United States: Adjudication Of FERC Enforcement Cases: "See You In Court?"

Last Updated: November 25 2015
Article by Todd Mullins and Christopher D. McEachran


Recent articles in this publication have reviewed the current FERC enforcement process and its roots in the Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPAct 2005).1 By way of brief background, as prior commentators have established, since almost its inception the Federal Power Commission and then its successor the FERC, have held "enforcement powers."2 However, in the wake of what came to be known as the "California Energy Crises" and the "August 2003 Blackout" in the Northeastern United States, Congress passed the EPAct 2005 that handed the FERC sweeping new powers—both substantive and remedial.3 EPAct 2005 amended Part II of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA), and gave the Commission the authority to assess civil penalties of up to $1 million per day per violation, for violations of rules, regulations, and orders issued under these statutes.4

The Commission and its Staff began to flex these new enforcement muscles almost immediately, most notably with the initiation of the Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., and Amaranth Advisors L.L.C. proceedings.5 In these and other early cases, the FERC attempted (and in some cases succeeded) to use its newly granted penalty authority as leverage to obtain sizeable settlements for allegations of market manipulation as well as a large suite of settlements over the natural gas "shipper-must-have-title" rules.6 But, some of these cases were adjudicated. What followed was almost a decade of developments in cases and policy pronouncements that sometimes addressed perceived inadequacies or flaws in the enforcement process.7 The Commission instituted rules and policies that responded to some criticisms about the transparency and fairness of the process.8 But strong criticisms remain, particularly in the areas of discovery and disclosure of material, staff access to the Commission during an investigation, and the length and cost of the investigatory and adjudicative processes. Many of these criticisms were featured in the Scherman et al article, which asserts that there was a "wide spread perception" that the process has become "lop-sided and unfair."9 Some of the criticism and answers played themselves out recently on the very public stage of the hearing over the confirmation of now Chairman of the FERC, Norman C. Bay. Senators peppered the nominee with questions about the enforcement process. Bay staunchly defended the current process as being within the bounds of agency authority and established government processes, in some cases asserting that the Commission affords subjects of investigations more process than many other agencies do.10 Notably, he was confirmed by the Senate despite these questions being raised. Then, in a direct response to the Scherman et al article, FERC staff penned an article in this journal rebutting some of the criticisms and claiming that "proposed reforms are unnecessary."11 More recently, draft legislation addressing some FERC investigatory process matters floated in Congressional committees, but as of this writing do not seem poised for passage.12

We submit that each side in this debate is making some valid points and yet each side is exaggerating or minimizing the problems, respectively. More importantly, the specifics upon which these commentators focus are just symptoms of a larger condition; while the REAL problem is not really being addressed. We submit that the REAL problem is having the Commission, rather than a federal court, adjudicate these cases that do not settle before the "Order to Show Cause" (OSC) stage (described further infra, section II, A).


As we discuss below, what happens in the investigative process largely matters because of what follows: the settlement or adjudication of a case. Prior commentators have well-summarized, and largely focused on, the details of the FERC enforcement investigative process.13 What have garnered less attention are the varying adjudicative processes. To really understand what may or may not be broken in the current investigative system, we must begin at the end: adjudication.

As currently practiced by the Commission, FERC civil penalty enforcement "adjudication" or "litigation" paths—what happens when cases do not settle—are different under the FPA, the NGPA, and NGA.14 The FPA outlines two different possible processes by which the Commission can "assess" penalties for Part II violations. The NGPA provides for a de novo review process in federal court. The NGA contains no provisions specifying the process for meting out penalties under that statute. In short, the various statutory schemes are a hodgepodge. In 2006, the FERC issued a policy statement addressing the processes the Commission will use when assessing civil penalties under all its governing statutes.15 That policy statement added some gloss to the statutes. And since then, the Commission has, by pronouncement or practice, shaped these courses a bit more (and courts in litigated or reviewed cases may do so as well, though these cases are just starting to wend their way through the courts, even ten years out from EPAct 2005). In light of those sources, we attempt to summarize below the processes as currently practiced.

A. The Order to Show Cause

As currently practiced, the common jumping off point for any civil penalty adjudication under any of the Commission's statutes is what is generally referred to as the "Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty" (OSC).16 In all cases, if an enforcement matter does not settle and staff succeeds in convincing the Commission to pursue enforcement (as it invariably does, more about which anon), before issuing an order assessing a civil penalty the Commission will issue an OSC.17 In the first post-EPAct 2005 OSCs, the order contained a full recitation of the preliminary determinations of the Commission.18 More recently, the OSC attaches a "Staff Report" which is supposed to contain a statement of the material facts constituting, as well as the legal basis for, the violation.19  Interestingly, though no response is expressly contemplated by statute, the Commission routinely directs respondents to present "any legal or factual arguments that could justify not issuing the assessment or a reduction or modification of the proposed penalty."20 In practice, the Commission also provides for the staff to file a reply to the respondents' arguments.21 There is some debate about whether this phase of the process constitutes "adjudication" or merely a continuation of the investigative process (because, for example and most notably, the FERC claims that it can continue investigating while the OSC process is ongoing—and it has done so in several cases).22 Regardless, the process from the OSC forward is where the paths for (or to) adjudication start to diverge depending on which statute is involved.

B. The FPA Adjudicative Process

In an FPA case, the OSC will direct the respondent to respond on the merits and will also observe that the respondent has the option to choose between either (a) an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Commission prior to the finalization of the penalty under section 31(d)(2), or (b) an immediate penalty assessment under section 31(d)(3) followed by a district court "de novo review" adjudication.23 The process is supposed to work like this:

1. The "ALJ Route"

If the person elects an administrative hearing before an ALJ at the Commission, the Commission will issue a hearing order (unless it determines, and it has done so in one case, that there are not material issues of fact that require a trial).24 The ALJ will conduct a hearing under Part 385 of the Commission's regulations.25 Staff from the Office of Enforcement serves as trial Staff at the hearing. The Section 385 rules provide for rights of discovery—and in actual practice, Respondents sometimes do obtain discovery from the FERC Staff as well as third parties.26 Discovery is available to both sides, but not as of right, except among the parties. Participants must apply to the ALJ for the issuance of discovery and trial subpoenas to third parties.27 The hearing itself is a hybrid of paper, electronic, and live procedures.28 Pre-filed testimony of party-sponsored witnesses is typical with cross-examination live on the stand. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to the hearing, though (in our experience) as a practical matter the ALJ's seem to apply evidentiary standards that are about what one might expect in a bench trial in a federal district court.29 Sometimes, ALJ's will permit opening statements, while closing arguments are almost unheard of. Parties file post-hearing briefs with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The ALJ will issue an "Initial Decision" and determine whether a violation or violations occurred.30 If a violation is found, the Initial Decision will recommend any appropriate penalty, taking into account factors described in various Commission Policy Statements on Enforcement. The hearing record is  supposed to have developed the facts necessary to any such determination. The ALJ decision is not itself effective upon issuance. There is an automatic appeal process, and the decision-maker here is not a court, but the Commission.31 The Commission will consider the Initial Decision of the ALJ and any "exceptions" filed with the Commission by trial Staff or the respondent. The Commission treats the ALJ's decision "as part of the record" and does not treat the ALJ's Initial Decision with "any special deference" as to questions of law.32 However, if the ALJ—as the trier of fact—has made a determination on the credibility of a witness, such determination would be entitled to "some deference."33 If the Commission determines that there is a violation, the Commission will issue an order and may assess any appropriate penalty, taking into account all relevant factors.34 

If a violation is found, a respondent may request a rehearing no later than thirty days after the issuance of the order assessing the penalty.35 If that rehearing request is denied, the respondent can seek a review of the case in a Court of Appeals.36 Alternatively, a respondent may appeal an order assessing penalty directly to the Court of Appeals without first seeking rehearing.37 The Court of Appeals reviews the Commission's findings of fact under the "substantial evidence standard."38 This deferential standard "requires more than a scintilla, but can be satisfied by something less than a preponderance of the evidence."39 Findings of law are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard.40 This process can take several years.

2. The "De Novo Review Route"

If a respondent to an OSC in an FPA case elects an immediate penalty assessment by the Commission, the Commission is supposed to do just that—"promptly assess such penalty."41 Even though the statute does not require or even authorize the Commission to make a "determination of a violation" as with the ALJ path, in practice, the Commission has used the OSC process in such cases to analyze the facts and law, including the competing positions of staff and the Respondent.42 The Commission issues (usually a rather lengthy) order setting forth the material facts that constitute the violation, its view of the law supporting such violations, and assessing what it views as the appropriate penalty. This process typically takes at least six months from the issuance of the OSC. Revealing a rare crack in the foundation, one Commissioner recently dissented to some aspects of this process, noting in the face of these sometimes lengthy proceedings, that "there can be no disagreement that a prompt assessment is an assessment of an immediate nature."43

If the assessed penalty is not paid within sixty days, the Commission may commence an action in a United States district court seeking enforcement of the order.44 In such a case, FPA section 31(d)(3)(B) authorizes the court to review "de novo the law and facts involved."45 The district court can "enter a judgment enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in [p]art . . ." the Commission's penalty assessment.46

There has never been an FPA de novo review case that has proceeded past an initial pleading stage. So the precise meaning of de novo review under the FPA has yet to be defined by a Court. The best available test case thus far is FERC v. MacDonald, wherein the court held that:

Section 31 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 823b(d)(3)(B) specifies that when FERC brings an action in district court to enforce a civil penalty assessment, the court must make a de novo review of the assessment. Accordingly, I will give no deference to FERC's decision. Instead, I will make "a fresh, independent determination of 'the matter' at stake."47

However, the case settled shortly after this preliminary pronouncement. So we do not really know how the courts will conduct the de novo review.

The FERC recently filed several enforcement actions in federal district court under the FPA for alleged market manipulation in electricity markets.48 The cases are FERC's first post-EPAct 2005 enforcement cases filed in district court under the FPA. The defendants in these cases claim that the full array of federal trial court procedures should apply, including the right to discovery, pretrial motions, the application of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and a hearing, including the right to a jury trial.49 The FERC, on the other hand has been a bit more open-ended in its position. It has demanded a jury trial in these cases while at the same time claiming that the courts can and should affirm the penalty assessment summarily based on the record developed solely at the agency.

By whatever means the district court gets there, the Commission and the respondent can appeal the court's final order to a United States Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals will then make certain that the District Court applied the correct legal standards, before reviewing the District Court's findings of fact and application of the law.50 The Court of Appeals will review factual findings for clear error and will review questions of law de novo.51 We do not really know how long these de novo review processes will take. But it is instructive that both the Barclays and Lincoln cases have been in federal court for nearly two years and counting, though most commentators agree that the length of the proceedings to date likely has to do somewhat with this very debate over de novo review.

To summarize this discussion, we offer the following charts to illustrate the FPA adjudicative processes and which appear as appendices to the 2006 Statement of Administrative Policy Regarding the Process of Assessing Civil Penalties, Docket No. AD07-4-000 (Dec. 21, 2006).

To continue reading this article, please click here.


1. William S. Scherman, Brandon C. Johnson, & Jason J. Fleischer, The FERC Enforcement Process: Time for Structural Due Process and Substantive Reforms, 35 ENERGY L.J. 101 (2014); Allison Murphy, Todd Hettenbach, & Thomas Olson, The FERC Enforcement Process, 35 ENERGY L.J. 283 (2014).

2. Murphy et al., supra note 1, at 285-86.

3. Id. at 288-89.

4. Id.

5. Order to Show Cause, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,086 (2007); Order to Show Cause, Amaranth Advisors L.L.C., 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,085 (2007).

6. See, e.g., Order Approving Stipulation and Consent Agreement, In re Bangor Gas Co., LLC, 118 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,186 (2007).

7. Murphy et al., supra note 1, at 290-91.

8. Revised Policy Statement on Enforcement, Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations, and Order, 123 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,156 (2008); Policy Statement on Compliance, Compliance with Statutes, Regulations, and Orders, 125 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,058 (2008); Revised Policy Statement on Penalty Guidelines, Enforcement of Statutes, Orders, Rules, and Regulations, 132 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,216 (2010); Interpretive Order Regarding No-Action Letter Process, Informal Staff Advice on Regulatory Requirements, 113 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,174 (2005); Interpretive Order Modifying No-Action Letter Process, Informal Staff Advice on Regulatory Requirements, 117 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,069 (2006).

9. Scherman et al., supra note 1, at 102.

10. Lafleur and Bay Nominations: Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 113th Cong. 15 (2014) (testimony of Norman C. Bay, Nominee, Fed. Energy Reg. Comm'n), https://www.congress.gov/113/chrg/shrg88084/CHRG-113shrg88084.pdf [hereinafter Lafleur and Bay Hearing].

11. Id. at 28; Murphy et al., supra note 1, at 283.

12. Title IV—Energy Efficiency and Accountability, Subtitle B, Chapter 1—Market Manipulation, Enforcement and Compliance, Sec. 4212 (Discussion Draft May 20, 2015), available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150603/103551/BILLS-114pih-SubtitleB-Accountability.pdf.

13. Murphy et al., supra note 1, at 291-97; Scherman et al., supra note 1, at 108-11.

14. We put some of these terms in quotes because they may be terms of art in certain contexts, such as under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Moreover, in some current cases, parties, including the authors, are litigating the meaning of such terms. We do not intend here to ascribe any particular statutory meaning to the term "adjudication" but use it here as a general rubric. Moreover, nothing in this article is meant to present, modify, or characterize any legal position taken by any litigant. This is an academic and (we hope) scholarly presentation.

15. Statement of Administrative Policy, Process for Assessing Civil Penalties, 117 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,317 (2006).

16. Revised Policy Statement on Enforcement, Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations, and Orders, 123 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,156 at P 35 (2008).

17. Id.

18. Order to Show Cause, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,086 at PP 4-22 (2007); Amaranth Advisors L.L.C., 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,085 at P 5 (2007).

19. See, e.g., Order to Show Cause, Houlian Chen, Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, HEEP Fund, LLC, CU Fund, Inc., 149 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,261 at P 2 (2014).

20. Process for NGPA Penalty Assessment, FERC, http://www.ferc.gov/resources/processes/enforcement/ngpa-text.asp.

21. 120 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,085 at P 1.

22. See, e.g., Order Assessing Civil Penalties, Barclays Bank PLC, Daniel Brin, Scott Connelly, Karen Levine, and Ryan Smith, 144 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,041 at P 22 (2013).

23. This section of the article describes the process used to assess penalties under "Part II" of the FPA to   which the enhanced penalty authority of the Commission applies. Lesser penalties are available under "Part I" of the FPA. FPA section 31(a) grants the Commission the authority to monitor and investigate compliance with licenses, permits, and exemptions for hydropower projects issued under Part I. It allows the assessment of penalties but this authority is rarely used. In any event, the process for adjudicating penalty cases under Part I is virtually identical to that under Part II.

24. See, e.g., Order on Show Cause Response, Moussa I, Kourouma d/b/a Quntum Energy LLC, 135 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,245 at PP 9-10 (2011).

25. 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.101-.2202 (2013).

26. §§ 385.401-.411.

27. § 385.409(a).

28. §§ 385.501-.510.

29. Opinion No. 523, Entergy Servs., Inc., 142 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,022 at P 55 (2013) (citing Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 131 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,173 PP 97-98 (2010), reh'g denied, 136 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,244 (2011)). Although, we note that most practitioners suspect that even federal judges apply the rules of evidence less rigorously in bench trials because they are not performing a "gate keeping function" to prevent jurors from being exposed to objectionable evidence.

30. 18 C.F.R. § 385.708(b) (2013).

31. §§ 385.711-.712.

32. La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FERC, 522 F.3d 378, 395 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 853 (D.C. Cir. 1970)). Administrative law judges' findings "are not entitled to any special deference," but instead "are treated as 'part of the record,'" such that "'in the last analysis, it is the agency's function, not the [administrative law judge's], to make the findings of fact and select the ultimate decision, and where there is substantial evidence supporting each result it is the agency's choice that governs.'"). Id.

33. Pennzoil Co. v. FERC, 789 F.2d 1128, 1135 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing Ward v. NLRB, 462 F.2d 8, 12 (5th Cir. 1972)).

34. 18 C.F.R. § 385.703 (2013).

35. § 385.713.

36. 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (2011); See, e.g., Hunter v. FERC, 711 F.3d 155, (D.C. Cir. 2013). See also Walker Operating Corp. v. FERC, 874 F.2d 1320 (10th Cir. 1989).

37. 16 U.S.C. § 823b(d)(2)(B) (2011); See, e.g., Bluestone Energy Design, Inc. v. FERC, 74 F.3d 1288, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (observing that § 823b(d)(2)(B) "does not require a party challenging a penalty to seek rehearing; a party against whom the Commission assesses a penalty may appeal directly to an appropriate court within sixty days").

38. 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b); See also La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 522 F.3d at 391.

39. FPL Energy Main Hydro LLC v. FERC, F.3d 1151, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

40. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2011).

41. 16 U.S.C. § 823b(d)(3)(A) (2011).

42. See generally Order Assessing Civil Penalties, Houlian Chen, Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, HEEP Fund, LLC, CU Fund, Inc., 151 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,179 at PP 33, 37 (2015) (finding violations in Order Assessing Penalties where respondents had elected immediate penalty assessment).

43. Barclays Bank PLC, 143 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,024 (2013) (LaFleur, Comm'r, dissenting).

44. 16 U.S.C. § 823b(d)(3)(B) (2011).

45. Id.

46. Id.

47. FERC v. MacDonald, 862 F. Supp. 667, 672 (D.N.H. 1994) (citing Doe v. United States, 821 F.2d 694, 697-98 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added); § 823b(d)(3)(B)).

48. See, e.g., FERC v. City Power Marketing, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01428-JDB (D.D.C. Sep. 1, 2015); FERC v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-0452 (E.D.Va. Jul. 31, 2015); FERC v. Maxim Power Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-30113 (D. Mass Jul. 1, 2015); FERC v. Barclays Bank PLC, No. 2:13-cv-02093, (E.D. Ca. Oct. 9, 2013), FERC v. Lincoln Paper & Tissue, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-13056 (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2013).

49. Joint Report in Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Court's Order Requiring Joint Status Report, FERC v. Barclays Bank, No. 2:13-cv-02093-TLN-DAD, 2013 WL 7045794 (E.D. Ca. Dec. 16, 2013); Lincoln Paper & Tissue, LLC's Memorandum of Law Concerning the Contours of the Trial, FERC v. Lincoln Paper & Tissue, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-13056-DPW, 2014 WL 7148814 (D. Mass. May 9, 2014).

50. Cuddy v. Carmen, 762 F.2d 119, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)).

51. Id.

Previously published by The Energy Bar Association

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.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

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.


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.


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 by clicking here .

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.