United States: Considerations On Dual-Shops Following 'Navillus'

On September 20, 2017, a group of construction union trusts that operate in the New York City metropolitan area successfully obtained a $76 million award from a midtown construction firm and a major real estate developer after a three-year court battle. In a decision with potentially widespread implications for the city's construction and development firms, the United States District Court Southern District of New York found that a construction company subject to multiple collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) fraudulently established an alter ego company in an attempt to divert work away from several major city construction unions in violation of the "work preservation clauses" contained in the related CBAs. 1

The scale of the Navillus court's verdict is considered one of the largest of its type in the United States and is a strong warning to New York construction and development firms seeking to avoid union requirements. In this article, we provide an overview of double-breasted operations and discuss the implications of Moore v. Navillus Tile, Inc.

Double-Breasted Operations

In New York City and elsewhere in the US, many contractors engage construction workers pursuant to a CBA negotiated with the workers' unions. These CBAs often require that the employer (and its progeny) utilize union workers for all specified work covered by the agreement in the specified geographic area; those employers are required among other things to pay union scale wages and make contributions to jointly administered pension and welfare funds. Specific projects can be all union, open shop (mix of union and nonunion trades) or nonunion.

Nonunion workers generally receive lower wages and fewer benefits than union workers for the same services. Therefore, contractors may have a financial incentive to use nonunion labor when possible. Additionally, developers may have a preference whether or not to mix union and nonunion trades on the jobsite to promote efficiencies – some developers believe that mixing union and nonunion trades in an open shop atmosphere can lead to disputes and lack of coordination between the trades that can be detrimental to efficiencies and timelines. As a result, some employers subject to CBAs operate "double-breasted" operations in which the unionized employer creates a second, separate firm with a nonunion workforce. We note that in Navillus, the defendants claimed that nonunion help was significantly less effective than union (seventeen percent or so), and therefore, the discrepancy in wages and benefits was somewhat justified. The court, however, dismissed the defendant's argument in its application to mitigate damages.

Double-breasted operations do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) per se. However, if improperly managed, double-breasted operations may violate certain protections set forth in those statutes as well as CBA contractual provision that prohibit employers from using nonunion labor for covered work in a unionized employers' CBA. They may also violate the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which provide federal remedies for certain violations of CBAs to parties to covered CBAs and participants and beneficiaries of covered benefit funds, respectively.

The determination of whether two distinct divisions or companies comprise a double-breasted operation is generally determined based upon the following tests (i) single employer or (ii) alter ego. 2 For the purposes of this article, our discussion focuses on the alter ego doctrine, because the Navillus court relied on the alter ego doctrine to determine that two contractors were subject to the union shop's CBA even while operating parallel companies.

Typically, the single employer test is used when commonly controlled entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is predominant when a new nonunion entity replaces the union shop. The single employer test has two parts which includes the finding of a single employer and a single bargaining unit. Factors that determine whether two entities or division are a single employer include (i) centralized control of labor relations; (ii) interrelation of operations; (iii) common management; and (iv) common ownership or financial control. The factors used to find a single bargaining unit include: (i) bargaining history; (ii) functional integration of operations; (iii) differences in types of work and skills of employees; (iv) extent of centralization of management and supervision, particularly with regard to labor relations, (v) hiring, discipline and control of day-to-day operations; (vi) and extent of interchange and contact between the two groups. 3

While similar to the single employer doctrine, the alter ego doctrine does not require the finding on a single bargaining unit. The alter ego doctrine is primarily applied in situations involving successor companies, where the successor is merely a disguised continuance of the old employer. 4 As described below, the alter ego doctrine for purposes of finding two entities to be subject to a CBA is more akin to a standard "pierce the corporate veil" test for corporations. In Navillus, the court found that the nonunion operations "borrowed" management, finances, employees, operations and equipment so heavily from the predecessor (and continuing) union shop that the nonunion businesses were indeed alter egos of the union shop established for the purpose to avoid the constraints of the union shop's CBA obligations. Note that under both doctrines, direct or indirect common ownership or control between the union and nonunion operations is essential but not alone dispositive.

The Alter Ego Doctrine

The alter ego provides "an analytical hook to bind a non-signatory to a collective bargaining agreement." 5 The test to determine alter ego status is "flexible" and dependent upon the "circumstances of the individual case." 6 Generally, the "hallmarks of the alter ego doctrine include whether the two enterprises have substantially identical management, business purpose, operation, equipment, customers, supervision, and ownership." 7 A finding of alter ego status does not require all of these factors to be present nor is a single factor dispositive. 8 Further, although a company's intent to evade union obligations is a factor in determining alter ego status, it is not a necessary factor.

The alter ego doctrine was developed in the context of the NLRA, but it also applies to claims brought under ERISA. 9 In the ERISA context, the purpose of the alter ego doctrine is to prevent an employer from evading its funding obligation under the labor laws 'through a sham transaction or technical change in operations.' 10 In order to protect employee benefits, courts observe "a general federal policy of piercing the corporate veil when necessary." 11 In Navillus, the court applied the alter ego doctrine despite the fact that the controlling persons continued to operate a union contractor in parallel to the new, non –union businesses. 12 Accordingly, two companies can be found to be alter egos where both companies "exist simultaneously." 13 The key factors of the alter-ego doctrine break down as follows:

1. Ownership

In determining common ownership, courts consider whether one entity holds interest in the other entity and whether the entities are under common ownership by a third entity, either directly or indirectly. Common ownership can also be inferred where businesses are held by close family members 14 or friends 15.

Although common ownership is typically the least important factor in challenging a double-breasted operation, it is thoroughly discussed in Navillus. To be clear, while common ownership/financial control is a requirement for the finding of a single employer or alter ego, common ownership/financial control alone will not suffice. The Navillus court distinguished the facts of its case from prior cases where the only alter ego factor present was a family connection between the two entities. 16

In Navillus, two brothers founded a union company and later incorporated a second, nonunion company. In addition to being related, both brothers formally owned both the union and nonunion companies through part of a construction project at issue and only disaggregated their ownership in order to undercut the alter ego claims made against them by backdating contracts to appear that the separation occurred months earlier.

2. Management

The common management factor is broadly interpreted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and courts to include a wide range of personnel, including company directors. Courts consider the following questions in determining its presence: whether one entity exercises control over the other entity's day-to-day operations; whether the same individuals serve as officers, directors and key managers for the entities; and whether the same individuals serve in lower management positions, such as regional managers, plant managers, supervisors, etc.

The Navillus court distinguished the facts of its case from those in cases where no common management was found. 17 In United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, Allied Workers, Local No. 210, AFL–CIO v. A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc. , the court found that the manager of the union company provided "limited business advice and operational support" during the nonunion company's "early stages" and that this was insufficient to establish substantially identical management. 18

In the present case, the management team for the nonunion company's construction project was comprised almost entirely of people who had worked for the union company or were doing so immediately prior to working on the project. The nonunion company's bid was prepared by a project manager employed by the union company. Additionally, an individual, who was a former engineer for the union company led the contract negotiations for the nonunion company, which the president and CEO of the union company participated in and served as the final decision maker. Further, there were employees who worked on the nonunion company's project while still employed by the union company. Most importantly, the court focused on (i) the participation and actions of the the controlling brother who purportedly remained with the union company while negotiating contracts, fixing problems, appearing at job sites, financing, and securing property and equipment for the nonunion businesses; (ii) the union company's provision of visas for workers for the nonunion operations, sharing of management and provision of union insurance to persons on the nonunion companies' payroll; and (iii) the nonunion company's leveraging of union company's track record to win contracts, and secure insurance and bonds.

The court also discerns its facts from those in Local 812 GIPA v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York which held that "the mere transfer of low and middle managers does not establish" common management. 19 The court rejected this argument, because the relevant "low and middle managers" included all of the individuals responsible for negotiating the nonunion construction contract and overseeing its day-to-day operations. 20

3. Supervision

Common supervision is another factor considered in a finding of alter ego status. The Navillus defendants only cited one case in its rebuttal that there was no common supervision. In Amalgamated Lithographers, the court concluded that three "isolated facts" were insufficient to establish alter ego status against a backdrop of other contrary evidence: (1) that the owner of one company had once signed a litter identifying her as "President" of the other; (2) that said owner had check-signing authority at the other company for two years; and (3) that she had once declared (inside the two companies' shared office) that she was "in charge here." 21

The Navillus court distinguished the Amalgamated Lithographers facts from those in its case, because the President and CEO of the union company was a co-owner of the nonunion company during the period of contract negotiations over a nonunion company's contract and was the point-person who communicated on behalf of the nonunion company when issues regarding the project arose. In its verdict, the court also noted that the president of the nonunion company was rarely copied on emails in which problems regarding the nonunion company project were discussed and resolved.

4. Business Purpose

"In the ordinary case, two entities have the same 'business purpose' if they deal in the same product or service." 22 As such, companies have been found to share substantially identical business purposes where both companies, for example, are "involved in the heating, air conditioning and ventilation industry," 23 or perform "masonry construction." 24

Minor distinctions in the work performed are not dispositive. For example, differentiating among entities by pointing out that one entity performs union work and the other entity does not perform union work will not defeat a finding of common business purpose. Likewise, that one entity performs a type of job or project that its alleged alter ego does not is insufficient to uncouple companies with an otherwise common business purpose. The NLRB and the courts have found that entities that do the same work "a large percentage of the time, even if not exclusively" to have a common business purpose. 25

However, courts have found companies to have "completely different" business purposes where, for example, one company manufactures clothing and another markets and sells clothing 26 or where the companies "were engaged in different, though related, lines of business within the freight transportation industry." 27

Although the union and nonunion company in Navillus operated the same line of business on the project at issue (serving as a concrete foundation and superstructure subcontractor), the court added that aside from the nonunion construction project at issue, the union and nonunion company operated different lines of businesses and as a result, ceased being alter egos.

5. Customers

Sharing of clients and customers is indicative of an alter ego relationship. For example, the NLRB and courts have found alter ego status based in part on: common vendors and at least one long-time customer in common; 28 two companies servicing substantially the same customers; 29 companies sharing twenty percent of the same customers; 30 and sharing of "at least some of the same customers." 31

However, in Navillus, the court concluded that this factor is not "terribly relevant to the alter ego analysis," 32 reasoning that contractors on major construction projects in New York City all deal with a common set of customers – with some projects (including all publicly funded projects) being unionized and an increasing number of projects (including most private residential high rise construction projects) being nonunionized. Similarly, the same developers appear to operate in both spheres and developers are the ultimate source of business for both general and subcontractors.

6. Operations

The common operations factor is generally a significant factor in challenging a double-breasted operation. The NLRB and courts pay greater scrutiny to two entities when they share the same administrative staff, office space, bank and payroll accounts, marketing and advertising materials and file joint taxes.

However, the Navillus court gave little weight to the fact that the nonunion company leased office space from the union company for six months and the union and nonunion companies used the same accountants, attorneys, and insurance brokers in determining alter ego status. More relevant was the fact that the union president and CEO was contacted regarding issues on the nonunion company project and the union and nonunion companies used adjoining storage yards that were jointly owned by both companies' presidents.

Nonetheless, the court concluded that the nonunion company had largely independent operations, because they maintained separate offices, telephones, computer systems, books and records, insurance policies, bank accounts, human resources, payroll systems, and professional services. The companies further filed their own taxes and did not comingle funds.

7. Equipment

Companies may also be found to be alter egos when they share equipment, tools, supplies or other resources in connection with their operations

In Navillus, the nonunion company purchased equipment from the union company. However, the court held that there was no evidence of shared equipment, because the items were paid for at fair market value and were not for purposes of the nonunion company project at issue. As such, the court weighed this factor against its finding of alter ego status. That said, for one particular contract, the Court focused on the fact that the nonunion operation need a tower crane to complete a project. Since the nonunion business could not afford the crane and did not have sufficient assets to finance it, an equipment rental company owned by the union side purchased the required crane then rented it to the nonunion shop to finish the project. The equipment provided never had a tower crane in its inventory prior and only acquired the crane after the nonunion company told the developer that it was "buying" the crane.

8. Anti-Union Animus

Although a company's intent to evade union obligations is a factor in determining alter ego status, it is not a necessary factor.

The court in Navillus held that there was no evidence that the president and CEO of the union Company or the union company harbored anti-union animus. Here, the controllers kept a union shop for those jobs that required union labor. The court noted that it may have been the developer's animus to an open shop that drove the union contractor to form a nonunion operation in the first place to win work.

Conclusion

Despite the court's finding of a lack of shared operations, equipment or anti-union Animus, it held that the factors, overall, weighted in favor of concluding that the nonunion companies were alter egos of the union company during the nonunion company project.

Footnotes

1 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Moore v. Navillus Tile, Inc, .No. 14-CV-8326, at *56 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017), ECF 301.

2 10 Emp. Coord. Labor Relations § 30:231 (Thomson Reuters. 2017).

3 S. Prairie Const. Co. v. Local No. 627, Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs. AFL-CIO , No. 75-1097, 425 U.S. 800, 802 (1976).

4 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Moore., No. 14-CV-8326, at *57 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017), ECF 301 (quoting Mass. Carpenters Cent. Collection Agency v. Belmont Concrete Corp. , 139 F.3d 304, 307 (1st Cir. 1998).

5 Truck Drivers Local Union No. 807, I.B.T. v. Reg'l Imp. & Exp. Trucking Co. , 944 F.2d 1037, 1046 (2d Cir. 1991).

6 Ret Plan of UNITE HERE Nat'l Ret. Fund v. Kombassan Holding A.S. , 629 F.3d 282, 288 (2d. Cir. 2010).

7 Lihli Fashions Corp. v. N.L.R.B. , 80 F.3d 743, 748 (2d Cir. 1996), as amended (May 9, 1996) (quoting Truck Drivers, 944 F.2d at 1046.

8 Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. A&M Heating, Air Conditioning, Ventilation & Sheet Metal, Inc. , 314 F. Supp. 2d 332, 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

9 Kombassan , 629 F.3d at 288 (quoting Goodman Piping Prods., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 741 F.2d 10, 11 (2d Cir. 1984))

10 Id. (quoting Newspaper Guild of N.Y., Local No. 3 of the Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B. , 261 F.3d 291, 298 (2d Cir. 2001)).

11 Id. (quoting N.Y. State Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret. Fund v. Express Servs., Inc. , 426 F.3d 640, 647 (2d Cir. 2005)).

12 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Moore., No. 14-CV-8326, at *57 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017), ECF 301 (quoting Mass. Carpenters Cent. Collection Agency v. Belmont Concrete Corp ., 139 F.3d at 307).

13 Kombassan , 629 F.3d at 288.

14 See, e.g. , Goodman Piping Prods., Inc., 741 F.2d at 11.

15 Trs. of Mosaic & Terrazzo Welfare, Pension, Annuity & Vacation Funds v. High Performance Floors, Inc. , 233 F. Supp. 3d 329, 337 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).

16 See, e.g. , Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt. Co-op., Pension & Welfare Funds v. JJJ Concrete Corp. , No. 13-CV-4363, 2015 WL 790085, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Feb 25, 2015);United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, Allied Workers, Local No. 210, AFL–CIO v. A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., No. 07-CV-224, 2012 WL 4092598 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012).

17 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Moore., No. 14-CV-8326, at *62 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017), ECF 301.

18 No. 07-CV-224, 2012 WL 4092598, at *14.

19 Nos. 98 Civ. 3791 & 98 Civ. 6774, 2000 WL 1886616, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2000).

20 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Moore., No. 14-CV-8326, at *63 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017), ECF 301.

21 Digital Graphics, Ltd. V. Amalgamated Lithographers of Am., Local 1, No. 96 Civ. 5844, 1997 WL 458738, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 1997).

22 Newspaper Guild of N.Y., Local No. 3 , 261 F.3d at 299.

23 A & M Heating , 314 F. Supp. 2d at 338.

24 Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. ITRI Brick & Concrete Corp. , No. 96 Civ. 6754, 1997 WL 678164, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 1997).

25 Trs. of Mosaic & Terrazzo Welfare, Pension, Annuity & Vacation Fund , 233 F. Supp. 3d at 338.

26 Lihli Fashions Corp. , 80 F.3d at 749.

27 N.Y. State Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret. Fund , 426 F.3d at 650.

28 Castaldi v. River Ave. Contracting Corp. , No. 14-CV-5435, 2015 WL 3929691, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2015).

29 Jacobson v. Metro. Switchboard Co. , No. 05-CV-2224, 2007 WL 1774911, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2007).

30 Plumbers, Pipefitters & Apprentices Local Union No. 112 Pension, Health & Educ. & Apprenticeship Plans ex rel. Fish v. Mauro's Plumbing, Heating & Fire Suppression, Inc. , 84 F. Supp. 2d 344, 348 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).

31 Bourgal v. Robco Contracting Enterprises, Ltd. , 969 F. Supp. 854, 863 (E.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd, 182 F.3d 898 (2d Cir. 1999).

32 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Moore., No. 14-CV-8326, at *66 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017), ECF 301.

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
Gerald A. Francese
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
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