United States: Spotlight On Spoofing: Looking Back At 2015 And Forward To 2016

In 2014, regulators signaled that they would focus their efforts on investigating and prosecuting individuals engaged in spoofing. True to their word, 2015 saw the nation's first criminal conviction of a trader for spoofing in the U.S., as well as an increase in civil enforcement actions against traders who allegedly engaged in spoofing. Securities and futures exchanges also ramped up their efforts to detect, deter, and punish spoofing. The expectation is that regulators and self-regulatory organizations will continue to actively monitor the markets using increasingly sophisticated technology to detect spoofing. This is likely to lead to an increase in the number of enforcement actions and prosecutions for spoofing in 2016.

What Is "Spoofing"?

Spoofing can take many different forms. Typically, spoofing involves a trader placing a large number of buy or sell orders that he never intends to complete for the purpose of artificially inflating or lowering the market price of a security, futures contract, or other financial instrument that is traded on an exchange.1 Once the market moves, the trader immediately cancels his open orders and takes advantage of the artificially high or low price with orders on the opposite side of the market that he intends to close out. 2 While spoofing and other types of market manipulation have occurred for years, regulators and exchanges have seen an increase in spoofing during this age where trading is dominated by high frequency and algorithmic trading. 3

Activity that regulators and self-regulatory organizations may focus on in connection with their efforts to detect spoofing include the following: (1) layered or lopsided orders, (2) "flashed" orders that appear designed to move a flat market, (3) a pattern of orders being entered and cancelled prior to execution, (4) a high ratio of cancelled orders to executed trades relative to other traders, (5) a high ratio of modified orders relative to other traders, (6) cancelled orders that are relatively large to the average order size of the security or futures contract, (7) cancelled orders that are close to the best bid/offer, (8) order cancellations that occur a short time after being entered, (9) a concentration of modified or cancelled orders during certain windows during the trading day, or (10) an atypical concentration of orders within an order book.

Regulators often use anti-fraud and anti-manipulation statutes to punish spoofing. 4 For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") pursues actions against alleged spoofers under the anti-fraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. 5 The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") also can use the mail and wire fraud statutes to punish spoofers.

When Dodd-Frank was signed into law on July 21, 2010, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") received a new tool explicitly addressing spoofing. Dodd-Frank amended the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA") and expressly made spoofing in the commodity futures markets a violation of federal law. 6 Specifically, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(5)(C) makes it "unlawful for any person to engage in any trading, practice, or conduct on or subject to the rules of a registered entity that...is, is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, 'spoofing' (bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution)." 7 On May 28, 2013, the CFTC released interpretive guidance regarding what would be considered spoofing. 8 According to the CFTC, "a market participant must act with some degree of intent to violate the 'spoofing' provision. Reckless trading, practices, or conduct would not violate [the prohibition on 'spoofing']." 9 The CFTC went on to say that "orders, modifications, or cancellations would not be considered 'spoofing' if they were submitted as part of a legitimate, good-faith attempt to consummate a trade...[L]egitimate good-faith cancellations of partially filled orders would not violate [the] CEA." 10

The definition of spoofing received further refinement in connection with the criminal prosecution of Michael Coscia for spoofing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In U.S. v. Coscia, the court had to define spoofing in its jury instructions. The court instructed the jury as follows:

"Spoofing" is defined as "bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution." To find this element satisfied, you must find the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time [the trader] entered the bid or offer specified in the Count that you are considering, he intended to cancel the entire bid or offer before it was executed, and that he did not place the bid or offer as part of a legitimate, good faith attempt to execute at least part of that bid or offer. The government must prove that [the trader] had the purpose or conscious desire to cancel his bid or offer before it was executed. It is not, however, sufficient for the government to prove that [the trader] knew or should have known that the consequence – that is, cancellation of the bid or offer before execution – was substantially likely to occur. 11

Major Spoofing-Related Events in 2015

In 2015, spoofing was a popular "buzz word" in the financial markets. It received a great deal of attention in the financial press due to a perceived increase in regulatory activity focused on spoofing. The following are highlights of the major spoofing-related events of 2015. These events demonstrate the various types of trading strategies that regulators are focused on, the range of markets that regulators are monitoring, and the multiple enforcement tools at both the state and federal level that regulators may use to investigate and police potential acts of spoofing.

The Michael Coscia Prosecution and Conviction

On November 3, 2015, after settling civil cases with the CFTC, Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA"), and Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") totaling $3.1 million in fines and $2.7 million in disgorgement, Michael Coscia became the first person in the United States to be convicted for the crime of spoofing. 12 Coscia's jury trial lasted seven days. The government called several witnesses, including traders from other firms, representatives from multiple exchanges, and a programmer hired by Coscia to develop his trading algorithm. 13 After just over an hour of deliberation, the jury found Coscia guilty on six counts of spoofing under the CEA. 14 At the close of the trial several things became clear:

  • To satisfy its burden of proof in a criminal case, the government must show, at a minimum, that a defendant had intent to engage in spoofing, not merely that he cancelled a bid or offer prior to execution. The government also must show that a defendant intended to cancel the entire bid or offer before it was executed, and that the bid or offer was not part of a good-faith attempt to execute a part of the bid or offer. 15
  • To prove the requisite intent, it is unlikely that the government can rely merely on presenting cancelled orders themselves as evidence. It is likely that the government will need additional evidence to show that a trader intended to spoof the market. The Coscia prosecutors relied on the testimony of a programmer who created the algorithms at Coscia's direction. The programmer also referred to notes indicating Coscia wanted the trading algorithms to "pump the market." 16
  • The DOJ only pursued six instances of spoofing against Coscia, which resulted in an alleged profit of only $1,070.00, indicating prosecutors are more concerned about the ease with which spoofing can be repeated rather than the total gain realized from the allegedly illegal trades. 17

Navinder Sarao

In April of 2015, the DOJ charged Navinder Singh Sarao, a London-based high frequency trader, with 21 criminal counts relating to fraud and market manipulation in connection with the so-called "Flash Crash" on May 6, 2010. 18 At the same time, the CFTC also charged Sarao with price manipulation and spoofing. 19

On May 6, 2010, nearly $1 trillion in value was erased from U.S. stocks in minutes. This event, often referred to as the Flash Crash, saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average drop 998.5 points within a few minutes. 20 The DOJ alleged that Sarao was "significantly responsible" for the Flash Crash due to his spoofing of the E-mini S&P 500 near month futures contract. 21 There are several key takeaways from the Sarao indictment:

  • Sarao's activities on May 6, 2010 occurred prior to implementation of Dodd-Frank, which took effect in July 2010, yet prosecutors are vigorously pursuing criminal charges against him. The Sarao case demonstrates that while Dodd-Frank specifically addresses spoofing in the futures markets, federal prosecutors will continue to rely on pre-Dodd-Frank anti-market manipulation and anti-fraud laws to pursue spoofers when necessary. 22
  • Even with regulators and prosecutors focusing their efforts on pursuing spoofers, oftentimes it takes investigators years to gather the evidence needed to prosecute a spoofer. In this case, even though Sarao's trading activity had been flagged as suspicious in 2010, it still took prosecutors five years to bring forth any charges. 23
  • Federal prosecutors view the reach of their anti-spoofing toolkit as extending to trading occurring in U.S. markets by offshore participants.

Igor Oystacher

In November of 2015, the CFTC filed a motion in federal court to prohibit Igor Oystacher, the founder of 3Red Trading LLC, from trading futures contracts until its civil case against him was resolved. 24 Prior to this, the CFTC had accused him of spoofing on 51 days from December 2011 through January 2015. 25 In addition to the CFTC investigations, in June 2015, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. ("ICE)" penalized Oystacher for allegedly spoofing the market for its Russell 2000 Mini Futures contract. 26 The CME also penalized Oystacher which ordered him to pay $275,000 in fines and temporarily banned him from trading. 27 Oystacher now faces a DOJ investigation as well. 28 What separates Oysatcher from Coscia and Sarao is that Oystacher appears to have made all of his own trading decisions, and he would only have orders on one side of the market at a time; never did he have simultaneous bid and offer orders outstanding.

Rather than using trading algorithms, Oystacher made all his own trades by pointing and clicking with his mouse; he did however allegedly use commercially available software that cancelled existing orders on one side of the market before he could place orders on the opposite side, allowing him to quickly flip his orders from one side to the other. The Oystacher investigations and trading activity reveal the following:

  • Spoofing activity is not limited to high-frequency traders, nor trading algorithms. Traders can use commercially available technology combined with traditional methods of online trading to achieve the same effect.
  • Oystacher's actions did not actually move the price of the contracts he was trading, rather Oystacher is accused of creating a "false impression of market depth and book pressure" with his initial orders, which gave him an unfair advantage when he flipped his orders "before other market participants could assess and react to the disappearance of the false market and book pressure." 29
  • Regulators are sensitive to any behavior that may manipulate the market, even if that behavior does not constitute traditional spoofing.
  • It may be difficult for the government to show the requisite intent in a case like Oystacher's given the fact that he did not move the market price and could merely have been reacting to what he perceived was a change in the market.

The Martin Act and the FX Markets

In November 2015, New York Attorney General ("NYAG") Eric Schneiderman issued subpoenas to multiple interdealer brokers. 30 These subpoenas, which the NYAG issued pursuant to the powers granted to him under the Martin Act, are part of an investigation into whether these brokers used fake bids and offers in Foreign Exchange ("FX") options to distort the market and create interest in largely illiquid emerging-market currencies. 31 This latest state investigation reveals several important points:

  • Federal regulators are not the only ones focused on spoofing; state regulators are focused on spoofing as well.
  • The NYAG believes his statutory powers under the Martin Act are broad enough to regulate spoofing in otherwise unregulated markets like the FX market.

DaVinci

Last year also saw a crackdown on spoofing in the United Kingdom where there were high-profile actions brought against traders engaged in "layering," which is a specific type of spoofing. In August of 2015, U.K. Regulators won a £7.6 million decision against a Swiss investment firm and three Hungarian traders engaged in layering. 32 The FCA accused DaVinci Invest Ltd. of submitting a mixture of large and small orders on one side of the order book in order to create a false impression of supply and demand of a particular security. 33 The large orders were placed at a price close enough to the best bid or offer at the time to give a false sense of supply, but far enough away to minimize the chances they were executed. 34 The smaller orders, submitted in increasing or decreasing prices, were designed to improve the bid or offer price. As the price moved, further large orders were placed. 35 Once the price moved to where the traders were satisfied, they would cancel the orders and place orders on the other side of the order book in order to take advantage of the new prices. 36 The DaVinci proceeding illustrates several important facts:

  • The crackdown on spoofing is not limited to U.S. markets; foreign regulators are also using the tools at their disposal to detect and prosecute spoofing.
  • Spoofing can be accomplished in a variety of ways, but all of these tactics involve the placing of orders that are not intended to execute.

SEC Enforcement Actions

On December 3, 2015, the SEC brought fraud and spoofing charges against three Chicago-based traders under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5. 37 The SEC alleged that brothers Behruz and Shahryar Afshar, and their friend, Richard Kenny, used spoofing techniques to take advantage of a so-called "maker-taker" program offered by an options exchange that provides rebates for orders that are sent to an exchange and trade against a subsequently received order. 38 The rebate is designed to incentivize traders to bring liquidity to the market. By sending hidden All-Or-None ("AON") options orders and placing smaller, non-bona fide orders on the opposite side of the market the three were able to induce traders to place orders at the same price as the AON orders, allowing the three traders to match those orders and receive the maker rebate. 39 At the time of the alleged spoofing, options were bid at $7 and offered at $9. The traders put in 18 AON orders to sell 10 option contracts at $8 each, and then one public order to buy at $8. That single buy order caused others to put large buy orders in at $8, which executed against the 10 AON orders, allowing the Afshars and Kenny to collect the rebate. 40 The SEC's enforcement action against the Afshar brothers and Richard Kenny demonstrates several points:

  • While Dodd-Frank may be the only regulatory framework that specifically references spoofing, the SEC views the 1933 and 1934 Acts as tools that can still be used against spoofers despite no provision outlawing "spoofing" by name.
  • Regulators will scrutinize spoofers even if they place relatively small orders. In the SEC's view, small orders can distort the market because of the sensitivity of trading algorithms that react to even the smallest price changes in the market. 41

Exchange Action and Technological Advances

During 2015, securities and futures exchanges redoubled their efforts to detect and punish spoofing when it occurs, while trying not to prevent market participants from engaging in legal trading practices. For example, in January 2015, ICE Futures US issued a publication entitled: "Disruptive Trading Practices: FAQs" that provides guidance to market participants designed to delineate between legitimate market practices and misconduct such as spoofing. 42 Several months later, in May of 2015, the CFTC directed CME to beef up its enforcement staff and to "develop strategies to identify instances of spoofing, and, as appropriate, pursue actions against perpetrators." 43

Many believe that spoofing has become more widespread because "markets today are almost entirely electronic, and algorithms aren't as savvy as their flesh-and-blood counterparts." 44 This has led exchanges to deploy advanced technology to assist with their policing efforts. For example, exchanges have begun using computer software to identify suspicious trading activity that may warrant further investigation.45 Nasdaq uses SMARTS trade surveillance technology to root out suspicious activity in the European and U.S. exchanges. 46 Other exchanges have turned to third-party developers for monitoring software. One such developer, Vertex Analytics, has created a graphics software that is used to detect spoofing. 47 Such technology has been tested by exchanges. The software is able to graphically represent every order and transaction in a market, making review of the transactions more efficient. 48

Understandably, many exchanges do not want to divulge to the public what technology, software, and processes they are implementing to help detect spoofing. If market participants with nefarious intentions know what technology or software an exchange is using, they can adjust their trading patterns to defeat the exchange's policing efforts. We also understand that exchanges have proprietary detection processes, and employ customized software and technology to help detect spoofing. These technological developments have the potential to change the manner in which spoofing is prosecuted.

In addition to new technology, exchanges are seeking the implementation of new rules in order to police spoofing. For example, in July of 2015 BATS Global Markets Inc. proposed what it called the BATS Client Suspension Rule. 49 Such a rule would allow an exchange operator to immediately issue a cease-and-desist order to a broker providing access to a suspected spoofer. 50 The broker would then have 15 days to appeal, and if the appeal was not successful, the broker would need to immediately deny access to the suspected spoofer or face removal from the market. 51 Such technological developments and rule proposals show:

  • Exchanges recognize that they must detect and punish spoofing, but, at the same time, they must not confuse spoofing with legitimate sophisticated trading practices.
  • Technology such as Smarts and Vertex Analytics graphics software could end the need to review reams of paper and trading data by hand to detect and establish that spoofing occurred. Therefore self-regulatory entities (and regulators) can act more quickly to punish spoofers.
  • While these technologies do not show a traders' mental state, the data itself could be used to bolster arguments that a particular trader had no intent to execute certain orders.

2016 and Beyond

The events described above, and the rise of anti-spoofing technology, indicate that spoofing will continue to be in the headlines throughout 2016 and beyond. In fact, as we were preparing this article, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") announced it will begin grading firms based on the volume of spoofing and other manipulative trading that they allow through their systems. 52 FINRA envisions that it will provide brokers with reports showing potential spoofing, and that brokers will be expected to confirm whether wrongdoing has occurred.

It is clear that, going forward, firms must employ top-notch compliance systems and individuals who understand their firm's particular trading strategies, as well as the new regulatory regime. To keep their firms out of spoofing trouble, a compliance staff should have a detailed understanding of the instructions being given to their traders' computer programmers to ensure that algorithms under development comply with anti-spoofing laws. Instituting proactive spoofing compliance policies could help prevent spoofing from occurring. And, if the firm becomes the target of regulatory scrutiny, prophylactic compliance measures could help shape an investigation, and potentially mitigate any fine. Furthermore, legal departments and compliance staff should react promptly, and with the assistance of outside counsel, to respond to the new FINRA reports concerning spoofing and other regulatory inquiries.

Footnotes

1. Bradley Hope, 5 Things to Know About Spoofing in Financial Markets, The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 22, 2015, 10:36 PM EST), http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2015/02/22/5-things-to-know-about-spoofing-in-financial-markets/.

2. Id.

3. Matthew Leising, Spoofing Went Mainstream in 2015, Bloomberg Business (Dec. 21, 2015, 7:00 PM EST), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/nabbing-the-rogue-algo-inside-the-year-spoofing-went-mainstream.

4. Clifford C. Histed, A Look At The 1st Criminal 'Spoofing' Prosecution: Part 1, Law360 (Apr. 20, 2015, 12:01 PM ET), http://www.law360.com/articles/645167/a-look-at-the-1st-criminal-spoofing-prosecution-part-1.

5. Id.

6. Id.

7. Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c.

8. 78 Fed. Reg. 31890, available at http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-12365a.pdf.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Jury Instructions, USA v. Coscia, No. 14 CR 00551, (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2015).

12. Jessica Corso, High-Speed Trader Found Guilty In Landmark Spoofing Case, Law360 (Nov. 3, 2015, 6:09 PM ET), http://www.law360.com/articles/722493/high-speed-trader-found-guilty-in-landmark-spoofing-case.

13. Witness List, USA v. Coscia, No. 14 CR 00551 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2015).

14. Jessica Corso, High-Speed Trader Found Guilty In Landmark Spoofing Case, Law360 (Nov. 3, 2015, 6:09 PM ET), http://www.law360.com/articles/722493/high-speed-trader-found-guilty-in-landmark-spoofing-case.

15. Jury Instructions, USA v. Coscia, No. 14 CR 00551 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2015).

16. Lynne Marek, A First: Chicago Jury Convicts Trader in Widely Watched 'Spoofing' Case, Crain's Chicago Business (Nov. 3, 2015), http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20151103/NEWS01/151109940/a-first-chicago-jury-convicts-trader-in-widely-watched-spoofing-case.

17. Brian Lewis and Janan Hanna, Swift Guilty Verdict in Spoofing Trial May Fuel New Prosecutions in U.S., Bloomberg Business (Nov. 3, 2015, 10:27 EST), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-03/commodities-trader-coscia-found-guilty-in-first-spoofing-trial.

18. Everett Rosenfeld, UK Trader Charged for Manipulation Contributing to 2010 Flash Crash, CNBC (Apr. 21, 2015, 2:50 PM EST), http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/21/futures-trader-charged-for-manipulating-stock-market-contributing-to-2010-flash-crash.html).

19. CFTC Charges U.K. Resident Navinder Singh Sarao and His Company Nav Sarao Futures Limited PLC with Price Manipulation and Spoofing, CFTC (Apr. 21, 2015), http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7156-15 .

20. Janet Whitman, The Market's Wild Ride, Montreal Gazette (May 5, 2010), http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/fp/markets+wild+ride/2994890/story.html.

21. Everett Rosenfeld, UK Trader Charged for Manipulation Contributing to 2010 Flash Crash, CNBC (Apr. 21, 2015, 2:50 PM EST), http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/21/futures-trader-charged-for-manipulating-stock-market-contributing-to-2010-flash-crash.html.

22. Id.

23. Id.

24. Bradley Hope, Regulators to Courts: Stop That Spoofer, The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 10, 2015, 7:26 PM ET), http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulators-to-courts-stop-that-spoofer-1447201589.

25. Id.

26. Igor Oystacher Case Summery, National Futures Association, http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/Case.aspx?entityid=0482612&case=2013-009&contrib=ICE.

27. Matthew Leising, The Man Accused of Spoofing Some of the World's Biggest Futures Exchanges, Bloomberg Business (Oct. 19, 2015, 4:32 PM EDT), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-19/before-u-s-called-igor-oystacher-a-spoofer-he-was-known-as-990.

28. Id.

29. Paul Peterson, Commodity Fraud: Who's Spoofing Who?, AGFAX (Jan. 8, 2016), http://agfax.com/2016/01/08/commodity-fraud-whos-spoofing/.

30. Keri Geiger, Currency Spoofing Is Said to Be New York's Latest Target, Bloomberg Business (Nov. 23, 2015, 10:27 AM EST), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-23/currency-spoofing-is-said-to-be-new-york-s-latest-target.

31. Id.

32. Kristin Ridley, UK Regulator Wins £7.6 Million High Court 'Layering' Market Abuse Order, Reuters (Aug. 12, 2015 BST), http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-financial-fca-idUKKCN0QH26C20150812.

33. FCA Secures High Court Judgment Awarding Injunction and over £7 Million in Penalties Against Five Defendants For Market Abuse (Aug. 17, 2015), https://www.fca.org.uk/news/fca-secures-high-court-judgment-awarding-injunction-and-over-7-million-in-penalties.

34. Id.

35. Id.

36. Id.

37. SEC Press Release 2015-273, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-273.html.

38. Id.

39. Id.

40. Matt Levine, Tricky Twins Spoofed Trading Computers, Bloomberg View (Dec. 3, 2015, 6:53 PM EST), http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-03/tricky-twins-spoofed-trading-computers.

41. Id.

42. Available at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/futures_us/Futures_US_Disruptive_Practice_FAQ.pdf.

43. Sarah N. Lynch, CFTC Says CME Directed to Beef Up 'Spoofing Enforcement', Reuters (May 14, 2015, 4:22 PM EDT), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cftc-cme-group-spoofing-idUSKBN0NZ1LW20150514.

44. Matthew Leising, Spoofing Went Mainstream in 2015, Bloomberg Business (Dec. 21, 2015, 7:00 PM EST), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/nabbing-the-rogue-algo-inside-the-year-spoofing-went-mainstream.

45. Edward Robinson, Market Police Deploy New Weapons Against Spoofers, Bloomberg Business (Dec. 28, 2015, 7:00 PM EST), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-29/in-algo-wars-market-police-deploy-new-weapons-against-spoofers.

46. Id.

47. Matthew Leising, Spoofing Went Mainstream in 2015, Bloomberg Business (Dec. 21, 2015, 7:00 PM EST), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/nabbing-the-rogue-algo-inside-the-year-spoofing-went-mainstream.

48. Id.

49. Matthew Perlman, BATS Eyes New Rule to Fight Market Manipulators, Law 360 (July 30, 2015, 1:45 PM ET), http://www.law360.com/articles/685221/bats-eyes-new-rule-to-fight-market-manipulators.

50. Id.

51. Id.

52. Ed Beeson, FINRA Aims to Teach a Lesson with Spoofing Report Cards, Law360 (Jan. 5, 2016, 10:32 PM ET), http://www.law360.com/articles/742698.

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
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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