaceutical context.

In the pharmaceutical context, however, the government has largely limited use of the Park doctrine to hold officers liable for a criminal misdemeanor in situations where the corporation itself has been found to have violated criminal laws. To hold a corporate officer financially accountable for an alleged consumer protection misstep without any allegation of criminal activity or malfeasance on the part of the individual corporate officer or the company is woefully misguided.

The threat of a corporate officer being held individually financially responsible, where his own conduct is clearly not criminal, can only have a chilling effect on who is willing to serve as a corporate officer, on how corporate officers conduct themselves in business matters, and on the innovation necessary to keep this country economically competitive.

Further, holding corporate officers personally responsible for corporate activity without any allegation of criminal activity by the corporation or negligence by the officer wholly undermines the purpose of the corporate structure. The Park doctrine may well have a place in the pantheon of enforcement tools used to keep the public safe and corporations accountable. But it must be used judiciously and only in cases where there is evidence of underlying criminal conduct by the company and negligence by the individual.

Originally published in the BNA Insights section of Bloomberg BNA's Product Safety & Liability Reporter on June 5, 2014.

Footnotes

1 Allison D. Burroughs & Dahlia Rin, Clues to the Future of the Park Doctrine, FDLI Update, Nov.–Dec. 2012, 16; Dahlia Rin, John P. Pucci, & Robert L. Ullmann, The Misinterpretation of the Park Doctrine as Creating Strict Liability, FDLI Update, Nov.–Dec. 2011, 8.

2 United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943).

3 United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975).

4 Park, 421 U.S. at 673-74; Dotterweich, 320 U.S. at 280-81.

5 Park, 421 U.S. at 673-74.

6 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(6).

7 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(6).

8 United States v. Hodges X-Ray, Inc., 759 F.2d 557, 560-61 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding that the RCO doctrine applied to impose civil liability for violations of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968).

9 Sohrab Ahmari, Craig Zucker: What Happens When a Man Takes on the Feds, Wall Street Journal (Aug. 30, 2013).

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Complaint, Zucker v. United States Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, No. 13-cv-03355-DKC (D. Md. 2013).

15 Id.

16 Ahmari, supra note 9.

17 Id.

18 Complaint, supra note 14.

19 Id.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Richard Levick, Buckyballs: Stones Enough to Fight Back, Forbes Magazine (Nov. 25, 2013).

23 Id.

24 Hilary Stout, Buckyball Recall Stirs a Wider Legal Campaign, New York Times (Oct. 31, 2013).

25 Eliyahu Federman, Banning Buckyball Magnets Is Statistically Ridiculous, Huffington Post (July 31, 2012); Michelle Castillo, Buckyballs CEO on CPSC Complaint: ''How Can This Happen in America?,'' CBS News (July 26, 2012).

26 Press Release, Six Retailers Announce Recall of Buckyballs and Buckycubes High-Powered Magnet Sets Due to Ingestion Hazard, CPSC (Apr. 12, 2012).

27 Castillo, supra note 25.

28 Complaint, supra note 14.

29 Id.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 In the Matter of Maxfield and Oberton Holdings, LLC, CPSC Docket No. 12-1 (2012); Josh Hicks, Buckyballs Founder Agrees to Product Recall in Settlement with Federal Regulators, Washington Post (May 13, 2014).

33 CPSC's Mot. for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support (Feb. 11, 2013).

34 Complaint, supra note 14; Nancy Nord, The Irrational Federal War on Buckyballs, Wall Street Journal (Nov. 12, 2013).

35 Complaint, supra note 14.

36 Order Granting CPSC's Mot. for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (May 3, 2013).

37 Complaint, supra note 14.

38 Id.

39 Nord, supra note 34; Stout, supra note 24.

40 Nord, supra note 34.

41 Hicks, supra note 32.

42 Id.; Debra Cassens Weiss, Buckyballs Creator to Fund Trust for Recall of the Magnetic Toys, ABA Journal (May 14, 2014).

43 Jeff Sistrunk, Buckyballs Maker's Ex-CEO Settles with CPSC, Law360 (May 12, 2014).

44 Nord, supra note 34.

45 Complaint, supra note 14.

46 Id.

47 Park, 421 U.S. at 660-65.

48 Brent J. Gurney, Howard M. Shapiro & Robert A. Mays, The Crime of Doing Nothing: Strict Liability for Corporate Officers Under the FDCA, White-Collar Crime Reporter, Dec. 2007, at 1-4.

49 Complaint, supra note 14.

50 15 U.S.C. § 2064.

51 Id.

This update is for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. Under the rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered as advertising.

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
 
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