United States: Top Ten International Anti-Corruption Developments For June 2016

In order to provide an overview for busy in-house counsel and compliance professionals, we summarize below some of the most important international anti-corruption developments from the past month, with links to primary resources. This month we ask: Who was tapped as the permanent head of the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) FCPA Unit? Which companies received declinations and which ones didn't? Which country was the target of harsh words by the OECD for lack of enforcement? The answers to these questions and more are here in our June 2016 Top Ten list:

1. Permanent Head of DOJ's FCPA Unit Announced. In March 2016, Daniel Kahn was made acting chief of the FCPA Unit in the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division at DOJ. In June 2016, Kahn was made the permanent head of the FCPA Unit. Kahn leads a growing group of prosecutors as the Fraud Section continues to hire additional FCPA prosecutors, and he is supported by a strong group of Assistant Chiefs: Tarek Helou, Laura Perkins, Jennifer Saulino, Albert "B.J." Stieglitz, and Leo Tsao. One of the newly hired line prosecutors is Bruce Searby, who recently joined the FCPA Unit after a number of years in private practice. Searby was previously an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles, and while there, he tried the Green case, which involved bribes paid in Thailand to secure the rights to the Bangkok Film Festival. With Searby and other new hires, the FCPA Unit is now the largest it has ever been in history. For its part, the FCPA Unit at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has remained largely stable in terms of Unit leadership and size. Kara Brockmeyer continues to head SEC's FCPA Unit, alongside long-time deputy chief Charles Cain. They are supported by assistant directors across the country, including Ansu Banerjee (Los Angeles), Paul Block (Boston), Thierry Desmet (Miami), Tracy Price (D.C.), and Jonathan Scott (Dallas/Fort Worth).

2. SEC Reaches Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) with Two Companies, While DOJ Publicly Declines Prosecution. For only the second and third time ever, SEC resolved corporate FCPA investigations with an NPA. The first SEC FCPA NPA was announced over three years ago, in April 2013. In November 2015, SEC Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney stated that self-disclosure was necessary, but not sufficient, for a company to obtain an NPA. Although both companies discussed below did self-report, it is difficult to discern why they, and not the other self-reporting companies that resolved with SEC in 2016, obtained NPAs. In an almost equally rare occurrence, DOJ publicly announced that it had declined to bring resolutions against both companies. Unlike the last several public announcements, however, these declinations did not accompany charges against individual wrongdoers, perhaps reflecting promises by Criminal Division and Fraud Section leadership to increase and publicize declinations.

  • Internet Services Provider Resolves China FCPA Allegations. On June 7, 2016, SEC announced that it had entered into an NPA with Akamai Technologies in which the Massachusetts-based cloud service provider agreed to disgorge more than $650,000 in profits connected to cash and improper gifts and entertainment that its wholly-owned Chinese subsidiary gave to Chinese officials, in violation of the FCPA's accounting provisions. According to SEC, over a two-year period, the Chinese subsidiary's channel partner provided the subsidiary's regional sales manager with funds used to pay employees of three customers—including $38,500 in cash paid to employees of two Chinese state-owned enterprises—in exchange for their agreement to purchase "up to 100 times more network capacity from the Channel Partner than each company actually needed."
  • Building Products Manufacturer Resolves China FCPA Allegations. Also on June 7, 2016, SEC announced that it had entered into an NPA with Nortek Inc. in which the Rhode Island-based company agreed to disgorge more than $290,000 in profits connected to improper payments and other benefits provided by its indirect wholly-owned Chinese subsidiary to "local officials from multiple different governmental departments" "in order to receive preferential treatment, relaxed regulatory oversight, and/or reduced customs duties, taxes, and fees" over a five-year period.
  • DOJ Publicly Declines Both Cases. In letters dated June 6, 2016, and June 3, 2016, respectively, DOJ informed Akamai and Nortek that it had closed its own inquiries into the same alleged misconduct without bringing charges. Although both companies self-reported prior to the April 2016 announcement of the FCPA Pilot Program, DOJ stated in both letters that the declination decisions were "[c]onsistent with" that Program. Among several factors that led to the declination, DOJ specifically noted that both companies would be "disgorging to the SEC the full amount of disgorgement as determined by the SEC." As we remarked in our April 2016 Top Ten, the Pilot Program's requirement that a company agree to disgorge profits in order to obtain a "declination" is a significant policy change.

3. Medical Technology Company and Its Foreign Subsidiary Resolve Russia FCPA Allegations with DOJ and SEC. On June 21, 2016, SEC and DOJ announced parallel resolutions with Massachusetts-based Analogic Corporation and its Danish subsidiary, BK Medical ApS. Both resolutions alleged violations of the FCPA's accounting provisions. According to the resolutions, BK Medical's Russian distributor requested that BK Medical create inflated invoices for ultrasound equipment it sold to state-controlled hospitals and medical facilities and then directed BK Medical to refund the excess amounts it paid as a result of these invoices to third parties who had no apparent business connection to the deals. BK Medical allegedly engaged in similar schemes, though to a lesser degree, with its distributors in Ghana, Israel, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Vietnam. Analogic agreed to pay approximately $11.5 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to SEC, which reached a simultaneous resolution with BK Medical's former CFO, Lars Frost, for allegedly circumventing the company's internal accounting controls by authorizing payments to the third parties outside of the accounts payable system. This is the third SEC corporate resolution this year that was accompanied by an action against an individual. BK Medical agreed to pay $3.4 million as part of its three-year NPA with DOJ. According to DOJ, the company received an aggregate 30% discount off the bottom of the U.S. Sentencing Guideline Range for its voluntary self-disclosure and partial cooperation but did not receive full cooperation credit because it failed to disclose certain facts that it learned during the course of its internal investigation. DOJ's refusal to award full cooperation credit, and its decision to pursue an NPA against a subsidiary rather than declining in light of the SEC resolution, reflects the policies set out in the

Yates Memo and the FCPA Pilot Program and is consistent with its decision earlier this year to enter into an NPA with PTC Inc.'s Chinese subsidiaries and to withhold self-disclosure credit after those companies failed to disclose all relevant facts known to the companies at the time of their initial disclosure.

4. DOJ Finds That Biomet Violated Terms of Its Deferred Prosecution Agreement. In March 2012, Biomet, Inc. entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with DOJ to resolve FCPA related allegations. In March 2015, following disclosures of new potential FCPA violations in Mexico and Brazil, DOJ extended the terms of Biomet's DPA for an additional year. In March 2016, Biomet reported that its DPA had been extended for a second time. In a June 6, 2016, status report filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., DOJ informed the court that it "had determined that Biomet had breached the DPA based on the conduct in Mexico and Brazil and based on Biomet's failure to implement and maintain a compliance program as required by the DPA."1 DOJ further stated that the parties were attempting to resolve the matter without a trial. The district court ordered DOJ to file a status report by September 9, 2016. The Biomet breach is the first breach of an FCPA DPA since November 2008 when Aibel Group Ltd. pleaded guilty to a superseding information after < strong>admitting that it had not complied with the terms of a February 2007 DPA alleging that the company had bribed Nigerian customs officials. Given the rarity of a DOJ finding that a DPA has been breached, this will be a case to follow closely.

5. Another FCPA Guilty Plea in Venezuela Bribery Case. On June 16, 2016, DOJ announced that Roberto Rincon, the owner of several U.S.-based energy companies, pleaded guilty to foreign bribery and tax charges for his role in a scheme to corruptly secure energy contracts from Venezuela's national oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). According to DOJ, beginning in 2009, Rincon and another conspirator, Abraham Shiera, agreed to bribe PDVSA purchasing analysts to ensure that their companies were placed on PDVSA bidding panels, which enabled the companies to win lucrative energy contracts with PDVSA. Rincon also bribed other PDVSA officials in order to ensure that his companies were placed on PDVSA-approved vendor lists and given payment priority so that they would get paid ahead of other PDVSA vendors with outstanding invoices. Rincon's sentencing is scheduled for September 30, 2016. Rincon is the sixth defendant to plead guilty in connection with the PDVSA bribery scheme. In March 2016, DOJ announced that Shiera and four PDVSA officials had pleaded guilty for their roles in the same scheme. This case powerfully demonstrates the ability of DOJ and its law enforcement partners to detect, investigate, and prosecute wide-ranging bribery schemes through traditional law enforcement techniques without the assistance of companies. It is therefore somewhat surprising that this case has garnered little media attention in spite of the significance of the allegations and the fact that it reflects the FCPA Unit's proactive efforts to investigate and prosecute non-corporate cases that do not involve voluntary disclosures or cooperation.

6. Unanimous Supreme Court Reverses Conviction of Former Virginia Governor, Holding Government's Definition of "Official Act" Was Boundless. In a significant blow to a major corruption conviction, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell based on allegations that he and his wife accepted $175,000 in loans, gifts, and other benefits from the CEO of a Virginia-based company in exchange for the Governor's efforts to encourage Virginia public universities to perform research studies on the company's tobacco-derived nutritional supplement. The Court held that the trial court's jury instruction contained an overly broad definition of the term "official act." According to the Court, the trial court should have instructed the jury that an official act is a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy" that involves the "formal exercise of governmental power," is "specific and focused," and is pending (or may be brought) before a public official and that the defendant must have "made a decision or took an action—or agreed to do so—on the identified 'question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy[.]'" Importantly, the Court held that setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event—without more—does not meet this definition of an "official act." The Court's narrowed definition of "official act" builds on its unanimous 1999 decision in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California and exposes a continuing tension with DOJ's efforts to pursue corruption cases. By limiting the definition of "official act," McDonnell significantly limits the type of conduct that could support a domestic bribery charge. The potential impact of the McDonnell decision on the FCPA is unclear. While the FCPA and the federal domestic bribery statute share some similar language, the FCPA is arguably broader. For example, as a result of the 1998 amendments following the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, the FCPA includes the phrase "securing any improper advantage," which may be interpreted to include a greater range of conduct than the term "official act." Andrew Weissmann, the head of DOJ's Fraud Section, indicated shortly after the McDonnell case that the Section was reviewing the decision and assessing its import for FCPA enforcement.

7. Important Developments in DOJ and SEC Practice. As reflected in several previous Top Tens, we have been closely following the developments in the Fokker case and in the cases challenging SEC's use of Administrative Proceedings because of their potential impact on how DOJ and SEC resolve FCPA cases. In June 2016, there were significant developments on both fronts.

  • District Court Dismisses Fokker Charges—At DOJ's Request. In February 2015, District of Columbia District Judge Richard Leon rejected a DPA between DOJ and Fokker Services B.V., stating that he would not "serve as a rubber stamp" and calling the DPA "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Fokker Services' conduct in a post-9/11 world." In April 2016, the D.C. Circuit vacated Judge Leon's order and held that the Speedy Trial Act "confers no authority in a court to withhold exclusion of time pursuant to a DPA based on concerns that the government should bring different charges or should charge different defendants." On June 9, 2016, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) moved to dismiss the charges against Fokker with prejudice.2 According to the motion, the DPA provided that its 18-month term would commence upon filing of the Criminal Information, which occurred on June 5, 2014. "Consequently, the 18-month period of deferred prosecution ended on December 5, 2015." Because Fokker complied with the terms of the DPA beginning on the date the
  • Information was filed, including by continuing its cooperation and remedial efforts, and because it paid the monetary portions of the DPAs after the D.C. Circuit's ruling, the USAO moved to dismiss the charges with prejudice. Judge Leon granted the motion without comment on June 10, 2016. article, because no court had ever rejected a DPA before, it was not a given that the USAO would consider the agreement effective as soon as the charges were filed. However, because Fokker complied with the DPA despite the uncertainty of the outcome, this was the fair result.3 As we remarked in this
  • Appellate Courts Limit Ability to Challenge Constitutionality of SEC Administrative Proceedings in District Court. As we noted in our August 2015 Top Ten, several federal district court actions have been filed challenging the constitutionality of SEC's use of administrative proceedings. On June 1 and 17, 2016, the Second and Eleventh Circuits, respectively,4 joined the D.C. and Seventh Circuits in holding that district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider such challenges. Instead, defendants (and potential defendants) to such proceedings must proceed through the administrative process and file any constitutional challenge with the appropriate federal appellate court. In the FCPA context, SEC has to date used administrative proceedings only with respect to resolved actions, but these challenges could affect SEC's ability to use the administrative process to pursue a contested FCPA action. Interestingly, although the Eleventh Circuit case did not involve the FCPA directly, the plaintiffs cited certain portions of the FCPA—specifically, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-2(d) and 78dd-3(d), which authorize the Attorney General to pursue injunctive relief in federal district court with respect to FCPA violations involving non-issuers—to argue that Congress did not intend the detailed scheme for appellate court review of Commission orders set out in 15 U.S.C. § 78y to be exclusive. The court rejected the argument, finding that a statute granting the government the choice of forums does not imply that the government's chosen forum should not be exclusive.

8. OECD Slams Japan—Again—for Limited Foreign Bribery Enforcement. Since outlawing foreign bribery in February 1999, Japan has only prosecuted four cases of foreign bribery. As we noted in this May 2014 client alert, Japan has been repeatedly criticized by the OECD Working on Group on Bribery for this lack of enforcement. (The Working Group on Bribery is made up of the 34 OECD Member countries, which includes Japan, plus seven additional countries—Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Latvia, Russia, and South Africa—that have joined the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The parties to the Convention are subject to a rigorous peer review process.) On June 30, 2016, the Working Group released a statement harshly criticizing Japan's general lack of foreign bribery enforcement. In a rare event, on June 29-30, 2016, a high-level OECD mission arrived in Tokyo to discuss Japan's limited enforcement by pressing these issues with high-level Japanese representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, Ministry of Justice, National Police Agency, and National Tax Agency. Drago Kos, the Chair of the Working Group on Bribery, expressed the Working Group's concerns: "Japan should be aware that continued failure to fulfil the Working Group's crucial recommendations would not only increase the Group's concerns but—bearing in mind Japan's important role in the world economy—also negatively affect other countries' efforts in the global fight against foreign bribery. Therefore, we trust that the current positive

spirit of cooperation will both result in the country quickly meeting our substantial concerns and also in Japan joining the list of countries more actively enforcing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention." The OECD's pressure on Japan has had some impact on increased foreign bribery enforcement efforts, though it remains to be seen if this latest round of efforts will have a material impact on Japan's enforcement of its foreign bribery law anytime soon.

9. More International Anti-Corruption Conferences Held, Planned.

  • France, UK, and World Bank Sponsor Major International Conference on Foreign Bribery. In the wake of the UK's first-ever international summit on corruption in May 2016, France, the United Kingdom, and the World Bank sponsored another anti-corruption conference co-located at the OECD during the Working Group on Bribery's plenary session from June 14-16, 2016. Unlike the high-level meeting in London, this three-day conference appeared geared more toward enforcement officials and brought together representatives from anti-corruption authorities worldwide responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption. The conference sought to galvanize a global response to the challenges of international cooperation in the fight against corruption with discussions of transparency in public procurement, whistleblower protection, resolution through settlements and administrative sanctions, disclosure of beneficial ownership, asset recovery, and domestic and international cooperation tools and mechanisms.
  • China Pledges to Hold Anti-Corruption Conference with the OECD. On June 8, 2016, China pledged to hold a roundtable conference on anti-corruption efforts with the OECD later this year and to join the United States in pushing for an anti-graft action plan at the G20 summit to be held in September 2016 in China. China also reiterated its intention to join the OECD's Working Group on Bribery. China's integration into the international anti-corruption effort could have a major impact on foreign bribery enforcement efforts worldwide and is a development to watch.

10. SFO Continues to Quietly Build a Serious Record in Foreign Bribery Enforcement. The Director of the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), David Green, appeared at the aforementioned summit in Paris, delivered a keynote address at the Fraud Lawyer's Association on June 17, 2016, and spoke at C5's anti-corruption conference on June 20, 2016. From his public remarks, it is clear that the SFO is busy on a number of matters, and there will likely be a number of corporate resolutions in some high-profile foreign bribery investigations. Green, who recently extended his tenure as the SFO's Director by two years, has amassed a number of convictions in foreign corruption and fraud cases during his tenure and, in the process, distanced himself from his predecessor's record. It appears likely that there will be some significant matters resolved by the SFO before the close of the year.


1 USA v. Biomet Inc., No. 12-cr-80 (D.D.C. June 6, 2016), ECF No. 7.

2 United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 14-CR-121-RJL (D.D.C. June 9, 2016), ECF No. 35.

3 Id., ECF No. 36 (June 10, 2016).

4 Tilton v. SEC, 15-2103 (June 1, 2016); Hill v. SEC, 15-12831 (June 17, 2016).

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.