United States: The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - April 2015

EDITOR'S OVERVIEW

In this month's Newsletter, Robert Rachal discusses recent "church plan" rulings where some federal judges have declined to give deference to long-standing, consistent guidance from the Internal Revenue Service on the scope of the "church plan" exemption. Robert argues that this lack of deference is defeating ERISA's twin-goals of uniformity and predictability, making it difficult for plan sponsors to offer and administer pension plans.

Please be sure to see this month's Rulings, Filings, and Settlements of Interest section where we review new HHS regulations as well as decisions pertaining to the potential fiduciary status of delinquent contributing employers to multiemployer funds, equitable relief, and the possibility of a fiduciary breach claim based on an oral representation.

Pension Plan Administration and Court Deference to the IRS: The "Church Plan" Cases as a Case Study on the Significance of Agency Deference to Plan Administration*

By Robert Rachal

ERISA, as the Supreme Court has often noted, reflects a "careful balancing" between the interests of plan sponsors and plan participants.1 Uniformity and predictability are critical protections that ERISA affords plan sponsors, and these goals have been used to justify important aspects of ERISA, such as the need for judicial deference to plan administrators. See Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S. Ct. 1640, 1649-51 (2010). This need for uniformity and predictability applies with added force to pension plan administration, in which the IRS plays a critical role in determining whether these plans are tax-qualified, and thus eligible for the tax benefits (e.g., deferral of income for participants until received) that justify their existence. Indeed, the need for predictability has been deemed so important to pension plan administration that the Supreme Court has protected plans and plan sponsors from retroactive liability caused by any "marked departure from past practice."2

In light of this need for uniformity and predictability, deference to the IRS's guidance on pension law should be uncontroversial, at least when it is long-standing and consistent guidance. Yet, as the recent rulings in the "church plan" cases aptly illustrate, federal judges have sometimes become quick to second-guess the IRS and to develop their own unique pension rules, even when these new rules are a "marked departure from past practice."3 Given the complexity of ERISA and the large number of federal judges (e.g., 677 district judges are currently authorized4) this lack of judicial deference can, unfortunately, create balkanized and unexpected legal rules, defeating some of the very protections ERISA is supposed to provide plan sponsors.

Background on the "Church Plan" Exemption

The "church plan" cases arise out of Congress's expansion of the "church plan" exemption in 1980. As originally enacted in 1974 with ERISA, the "church plan" exemption only exempted from ERISA plans established by "churches" for the church and a church agency. The IRS applied this original exemption narrowly, focusing on whether the activity of the organization seeking the exemption was, in the IRS's view, sufficiently "religious" to deem that organization to be part of a "church." Thus, the IRS concluded a Catholic religious order was not part of the church, as the order's operation of health facilities was not, per the IRS, deemed sufficiently "religious," that is, focused on worshipful or sacerdotal functions.5

This and other aspects of the original exemption led to complaints from churches that this exemption as originally enacted was too narrow. The churches proposed to Congress an expansion that would, among other things, include within the "church plan" exemption the churches' "good works" ministries, such as their schools, hospitals and charitable organizations.6 Notably, Treasury objected to this very expansion, but was overruled by the Senate Finance Committee.7

As amended and reenacted, subsection (A) of the "church plan" exemption remains unchanged substantively from its original enactment. Subsection (A) provides that a "church plan" is a plan established and maintained by a church. Subsection (C), however, was added by the 1980 amendment, and extends "church plan" status to include plans administered by organizations controlled by or associated with a church: "A [church plan] includes a plan maintained by an organization . . . if such organization is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches." ERISA § 3(33)(C)(i) (emphasis added). Congress also deemed the church to be the employer of the employees of these church-affiliated organizations. ERISA § 3(33)(C)(ii)(II), (C)(iii).

Treasury, which had participated in this legislative process, and its bureau the IRS, revisited its guidance in I.R.S. General Counsel Memo 39,007, 1983 WL 197946 (Nov. 2, 1982). The IRS examined in detail the text of the expanded "church plan" exemption and reversed its earlier ruling, concluding that plans of organizations controlled by or associated with churches, in this instance plans for employees of hospitals run by religious orders, could be "church plans." Id. at *2-6. The IRS based its contemporaneous guidance on the newly added exemption in subsection (C)(i), which "includes" within the definition of "church plan," plans of church-affiliated organizations that are administered by an organization with a principal purpose to administer or fund the plan.8

Since the IRS issued its guidance, for the last thirty-plus years there has been a settled understanding among the federal agencies (the IRS, DOL and PBGC), the federal courts, and religiously affiliated plan sponsors that this expanded exemption included plans established by the "good works" ministries of churches, such as their religiously-affiliated schools and hospitals.9 As part of this settled understanding, the IRS and DOL have issued over 500 rulings to church-affiliated organizations exempting their plans from ERISA. Also, after the IRS issued its guidance, Congress has repeatedly expanded the "church plan" exemption to exempt these "church plans" from various health care, insurance, and securities laws.10

The "Church Plan" Cases

In the last two years, twelve class actions have been filed across the country against religiously-affiliated healthcare institutions (principally Catholic institutions), challenging whether their pension plans are exempt "church plans."11 Although there are some variations in the complaints, a core issue common to all is whether the "church plan" exemption includes plans established by church-affiliated organizations (the prior settled understanding), or instead should be limited to only plans established by "churches" – presumably as previously construed by the IRS to be institutions focused on worshipful activities, instead of "good works" ministries. This later approach would resurrect the troubling constitutional issues engendered by the original exemption, since many religious faiths and traditions include good works as part of how they practice their faith. In any event, the statutory construction issue can be distilled to whether "include" in ERISA § 3(33)(C) is read as illustrative or additive – does it only illustrate a "subset" of the "plans established by churches" set forth in subsection (A) of the exemption, or does it add a category of plans, i.e., of plans maintained by church-affiliated organizations, to the exemption?

There are powerful arguments why "include" should be read in its normal sense to add something to a group or category, including that this is how "include" is used throughout ERISA's "governmental plan" and "church plan" exemptions.12 There are also thirty-plus years of settled understandings between the federal agencies, courts and plan sponsors that this is what the exemption meant. Nonetheless, recently three district court judges have held that only "churches" can establish "church plans." To do so, each district judge concluded that no deference was due the IRS, reasoning that only his construction of the statute made sense.

Thus, in Rollins v. Dignity Health, 19 F. Supp. 2d 909, 913 (N.D. Cal. 2013), the district judge focused on only a part of IRS's post-amendment guidance and held he "declines to defer to the IRS's interpretation"; instead, he would conduct his own "independent analysis" of the statute. In Kaplan v. Saint Peter's Healthcare System, 2014 WL `284854 at *5 & 9-10 (D.N.J. March 31, 2014), the district judge at least noted that deference may be due the IRS if the statute were ambiguous, but then concluded that the exemption could be read in only one way, as making "include" illustrative since subsection (A) is, in his view, the "gatekeeper" for the exemption. Finally, in Stapleton v. Advocate, 2014 WL 7525481 at *4 & 8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 31, 2014), the district judge noted that deference would be due the IRS if its guidance were persuasive, but again the judge found the exemption could be read in only one way, as making "include" illustrative since subsection (C)(i) was, in his view, a "subset" of the category protected by subsection (A).

Unless the district judges properly found the statute to be unambiguous, their dismissal of the IRS guidance is doctrinally questionable. But "gatekeeper" and "subset" are nowhere in the statutory text, and instead are interpretative glosses added by these respective judges. And although each of these judges concluded that the exemption was unambiguous (and thus that reasonable minds could read the statute in only one way) each one also certified this same question for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) – and each case has been accepted for appeal by the respective circuit, the Ninth, Third, and Seventh Circuits. But 1292(b) certification requires that "there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion" over the question at issue. In sum, the "unambiguous" conclusion does not appear to withstand rigorous scrutiny.

Other courts have not been so dismissive of the IRS. Thus, in Thorkelson v. Publ'g House of Evangelical Lutheran Church of Am., 764 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1126-29 (D. Minn. 2011), the district court considered prior court decisions and agency guidance to conclude they supported reading the "church plan" exemption inclusively, to include plans established by church-affiliated organizations. And in Overall v. Ascension Health, 23 F. Supp. 3d 816, 826 (E.D. Mich. 2014), the district judge went further, noting:

Also important is that the "church plan" exemption is codified in parallel form in the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") at § 414(e), 26 U.S.C. § 414(e). The IRS construed and applied the "church plan" exemption shortly after the 1980 revision. In IRS General Counsel Memo 39007, 1983 WL 197946 (July 1, 1983), the IRS recognized that its "worshipful activity" requirement had been legislatively overruled and that the "church plan" exemption now includes plans sponsored by non-profit organizations that are "controlled by or associated with a church," which the IRS memorandum applied to include hospitals operated by Roman Catholic religious orders. Id. at *4 to *6.

The IRS has followed this rule for more than 30 years.

The district judge thus accorded the IRS's rulings deference in concluding the "church plan" exemption should be read according to the prior settled understanding, i.e., inclusively to include plans established by church-affiliated organizations. Id. at 827-29. The IRS's involvement in the legislative process, and its long-standing consistent construction of the exemption, amply support this deference.13

Proskauer's Perspective. It is no surprise that ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code provisions applicable to pension plans are often dense and complex. In the instant area, the "church plan" exemption is a bit of a Frankenstein, cobbled together from Congressional enactments occurring years apart – part (A) from 1974; part (C) from 1980. Clever arguments can be made to find and exploit potential latent ambiguities lurking in complex statutory language, such as the different meanings that can be attributed, post hoc, to the word "include" used in the "church plan" exemption. Yet ERISA cannot offer plan sponsors promised uniformity and predictability if each federal judge decides these issues anew.

In these circumstances there are sound grounds to defer to the IRS, which (other than the Supreme Court or Congress) is the only entity that can provide uniform and predictable rules in this area. This should not be a blank check, and courts must review IRS guidance for consistency with the statutory language. But ignoring long-settled, consistent IRS and court' construction, by effectively deeming them all to be unreasonable, is not a sound way to administer pension law, and defeats the uniformity and predictability necessary for plan sponsors to offer and administer pension plans.

RULINGS, FILINGS, AND SETTLEMENTS OF INTEREST

New HHS Regulations "Clarify" that Health Plans Covering Families Must Have "Embedded" Individual Cost-Sharing Limits

By Stacy Barrow and Damian A. Myers

  • On February 27, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its final HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016. The lengthy regulation covers a wide range of topics affecting group health plans, including minimum value, determination of the transitional reinsurance fee, and qualified health plan rates and other market reforms applicable to the group and individual insurance markets.

    Within the portion of the regulation's Preamble explaining insurance issuer standards under the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), HHS formally adopted a "clarification" to the application of annual cost sharing limitations. By way of background, the ACA requires that all non-grandfathered group health plans adopt an annual cost sharing limit for covered, in-network essential health benefits for self-only coverage ($6,600 in 2015 and $6,850 in 2016) and other than self-only coverage ($13,200 in 2015 and $13,700 in 2016). Until HHS's clarification, many group health plan administrators applied a single limitation depending on whether the employee enrolled in self-only or other than self-only coverage (e.g., "family" coverage). That is, if an employee enrolled in family coverage, the higher limit applied to the family as a whole, regardless of the amount applied to any single covered individual.

    HHS, however, now requires group health plans to embed an individual cost sharing limit within the family limit. For example, suppose an employee and his or her spouse enroll in family coverage with an annual cost sharing limit of $13,000, and during the 2016 plan year, $10,000 of cost sharing payments are attributable to the spouse and $3,000 of cost sharing payments are attributable to the employee. Prior to the HHS's clarification, the full $13,000 would be payable by the covered individuals because the $13,000 plan limit had not been reached on an aggregate basis. However, with the new embedded self-only limitation, the cost sharing payments attributable to the spouse must be capped at the self-only limit of $6,850, with the remaining $3,150 being covered 100% by the group health plan. The employee would still be subject to cost sharing, however, until the $13,000 plan limit is reached.

    The HHS clarification is not effective until plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2016. It is important to note that, at the moment, it is unclear whether the HHS clarification is intended to apply to self-insured plans. The 2016 Benefit and Payment Parameters are rules related to the group and individual insured market, including the Marketplace, and the Preamble section under which the clarification is found is titled "Health Insurance Issuer Standards under the Affordable Care Act, Including Standards Related to Exchanges." Additionally, all previous cost sharing guidance applicable to self-insured plans have been issued jointly by the HHS, Department of Treasury and Department of Labor. As of the date of this blog entry, the Departments of Treasury and Labor have not issued a similar clarification. Nevertheless, although the HHS clarification is potentially unenforceable with respect to self-insured plans, employers and plans sponsors with self-insured plans should be prepared to adopt an embedded cost sharing limit should the other two agencies follow suit.

Delinquent Contributing Employer May Be Fiduciary

By Anthony Cacace

  • The Second Circuit held that the owner of a contributing employer to multiemployer benefit plans breached his fiduciary duties by failing to make required contributions and was thus personally liable for the delinquencies, interest, and attorneys' fees. In so holding, the Court determined that the owner was a plan fiduciary because: (a) the plan's trust document designated required contributions as plan assets, (b) the owner was responsible for determining the order in which the company's creditors would be paid, and (c) the owner had authority and control over management of the contributing employer. As a fiduciary wrongly in possession of plan assets, the Court held that the owner was "personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan." Notably, the Court also ruled that the owner was not obligated to pay liquidated damages because the owner was liable under a fiduciary breach claim, not a claim for delinquent contributions. The case is Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 2, Albany, N.Y. Pension Fund v. Moulton Masonry & Const., LLC, No. 14-295, 2015 WL 795290 (2d Cir. Feb. 26, 2015).

Breaching Fiduciary Cannot Seek Equitable Indemnity from Another Fiduciary

By Aaron Feuer

  • A California federal district court dismissed a plan fiduciary's equitable indemnity claim because such claims are not available to a breaching fiduciary under ERISA. Plaintiff William Brown commenced a putative class action for long-term disability benefits. He alleged that the plan administrator breached its fiduciary duties by failing to inform him that, when his union switch LTD coverage to another provider, he needed to continue paying premiums (which had previously been deducted from his paycheck) in order to remain eligible for disability benefits.

    The plan administrator, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against the participant's union, seeking an order that, in the event it was held liable to the class, it should be indemnified by the union since the union allegedly prevented the plan administrator from successfully providing the participant correct information. The plan administrator argued that it tried to inform Brown of the risk of losing his benefits if he did not enroll in the individual plan, but the union prevented it from giving correct information. In dismissing the third-party complaint, the court first held that the union was not a fiduciary by virtue of having made representations to participants that they would keep their LTD benefits. Second, the court held that even if the union was a fiduciary, ERISA does not provide breaching fiduciaries the right to seek relief from other fiduciaries. The case is Brown v. Cal. Law Enforcement Ass'n, No. 3:14-cv-03559-JCS (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2015).

Fifth Circuit: Hospital Enjoys Standing to Seek ERISA Benefits

By Lindsey Chopin

  • The Fifth Circuit ruled that an out-of-network medical provider that was assigned a patient's rights to health insurance benefits has standing to sue a health plan that underpays its portion of the benefits due even if the plan participant portion is paid in full. North Cypress Medical Ctr. Operating Co., et al. v. Cigna Healthcare, et al., No. 12-20695 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2015).

    CIGNA and the CIGNA plan participants share the cost of out-of-network care, and to facilitate payment, many patients expressly assign their right to benefits under the CIGNA plan to North Cypress Medical Center. For purposes of calculating the amount owed by participants, the hospital discounted the rate charged to participants. The hospital did not discount the amount charged to the plan. When CIGNA learned of the hospital's practice, it started making its proportional payments to the hospital based on the discounted rates.

    The hospital filed suit against CIGNA under ERISA for recovery of the balance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CIGNA. In its view, the hospital lacked standing because participants who assigned their rights to the hospital did not incur any out-of-pocket expenses since the hospital did not bill its patients for the amounts CIGNA did not pay.

    The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's ruling. It reasoned that participants have the right to be reimbursed by CIGNA for medical costs incurred at an out-of-network provider, and the fact that participants assigned that right to the hospital "does not cause [the right] to disappear." As an express assignee of the patients' rights, the hospital had standing to sue for underpayment of benefits. According to the Court, any argument that the hospital's billing and discounting practices reduces or eliminates CIGNA's payment obligations under the terms of the plans is a merits-based contention that does not affect the hospital's standing to sue. The Fifth Circuit instructed the district court to consider that issue on remand.

Fiduciary Breach Claim Based On Oral Representation Can Proceed

By Madeline Chimento Rea

  • A federal district court in New Jersey held that oral misrepresentations may support a breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA. Plaintiff Richard Lees was hired by American Re–Insurance Company, although he was paid by another entity called SMS. When American sought to transfer Lees to its payroll, Lees allegedly agreed to the transfer only if he would be treated as if he had been on American's payroll the entire time for the purpose of his pension benefits. According to Lees, he was promised these benefits instead of receiving a sign-on bonus. Lees alleged that over a decade after his transfer, the successor to American, Munich, informed him that he would not receive pension credit for the time he was on SMS's payroll. According to the district court, nothing in Third Circuit precedent precludes oral misrepresentations from supporting a breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA. The court added that even if the oral representations could not support Lees' breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA, Lees had alleged sufficient facts on which to base his claim and further discovery into his employee file could reveal written materials to support the claim. The court thus denied defendant's motion to dismiss. The case is Lees v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc., No. 14–2532, 2015 WL 1021299 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2015).

Footnotes

* Originally published in Bloomberg, BNA. Reprinted with permission.

[1] Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S. Ct. 1640, 1649 (2010) (quoting Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 215 (2004)).

[2] City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 722 (1978) (refusing to impose retroactive liability based on Court's ruling that sex-based pension contribution tables violated Title VII).

[3] Manhart, 435 U.S. at 722.

[4] See http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/FederalJudgeships.aspx (last visited April 1, 2015).

[5] See I.R.S. Gen. Couns. Mem. 37,266, 1977 WL 46200, *5 (Sept. 22, 1977). The IRS noted that its rule defining religious mission applied even whenit was contrary to the religious doctrine of the applicable church. Id.

[6] See 125 Cong. Rec. 10,054-58 (1979) (Sen. Talmadge, publishing letters of the religious organizations).

[7] See Exec. Sess. of S. Comm. on Fin., 96th Cong. 41-42 (June 12, 1980).

[8] Id. at *3. The IRS also cited Senator Javits' floor statement to note that, as amended, the "church plan" exemption is no longer limited to plans of churches. Id. at *6, n.1.

[9] See, e.g., Lown v. Continental Cas. Co., 238 F.3d 543, 547 (4th Cir. 2001) ("church plans" include plans established by church-affiliated organizations); Hall v. USAble Life,774 F. Supp. 2d 953, 958-61 (E.D. Ark. 2011) (rejecting argument that "church plan" exemption could not extend to a hospital).

[10] For some examples, (i) in 1988 Congress excluded "church plans" from the requirement to provide health continuation coverage under Code § 4980B. See 26 U.S.C. § 4980B(d)(3); (ii) in 1996 Congress added § 3(c)(14) to the Investment Company Act of 1940 to exclude "church plans" from the definition of "investment companies" under that Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 80a-3(c)(14); and (iii) in 2000 Congress enacted the "Church Plan Parity and Entanglement Prevention Act" to amend ERISA to preempt certain state insurance requirements from applying to "church plans." See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a).

[11] See Jacklyn Willie, Firms File 12th Church Plan Lawsuit; Illinois-Based Presence Health Targeted, BNA Pension & Benefits Daily (April 6, 2015).

[12] See, e.g., ERISA § 3(32) ("including" plans of Indian tribes, international organizations, and railroads within "governmental plan" exemption); § 3(33)(C)(ii)(II) ("including" as employees of a church the employees of church-affiliated organizations).

[13] For example, the IRS's General Counsel Memo 39,007 (subsequently followed by the DOL and PBGC) reflects its contemporaneous analysis of the amended exemption in light of that institutional knowledge. Compare United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., 532 U.S. 200, 220 (2001) (noting IRS ruling reflecting agency's longstanding interpretation that is reasonable "attracts substantial judicial deference"). Congress' expanding the "church plan" exemption to other contexts after this agency guidance was published provides further grounds for deference. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-81 (1978).

The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - April 2015

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
 
In association with
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
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

    Disclaimer

    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

    Registration

    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

    Cookies

    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

    Links

    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

    Mail-A-Friend

    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

    Emails

    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .

    Security

    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions