United States: Securities Enforcement 2014 Mid-Year Review

I. INTRODUCTION

While not nearly as transformative and dramatic as the first half of 2013 and the early days of Chair Mary Jo White and Director of Enforcement Andrew Ceresney, the first six months of 2014 was just as busy and productive with major court victories and significant and novel enforcement actions. The SEC obtained a long-awaited and favorable decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Citigroup case in which the SEC's "neither-admit-nor-deny" policy had been taken to task by Judge Rakoff in the Southern District of New York. The Commission secured admissions of wrongdoing from high-profile defendants in connection with five settlements. In addition, the Commission entered into its first non-prosecution agreement with an individual defendant and its first enforcement action for retaliation against a whistleblower. More controversially, the Commission continues to have mixed results at trial. Undeterred, the Enforcement Division has indicated that it intends to keep marching forward with its aggressive stance and keep bringing important cases in each of its priority areas. In May 2014, the Enforcement Division announced that SEC-veteran Stephanie Avakian would return as its new Deputy Director, no doubt to have more leaders focused on the implementation of Chair White's aggressive, all-encompassing enforcement agenda.

II. SELECTED ENFORCEMENT DIVISION INITIATIVES & DEVELOPMENTS

A. SEC v. Citigroup

On June 4, 2014, a unanimous panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned US District Judge Jed Rakoff's controversial 2011 ruling, which had rejected a proposed settlement between the SEC and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., primarily because Citigroup did not admit any of the alleged facts or liability.1

The SEC brought the underlying civil injunctive action against Citigroup alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") with respect to Citigroup's structuring and marketing of a collateralized debt obligation ("CDO").2 Shortly thereafter, the parties proposed a settlement that included disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties amounting to $285 million. Judge Rakoff declined to approve the settlement, stating that the proposal was "neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest," because, given that Citigroup neither admitted nor denied the allegations, the settlement did not provide an evidentiary basis for the court to know whether the relief was justified.3

The Second Circuit unanimously held that Judge Rakoff abused his discretion by failing to apply the correct legal standard and failing to accord the SEC's decision to enter into such a settlement the appropriate level of deference. According to the Second Circuit, district courts are not required to evaluate whether a proposed settlement affirmatively serves the public interest, as Judge Rakoff had done. As the panel wrote, "The job of determining whether the proposed [SEC] consent decree best serves the public interest...rests squarely with the [SEC], and its decision merits significant deference." District courts are only to evaluate whether the public interest would be disserved by a proposed consent decree. Of particular note, the Second Circuit held that it was an abuse of discretion to insist that the district court needed to know the "truth" of the allegations prior to approving the settlement. Similarly, the panel stated in no uncertain terms that "There is no basis in the law for [a] district court to require an admission of liability as a condition for approving a settlement between the parties."4

The Second Circuit's decision is a vindication of the SEC's long standing practice of entering into settlements without requiring that settling parties admit liability. Nevertheless, the policy implications of Judge Rakoff's 2011 decision will continue to reverberate for years to come. Indeed, as we have previously discussed, in the three years since Judge Rakoff's 2011 decision, the SEC has fundamentally changed its approach to settlements, including by demanding admissions in certain cases. Indeed, Ceresney, speaking at a DC Bar event shortly after the Second Circuit's decision, made clear that the SEC's new policy of seeking admissions in appropriate cases while also permitting certain defendants to settle on a neither-admit-nor-deny basis would continue.5

B. Admissions of Liability in Settled Cases

According to the SEC, through the first half of 2014, the Commission had settled eight cases where the defendant admitted liability, five of which were announced in the first half of 2014. The Commission notes that there are more settlements with admissions "in the pipeline."6 One can only hope that these upcoming settlements will shed more light on the factors that the Commission considers when deciding which cases merit admission of liability because so far there does not appear to be a clearly recognizable policy governing such decisions.

In January 2014, the SEC filed settled administrative proceedings against Scottrade, a privately-owned discount retail brokerage firm headquartered in Missouri.7 Scottrade was charged with failing to provide the SEC with complete and accurate "blue sheet" data concerning trades executed by Scottrade and its customers, in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rules 17a-4(j), 17a-25, and 17a- 4(f)(3)(v) promulgated thereunder.8 Scottrade settled the SEC's charges by admitting to inadvertently providing the SEC with inaccurate and incomplete trading data on 1,231 occasions between 2006 and 2012 and paying a civil penalty of $2.5 million. According to the SEC's order, Scottrade has since resolved the deficient computer code responsible for the inaccurate and incomplete reporting.9

In February 2014, the SEC filed settled administrative proceedings against a major financial institution. The SEC charged the institution with violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 203(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 because it provided brokerage and investment advisory services to US clients, both in person and through e-mails and phone calls, without registering with the SEC.10 According to the SEC's order, the institution sent relationship managers from Europe to the United States on a number of occasions over several years to provide investment advice to thousands of existing and prospective clients.11 In connection with the settlement, the institution admitted to the alleged facts and acknowledged that its conduct violated the federal securities laws, agreed to pay a fine of $196 million, and agreed to the issuance of a cease and desist order imposing remedial undertakings.12

On March 13, 2014, the SEC filed settled administrative proceedings against Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. ("Lions Gate") alleging that Lions Gate misled investors about the nature of a set of transactions designed to thwart a hostile takeover bid.13 Lions Gate agreed to the imposition of a cease and desist order and a civil penalty of $7.5 million, and admitted to violating Sections 13(a) and 14(d) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11, and 14d-9 promulgated thereunder.14 More specifically, Lions Gate admitted that it had falsely characterized a particular series of transactions in its public disclosures in an effort to reduce the company's debt when in fact the transactions were devised to enlist a management friendly director, who would vote against a takeover bid.

In a rare case of an admission by an individual defendant, the SEC, on March 20, 2014, settled its long-standing case against Michael French, former attorney for Samuel and Charles Wyly (who, as discussed below, were French's co-defendants and who subsequently lost at trial against the SEC).15 The SEC sued French, the Wyly brothers, and other defendants for their alleged roles in a $550 million scheme to conceal stock sales in companies in which the Wylys had an interest.16 French agreed to disgorge $400,000 and pay prejudgment interest in the amount of $394,608, admitted to assisting the Wylys in setting up and managing offshore trusts in the 1990s that were used to hide assets, and admitted to participating in hiding those trusts from US authorities.17 Significantly, French also agreed to cooperate with the SEC in its pending trial against the Wyly brothers, which he did. Thus, this settlement can be viewed as an example of part of the Commission's new admission program and as part of the SEC's cooperation program. As discussed further below, "flipping" French and obtaining admissions from him was a significant success for the SEC, and no doubt contributed to the Commission's subsequent trial win.

Finally, on April 2, 2014, the SEC secured what it has characterized as admissions from two Brazilian brothers who the SEC accused of insider trading in SEC v. Certain Unknown Traders in the Securities of H.J. Heinz Co. In late 2013, the SEC filed proposed consent judgments in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in an insider trading case pending before Judge Rakoff. Judge Rakoff refused to sign off on the settlement because the proposed orders contained the neither-admit-nor-deny language.18 The parties refiled the proposed judgments a few weeks later with a new clause to clarify that the removal of the neither-admit-nor-deny language from the orders should not be construed as an admission. Again, Judge Rakoff refused to sign off on the proposed orders and instead gave the parties three options: (i) removing the new clause from the revised proposed consent judgments; (ii) having the settling parties admit to the allegations for the limited purpose of the proceedings at hand; or (iii) having an evidentiary hearing.19 Ultimately, on April 2, 2014, after the SEC submitted evidence purportedly supporting its claims, Judge Rakoff signed off on the settlement without the neither-admit-nor-deny language.20 Presumably, after the SEC's appellate victory in the Citigroup appeal, such a situation is unlikely to be repeated.

As we previously highlighted, the Enforcement Division staff has provided little, if any, meaningful guidance as to when it will insist that a settling party admit to the government's factual allegations. And the five cases in which admissions were sought (and received) so far this year do not provide any further insights as to why those cases were singled out for special treatment. With respect to the Scottrade settlement, the SEC's public comments appear to suggest that an admission of wrongdoing was warranted because the inadvertent error was long running, egregious (even though there was no scienter), and impacted data reporting over several years. Such systemic lapses affecting a key function of the SEC (data collection and reporting) apparently merited the stiffest of penalty and resolution the SEC has in its arsenal. As for the Lions Gate settlement, public comments suggest an admission was required mostly in an effort to send a signal to the markets. For example, in March 2014, Ceresney explained that "Lions Gate withheld material information just as its shareholders were faced with a critical decision about the future of the company. Full and fair disclosure is crucial in tender offers given that shareholders rely heavily on corporate insiders to make informed decisions, especially in the midst of tender offer battles." A few months later, he stated that the admissions sent "an important message to the market about the perils of misleading investors in the midst of a tender offer battle."21 And with respect to the settlement with the European financial institution, SEC statements suggest an admission was required due to the fact the misconduct occurred over several years and repeatedly, and also because an admission would signal to market participants the failure to identify material weaknesses in internal controls will not be tolerated (something, of course, the SEC has signaled before).22

In any event, with or without such guidance, the SEC will clearly continue to seek admissions from certain defendants in future cases. Indeed, Ceresney recently explained that, once the Enforcement Division has determined that a given case is appropriate for the new admissions policy, that decision is non-negotiable.23 In other words, the SEC will not agree to forego an admission in lieu of additional monetary penalties or remedial measures. We expect to see this policy develop in the coming months, and we will continue to monitor how the Commission administers its policy of seeking admissions of liability in the appropriate cases.

C. SEC Enters into First Individual Non-Prosecution Agreement

The Enforcement Division has a relatively recent program (launched in 2010) that over the last few years has developed and implemented a series of measures designed to encourage greater cooperation by individuals and companies in SEC investigations and enforcement actions.24 When the program was announced, Robert Khuzami (then Director of the Enforcement Division) stated that, "There is no substitute for the insiders' view into fraud and misconduct that only cooperating witnesses can provide. That type of evidence can expand our ability to conduct our investigations more swiftly, and to act quickly to file charges, freeze assets, and protect investors."25 As part of this program, the SEC has entered into a number of cooperation agreements, deferred prosecution agreements, and non-prosecution agreements.

On April 25, 2014, the SEC announced its first non-prosecution agreement with an individual, a further step in the Enforcement Division's development of the cooperation program it first announced in January 2010. Like the SEC's November 2013 announcement of its first deferred prosecution agreement with an individual (Scott Herckis), this is another signal that the SEC is pushing hard, in the pre-litigation phase of its investigations, to encourage cooperation.26 In both cases, the SEC lauded the individual's early and exemplary cooperation as the basis for entering into the agreement. But unlike the 2013 announcement, in this case the SEC did not disclose the individual's name or any further details about the agreement itself. The SEC reported only that the individual "provided early, extraordinary, and unconditional cooperation" in connection with the Saridakis insider trading case, which is discussed in greater detail below.27 Unlike Scott Herckis, this individual apparently was not required to admit to any facts or wrongdoing. Indeed, it is somewhat unclear how this non-prosecution agreement differs from a simple declination. However, because the related Saridakis investigation is ongoing and could result in further litigation, we may learn more if the individual is called upon for further cooperation in a public setting.

To read this Review in full, please click here.

Footnotes

1 SEC v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., Nos. 11–5227–cv (L), 11–5375–cv(con), 11–5242–cv(xap.), 2014 WL 2486793 (2d Cir. June 4, 2014).

2 Id. at *1.

3 SEC v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 328, 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

4 SEC v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 2014 WL 2486793, at *6.

5 Andrew Ceresney, Director of the Div. of Enforcement, SEC, Address at The SEC Speaks to the D.C. Bar, Part I (June 11, 2014).

6 Andrew Ceresney, Director of the Div. of Enforcement, SEC, Keynote Address at Compliance Week 2014 (May 20, 2014). SEC Press Release, SEC Charges Lions Gate With Disclosure Failures While Preventing Hostile Takeover, Rel. No. 2014-51 (March 13, 2014); SEC Press Release, Credit Suisse Agrees to Pay $196 Million and Admits Wrongdoing in Providing Unregistered Services to US Clients, Rel. No. 2014-39 (Feb. 21, 2014); SEC Press Release, Scottrade Agrees to Pay $2.5 Million and Admits Providing Flawed "Blue Sheet" Trading Data, Rel. No. 2014-17 (Jan. 29, 2014); In the Matter of G-Trade Services LLC, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15654 (Dec. 18, 2013); In the Matter of JPMorgan Chase & Co., Admin Proc. File No. 3-15507 (Sept. 19, 2013) (order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings); SEC v. Philip A. Falcone, No. 12-cv-5027 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2013) (final consent judgment); SEC v. Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, No. 12-cv-5028 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2013) (final consent judgment); In the Matter of North East Capital, LLC, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15429 (Aug. 16, 2013) (order instituting administrative cease-and-desist proceedings).

7 SEC Press Release, Scottrade Agrees to Pay $2.5 Million and Admits Providing Flawed "Blue Sheet" Trading Data, Rel. No. 2014-17 (Jan. 29, 2014).

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 SEC Press Release, Credit Suisse Agrees to Pay $196 Million and Admits Wrongdoing in Providing Unregistered Services to US Clients, Rel. No. 2014-39 (Feb. 21, 2014).

11 Id.

12 SEC Press Release, Credit Suisse Agrees to Pay $196 Million and Admits Wrongdoing in Providing Unregistered Services to US Clients, Rel. No. 2014-39 (Feb. 21, 2014). See also SEC Press Release, SEC Charges Rafferty Capital Markets With Illegally Facilitating Trades for Unregistered Firm, Rel. No. 2014-97 (May 15, 2014) (charging New York-based Rafferty Capital Markets with, allegedly, facilitating trades for another firm that was not registered as a broker-dealer as required under the federal securities laws).

13 SEC Press Release, SEC Charges Lions Gate With Disclosure Failures While Preventing Hostile Takeover, Rel. No. 2014-51 (Mar. 13, 2014).

14 Id.

15 Settlement Agreement, SEC v. Wyly, No. 1:10-cv-5760 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2014).

16 Andrew Scurria, Wyly brothers' ex-lawyer settles SEC fraud case, admits errors, Reuters, Mar. 20, 2014, available at http://www.law360.com/articles/517171/wyly-atty-close-to-exiting-550m-sec-fraud-case.

17 Settlement Agreement, SEC v. Wyly, No. 1:10-cv-5760 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2014).

18 SEC v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 328, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

19 SEC v. Michel Terpins and Rodrigo Terpins, 1:13-cv-01080-JSR, Dkt. No. 37, at 4-5.

20 SEC v. Michel Terpins and Rodrigo Terpins, 1:13-cv-01080-JSR, Dkt. No. 40.

21 Andrew Ceresney, Director of the Div. of Enforcement, SEC, Keynote Address at Compliance Week 2014 (May 20, 2014).

22 See, e.g., In the Matter of JP Morgan Chase & Co., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15507 (Sept. 19, 2013) (order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings).

23 Andrew Ceresney, Director of the Div. of Enforcement, SEC, Address at The SEC Speaks to the D.C. Bar, Part I (June 11, 2014).

24 SEC Press Release No. 2010-6, "SEC Announces Initiative to Encourage Individuals and Companies to Cooperate and Assist in Investigations," Jan. 13. 2010.

25 Id.

26 See generally Mary Jo White, Chair, SEC, Speech at Stanford University Rock Center for Corporate Governance (June 23, 2014) (describing how companies can cooperate with SEC investigations).

27 SEC Press Release, SEC Charges Six Individuals With Insider Trading in Stock of E-Commerce Company Prior to Acquisition by eBay, Rel. No. 2014-85 (Apr. 25, 2014).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
BakerHostetler
Fenwick & West LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
BakerHostetler
Fenwick & West LLP
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