United States: Wealth Management Update - July 2011

July Interest Rates for GRATs, Sales to Defective Grantor Trusts, Intra-Family Loans and Split Interest Charitable Trusts

The July applicable federal rate ("AFR") for use with estate planning techniques such as CRTs, CLTs, QPRTs and GRATs is 2.4%. This is down from the June rate of 2.8%. The rate for use with a sale to a defective grantor trust, self-cancelling installment note ("SCIN") or intra-family loan with a note of a 9-year duration (the mid-term rate, compounded annually) is also down slightly, to 2.00%. Remember that lower rates work best with GRATs, CLATs, sales to defective grantor trusts, private annuities, SCINs and intra-family loans. The combination of a low AFR and a decline in the financial and real estate markets presents a potentially rewarding opportunity to fund GRATs in July with depressed assets you expect to perform better in the coming years. However, the Obama Administration, in its 2012 fiscal budget, has proposed to significantly curtail short-term and zeroed-out GRATs. Therefore, GRATs should be funded as soon as possible in order to be grandfathered from the effective date of any law that may be enacted.

Clients also should continue to consider "refinancing" existing intra-family loans. The AFRs (based on annual compounding) used in connection with intra-family loans are 0.37% for loans with a term of 3 years or less, 2.00% for loans with a term of 9 years or less and 3.86% for loans with a term of longer than 9 years.

Thus, for example, if a nine-year loan is made to a child and the child can invest the funds and obtain a return in excess of 2.00%, the child will be able to keep any returns over 2.00%. These same rates are used in connection with sales to defective grantor trusts.

Malpractice claim against an estate was too uncertain to be deductible as of date of death and thus, the deduction would be based only on the amount actually paid by the estate – Estate of Gertrude H. Saunders, et al. v. Comm'r, 136 T.C. No. 18 (4/28/2011)

In Saunders, a malpractice claim for $90,000,000 was filed against the decedent's predeceased husband's estate, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the decedent's husband. The Plaintiff in the malpractice claim accused the decedent's husband, who was an attorney, of having revealed client confidential information to the IRS. On the decedent's estate tax return, a deduction for $30,000,000 was claimed based on an appraisal of the value of the malpractice claim. During the jury trial, the jury found that the breach of duty by the decedent's husband was not a legal cause of injury to the Plaintiff. Although the Plaintiff appealed this verdict, the claim was ultimately settled for $250,000.

The Tax Court noted that Treasury Regulation § 20.2053-1(b)(3) (as in effect at the decedent's death in 2004) provided that a claim against an estate was deductible if the value of the claim was "ascertainable with reasonable certainty, and will be paid." In determining whether the value of the claim was "ascertainable with reasonable certainty," the Tax Court did not consider the actual settlement amount paid. The Tax Court, however, determined that the value of the claim was not "ascertainable with reasonable certainty" because there were at least four appraisals of the value of the claim and these appraisals varied in amount by almost $11,000,000 (i.e., the values reported were $30,000,000, $25,000,000, $19,300,000 and $22,500,000). Additionally, the Tax Court noted that none of the appraisals indicated that the claim would actually be paid. Accordingly, only the amount actually paid (i.e., $250,000) was deductible by the decedent's estate.

Estate not entitled to discount the value of three marital trusts for claims by ESOP members against the marital trusts' assets – Estate of Foster v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2011-95 (4/28/2011)

In Foster, the Tax Court considered the following: (1) whether an estate was entitled to discount the value of assets in three marital trusts due to the potential for litigation; and (2) whether assets in the marital trusts could be discounted for lack of control over and lack of marketability of the marital trusts' assets. In this case, the beneficiaries of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") filed suit against the decedent's predeceased husband and the corporate trustee, as co-Trustees of the ESOP. The beneficiaries of the ESOP alleged that the co-Trustees breached their fiduciary duty in connection with the ESOP. The beneficiaries also sought restitution against the decedent and another corporate trustee, as co-Trustees of the three marital trusts which were created at the death of the decedent's husband, and requested the imposition of a constructive trust over the marital trusts' assets. To limit the liability of the co-Trustees of the marital trusts, the corporate trustee froze the decedent's right to withdraw principal from one of the marital trusts. The ESOP beneficiaries lost in district court and did not seek a stay of judgment. The decedent's estate tax return included the value of the marital trusts after applying a discount for the hazard of litigation and a discount for the lack of control over and the lack of marketability of the assets in the marital trusts resulting from the asset freeze imposed by the corporate trustee.

The Tax Court did not allow a discount for the hazard of litigation because the ESOP beneficiaries did not seek a stay of judgment against the assets in the marital trusts. The Tax Court distinguished cases in which a discount was allowed because in such cases the rights of a purchaser of the assets could have subsequently been impaired by litigation. In this case, because a stay of judgment was not sought, the constructive trust was not imposed on the marital trusts' assets at the time of the decedent's death. Consequently, a willing buyer would not have insisted on a discount on the marital trusts' assets because the ESOP lawsuit would not have affected the buyer's rights to such assets.

The Tax Court similarly did not allow a discount for lack of control over or lack of marketability of the marital trusts' assets because two of the three marital trusts were not subject to the asset freeze and the asset freeze on the third marital trust applied only to the decedent's ability to withdraw principal from the trust rather than on the right to sell the assets in the trust. Accordingly, the Tax Court held that a discount was not appropriate because a hypothetical buyer would be unaffected by the asset freeze.

Sale of assets for fair market value between a marital trust and a nonmarital trust to settle a dispute between beneficiaries and trustees of the trusts was neither a taxable gift nor a transfer of an income interest in a QTIP – Priv. Ltr. Rul. 201119003 (May 15, 2011)

In this private letter ruling, the issue was whether the transfer of assets for fair market value between a marital trust and a nonmarital trust resulted in a taxable gift or a disposition of an income interest in qualified terminable interest property ("QTIP"). Upon the decedent's death, the decedent's Family Trust became irrevocable and was divided into the Marital Trust and the Exempt Trust. The decedent was survived by a spouse from a second marriage ("Spouse 2") and two children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren from his first marriage (the children are referred to herein as "Child 1" and "Child 2"). The Marital Trust, Child 1, Child 2 and a trust for the benefit of Child 1 each owned interests in various entities. At the time of decedent's death, Child 1 was the manager, managing-member or general partner of eight of these entities. Child 1 and Child 2 filed a petition for an accounting of the Family Trust and the Trustees of the Marital Trust filed a petition to establish the ownership interest of the Marital Trust in certain entities and to enforce Child 1's resignation as manager. The parties ultimately entered into a settlement agreement during a court ordered mediation. The agreement required the Marital Trust to purchase at fair market value ("FMV") the interests of Child 1 and Child 2 in certain entities and for Child 1 and Child 2 to purchase at FMV the interests of the Marital Trust in other entities. To the extent there was any difference in the aggregate FMV of the Marital Trust purchases and the Child 1 and Child 2 purchases, an equalizing payment would be made. The FMV of the interests would be determined by 2 commercial appraisers.

Under IRC Section 2512(b), the amount by which the value of property exceeds the amount received as consideration is deemed to be a gift. Accordingly, when property is transferred for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth no gift occurs. The IRS ruled that the transactions between the Marital Trust and Child 1 and Child 2 to resolve discord between the decedent's surviving spouse and her stepchildren were the result of a bona fide adversarial proceeding and arms-length negotiations such that the FMV exchange would be made for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth and not subject to gift tax.

Under IRC Section 2519(a), a disposition of all or part of a qualifying income interest for life in QTIP property results in a deemed transfer of the value of the residuary interest in such property which is subject to gift tax. The ruling request asked whether the transfers pursuant to the agreement would result in a disposition of a qualifying income interest under IRC Section 2519. The IRS held that after the transfers, Spouse 2 would continue to possess a qualifying income interest for life in the assets of the Marital Trust, and, therefore, the transfers pursuant to the agreement would not result in a disposition of a qualifying income interest.

IRS issues an inconsistent ruling on whether a grantor trust can hold an IRA - Priv. Ltr. Rul. 201117042 (April 29, 2011)

In 2006, the IRS issued Private Letter Ruling 200620025 in which the IRS approved of the transfer of an Inherited IRA to a special needs trust ("SNT") that was a grantor trust for income tax purposes. The 2006 ruling indicated that one of four surviving sons of the decedent was disabled and the four sons were named as IRA beneficiaries. A state court established a SNT for the disabled son and the guardian and trustee of the SNT intended to transfer the disabled son's share of the Inherited IRA to an Inherited IRA benefiting the SNT and its beneficiaries. One of the issues was whether the transfer of the Inherited IRA from the disabled son to the SNT was a transfer that required the recognition of income by the disabled son under IRC Section 691(a)(2). By applying the grantor trust rules, the disabled son was treated as the owner of the assets held by the SNT. Consequently, the IRS held that the transfer of the Inherited IRA to the SNT was not a sale or disposition of the Inherited IRA for federal income tax purposes.

Conversely, on April 29, 2011, in Private Letter Ruling 201117042, the IRS noted that a financial institution correctly stated that an IRA (not an inherited IRA) cannot be set up and maintained in the name of a grantor trust. In this ruling request, pursuant to a court order, a SNT was established for an individual that was determined to be disabled. The court specified an amount that was to be transferred to the SNT, which was a grantor trust. The amount ordered to be transferred to the SNT corresponded to the balance in the individual's IRA. The IRA custodian refused to process the paperwork to transfer the IRA from the individual to the SNT stating that the IRA could not be maintained in the name of the SNT. As a result, the entire IRA was deemed to have been distributed to the individual and the proceeds deposited into a non-IRA account owned by the SNT even though the individual intended to continue his IRA. The ruling request was submitted to obtain a waiver of the 60-day IRA rollover requirement, so that the IRA could be restored to an IRA held in the individual's name and not in the trust. Prior to ruling on the waiver of the 60-day requirement, the IRS briefly stated that the custodian correctly noted that an IRA cannot be set up and maintained in the name of a grantor trust.

Nevada Governor signed into law S.B. 221 with an effective date of October 1, 2011, which makes Nevada's asset protection trust laws even stronger – S.B. 221, 76th Sess., Reg. Sess. (Nev. 2011)

On June 4, 2011, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed into law S.B. 221 with an effective date of October 1, 2011. The legislation is intended to improve and update Nevada's laws to make the state an ideal jurisdiction for the establishment of trusts. Chapter 166 of the Nevada Revised Statutes was previously amended to allow for self-settled asset protection trusts, which are irrevocable trusts that are exempt from claims of the settlor's creditor provided that the transfer to the trust is not proven to be fraudulent during the 2-year period following the transfer. S.B. 221 further updates Chapter 166 to clarify and expand existing law.

Beginning on October 1, 2011, the following trusts will qualify as self-settled asset protection trusts, making the settlor's interest in such trusts exempt from the claims of creditors:

  • A Charitable Remainder Trust that provides for annual payments to the Settlor;
  • A trust that distributes retirement benefits (whether as income or in the amount of the Required Minimum Distribution);
  • A Grantor Retained Annuity Trust; and
  • A Qualified Personal Residence Trust.

Additionally, the settlor of a self-settled asset protection trust may use real or personal property owned by the trust without limiting the scope of the protection provided by such trust.

The law makes clear that no action of any kind may be brought at law or in equity against the trustee of an asset protection trust if at the date the action is brought an action by the creditor would be barred by Section 166.170 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. This clarification is intended to dispose of any arguments that Nevada's fraudulent transfer laws, which include a 4-year statute of limitations, negates the more favorable 2-year statute of limitation rule provided for self-settled asset protection trusts. The legislation makes clear that if an individual is a creditor at the time the transfer to the asset protection trust occurs, then such individual must bring an action by the longer of (i) two years from the date of the transfer to the trust or (ii) six months from when the person discovers or reasonably should have discovered the transfer.

The law also allows for the transfer of a trust from a foreign jurisdiction to Nevada without re-starting the statute of limitation period (i.e., the date of the original transfer to the trust is treated as the date the property was actually transferred to the trust rather than the date the trust situs was moved to Nevada). For this rule to apply, the transfer must be from a state where the asset protection laws are substantially similar to Nevada's.

Pursuant to the revisions to Section 166.170, a creditor may not bring an action with respect to a transfer of property to an asset protection trust unless the creditor can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the transfer either (1) was a fraudulent transfer or (2) violates a legal obligation owed to the creditor under a contract or a valid court order that is legally enforceable by that creditor. The determination of whether a transfer is fraudulent does not affect a separate transfer to the trust. Consequently, if a transfer is determined to be fraudulent, it will not taint the exemption of the entire trust.

Also notable, the law provides that if assets are appointed into a second trust pursuant to Section 163.556 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (i.e., if the trust is decanted), the assets in the second trust are deemed to have been transferred to such trust as of the time they were transferred to the original trust. Therefore, decanting an irrevocable trust to a new trust will not re-start the statute of limitations.

Florida Governor signed into law H.B. 253, which amended Florida Statute § 608.433 to explicitly provide that a charging order is the "sole and exclusive remedy" against LLC membership interests – H.B. 253, 2011 Leg., (Fla. 2011)

On May 31, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law H.B. 253, which amended Florida Statutes § 608.433 to explicitly provide that a charging order is the "sole and exclusive remedy" against limited liability company ("LLC") membership interests. The law, however, further provides that a charging order is not the sole and exclusive remedy in the context of a single-member LLC if the judgment creditor establishes to the satisfaction of a court that distributions under a charging order will not satisfy the judgment within a reasonable time. In such case, a court may order a foreclosure sale of a debtor's single-member LLC interest.

This legislation was adopted to clarify the decision in Shaun Olmstead, et. al. v. Federal Trade Commission, 44 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 2010), in which the Court held that charging orders are not the exclusive remedy to enforce a judgment against the sole member of a single-member Florida LLC. The law clarifies that the decision in Olmstead does not apply in the context of a multimember Florida LLC.

Florida Third District Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion in Habeeb v. Linder that a husband and wife can waive homestead rights merely by signing a joint warranty deed - Habeeb v. Linder, 3D10-1532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)

On February 9, 2011, the Florida Third District Court of Appeals held that a husband and wife waived their post-death homestead rights merely by signing a joint warranty deed transferring the homestead property to the wife. On May 17, 2011, the Court, released a sue sponte Order withdrawing its decision in Habeeb. Although the withdrawal of this decision now leaves the door open for future litigation, the Habeeb decision may not be relied on as precedent.

Florida Governor signed into law H.B. 469, which amends Florida Statutes § 222.21(c) to provide that inherited IRAs are protected from claims of creditors of a debtor beneficiary – H.B. 469, 2011 Leg. (Fla. 2011)

On May 31, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed H.B. 469 into law. The law amends Florida Statutes § 222.21(c) to clarify the Legislature's intent that inherited IRAs are exempt from claims of creditors of the owner, beneficiary or participant of the inherited IRA. The law is remedial in nature and has retroactive application to all inherited IRA accounts without regard to the date an account was created. Additionally, the law should protect inherited IRAs in both state court and bankruptcy court.

Florida Governor signed into law C.S./H.B. 325, which establishes that there is no fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege – C.S./H.B. 325, 2011 Leg. (Fla. 2011)

On June 21, 2011, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed C.S./H.B. 325 into law. The law confirms that there is no fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege and that only the person or entity acting as a fiduciary is considered a client of the lawyer. The law provides that a client acts as a fiduciary when serving as a personal representative, a trustee, an administrator ad litem, a curator, a guardian or guardian ad litem, a conservator, or an attorney-in-fact. Accordingly, the law requires a personal representative in a probate proceeding to include in the Notice of Administration a statement that the fiduciary lawyer-client privilege applies with respect to the personal representative and any attorney employed by the personal representative. Additionally, the law requires that the trustee include in the initial notice to qualified beneficiaries a statement that the fiduciary lawyer-client privilege applies with respect to the trustee and any attorney employed by the trustee.

Effective October 1, 2011, a surviving spouse's share of a decedent's intestate estate will be increased from the first $60,000 of the intestate estate plus one-half of the remaining estate to the entire intestate estate when all of the decedent's descendants are also descendants of the surviving spouse and the surviving spouse does not have any other descendants. If there are one or more surviving descendants of the decedent who are not lineal descendants of the surviving spouse, the intestate share for the surviving spouse is one-half of the decedent's intestate estate. Similarly, if there are one or more surviving descendants of the decedent, all of whom are also descendants of the surviving spouse, and the surviving spouse also has one or more descendants who are not descendants of the decedent, the intestate share for the surviving spouse is one-half of the decedent's intestate estate.

Effective July 1, 2011, a court may reform a will, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms of the will to the testator's intent if it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that both the accomplishment of the testator's intent and the terms of the will were affected by a mistake. In determining the testator's intent, the court may consider extrinsic evidence even if it contradicts the plain meaning of the will. Additionally, a court may modify a will, with or without retroactive effect, to achieve the testator's tax objectives provided that such modification is not contrary to the testator's probable intent. The law provides that in proceedings to reform a will for mistake or to modify a will to achieve the testator's tax objective, a court is authorized to award taxable costs, including attorney's fees and guardian ad litem fees.

Further, the law authorizes challenges to the revocation of a will or trust on the grounds of fraud, duress, mistake or undue influence after the death of the testator or settlor. Finally, in judicial proceedings regarding trusts, the law provides that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 applies for purposes of determining when and under what circumstances a trustee or beneficiary of a trust or attorney must file a motion for attorney's fees and costs, with specifically listed exceptions.

Except as otherwise indicated above, these provisions are effective as of June 21, 2011, and apply to all proceedings pending before such date and all cases commenced on or after the effective date

www.proskauer.com

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

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

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

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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