United States: Walking The Line Between Marketing And Malfeasance

Last Updated: October 16 2019
Article by Taylor B. Mayes and Katie Marshall

THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY APPEARED HERE IN VOL. 12 NO. 3 OF PRO TE: SOLUTIO.

INTRODUCTION

Opioid manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies and prescribers are facing a deluge of lawsuits that involve criminal and civil claims in both federal and state courts. On May 2, 2019, a federal jury in Boston, Massachusetts, found John Kapoor, the self-made billionaire and founder of Insys Pharmaceuticals, along with four other executives, guilty of RICO conspiracy for their roles in Insys' scheme to bribe medical practitioners and defraud Medicare and private insurance carriers.1 The verdict followed a 10-week trial during which jurors heard testimony concerning the plan Insys employed to market Subsys, a highly powerful fentanyl spray.2 Kapoor and his former colleagues are scheduled to be sentenced in September.3 Each defendant faces to up to 20 years in prison for their crimes.4

The fallout for Insys did not end with these convictions. On June 5, 2019, Insys agreed to pay $225 million dollars, plead guilty to five counts of mail fraud and admit violations of the False Claims Act to settle civil and criminal federal investigations into the Subsys scheme.5 The Department of Justice (DOJ) celebrated the settlement as a major victory.6 However, the celebration was short-lived: The government will likely recover only a fraction of the settlement amount.7 On June 10, 2019, Insys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in which the company declared assets worth $175 million and debts of $262 million.8 This marks the first time a pharmaceutical company has filed bankruptcy because of opioid-related litigation costs.9

The pharmaceutical industry, private attorneys and prosecutors are closely watching the opioid litigation playing out in forums across the country. Plaintiffs' lawyers are fond of drawing comparisons between the opioid litigation and the tobacco litigation in the 1990s in which tobacco companies were spurred to accept the largest civil litigation settlement in history, in the very early stages of the proceedings.10 Yet, there is a major problem in comparing opioids with tobacco: Few doctors would dispute that opioids are "essential medication, the most effective drugs for the relief of pain and suffering."11

The necessity of these drugs and the flood of recent litigation over their abuse have raised many legal questions concerning the roles of industry members and the judicial system. Where is the line between marketing and racketeering? Between physician education and bribery? Are the recent headlines signs of a future uptick in criminal and civil prosecutions against corporations? What about against individual executives? This article explores the criminal and civil liability involved in the Insys scandal and the implications for the pharmaceutical industry in an age where prescription opioids are not going anywhere.

INSYS THERAPEUTICS AND SUBSYS

John Kapoor, now 74, founded Insys in 2002.12 Kapoor was already extremely wealthy, and he personally bankrolled Insys for years before Subsys was approved by the FDA in early 2012.13 Subsys belongs to a class of fentanyl products known as TIRF drugs, which have been approved by the FDA exclusively for use by adult cancer patients who are already receiving around-the-clock opioid therapy and are experiencing "breakthrough" pain.14 TIRF drugs are incredibly valuable and necessary to those patients with extreme pain. They also happen to be lucrative—a single patient taking Subsys could produce up to $19,000 in revenue per month.15

When Subsys launched in 2012, the Insys board, led by Kapoor, selected Michael Babich, a thirty-six-year-old with negligible industry experience, to serve as CEO.16 Kapoor was disappointed reportedly with the sales of Subsys during its first months on the market, and there was high turnover of sales personnel, who were also almost all young and inexperienced.17 To resolve these problems, Babich brought in Alec Burlakoff.18 Burlakoff had experience in the industry, but his previous sales tactics had led him into trouble.19 In 2002, the Florida Attorney General's Office investigated him for mailing unsolicited pills to potential consumers.20 He was thereafter fired by his employer, Eli Lilly, whom Burlakoff then sued, claiming the plan was orchestrated by management.21

With Burlakoff at the wheel, Insys quickly ramped up its sales efforts, including its now-infamous "speaker program."22 Only high-volume opioid prescribers, referred to by Insys sales representatives as "whales," were recruited to participate in the speaker program.23 Top prescribers of Subsys were paid four figures to speak over fancy dinners to audiences of their friends and family, none of whom were qualified to become prescribers themselves.24 At least one whale even received a lap dance from an Insys sales representative in an attempt to secure him as a speaker.25 Insys quadrupled the budget for the speaker program to more than $10 million by 2014.26 Prosecutors would later present evidence that the Insys executives had even calculated the potential return on investment for each of the speakers.27 Burlakoff also encouraged sales representatives to push doctors into prescribing higher doses of Subsys than the recommended, on-label dose of 100 mcg.28 Sales representatives were threatened through emails with "immediate negative consequences" if they failed to comply with his orders.29 Fortunately for prosecutors, top executives, including Kapoor, were copied on these emails.30

Burlakoff and Babich eventually struck deals to testify against Kapoor and their former colleagues, which resulted in some of the most powerful testimony for prosecutors.31 According to Burlakoff, Insys was "up front" with doctors about the bribery scheme, and Kapoor would regularly ask interviewees whether they preferred "loyalty" or "integrity" to determine whether they would be willing to "go along with our scheme to bribe doctors to prescribe Subsys."32

Subsys sales skyrocketed from $8.6 million in 2012 to $329 million in 2015.33 In 2013, Insys went public—resulting in the best performing IPO of the year.34 However, Insys executives faced a major hurdle in their efforts to promote Subsys prescriptions for non-cancer patients: Insurance companies would not cover Subsys unless it was prescribed for on-label use. Moreover, wholesalers and pharmacies were required by the DEA to report suspicious orders.35 Thus, Insys resolved to make it look like the prescriptions were being written for cancer patients and to bribe pharmacies and distributors to go along with the plan.36

Insys developed a multi-pronged approach to address this problem. For the "most valuable" prescribers, Insys hired "Area Business Liaisons" to work on obtaining authorizations from within the provider's office. Area business liaisons, who were often relatives and friends of the provider, were bankrolled by Insys to obtain final authorization for payment for Subsys prescriptions from insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid.37 Meanwhile, Insys employees in the "reimbursement center" worked to ensure prior and final authorization by contacting payors directly.38 Practitioners who used the reimbursement center were required to fill out forms to opt in, and they provided information about patients that was confidential.39 Callers in the reimbursement center contacted insurance companies and falsely represented that they worked in a provider's office.40 Then, they lied about the medical history and diagnoses of patients so that payors would approve payment for Subsys, even though it had been prescribed for off-label use.41 When representatives from the insurance companies would inquire further about the employment status of the Insys callers, the Insys callers were instructed to hang up the phone and try to call again later—in hopes that someone less suspicious would answer.42

Insys also worked with pharmacies to circumvent DEA reporting requirements for controlled substances.43 One way that Insys tried to avoid triggering DEA suspicion was by constantly using new wholesalers.44 By changing the distribution chain, they were able to access wholesalers who were unaware of previous ordering patterns and willing to distribute more Subsys than the previous wholesaler.45 Eventually, Insys cut out the middleman entirely by shipping Subsys directly to pharmacies that were willing to bypass DEA requirements to buy Subsys at a discounted price and increase their own profits.46 Participating pharmacies signed retail agreements with Insys that required them to make payments directly to the company rather than to a wholesaler.47

Clearly, many of the actions of Insys executives stand out as extreme departures from legal and acceptable behavior. Their willingness to discuss their illegal actions openly in emails, texts and marketing materials also sets them apart. At trial, prosecutors played a rap video in which Burlakoff is dancing, dressed up as a Subsys bottle—with the highest possible dose.48 As discussed in greater detail below, the copious evidence against the defendants allowed prosecutors to bury them at trial.

The Insys Trial

It doesn't take a law degree to know that the actions of the Insys executives were brazenly illegal. The following section explains why their conduct made it possible for prosecutors to hold them individually, criminally accountable.

RICO, an intentionally broad statute, is designed to provide a tool against a wide array of organized crime. To prove RICO conspiracy, the government must prove the defendant: (1) through the commission of two or more acts; (2) engaged in a "racketeering activity" (i.e., violated a qualifying federal or state law);49 (3) by directly or indirectly investing in, maintaining an interest in or participating in an enterprise (e.g., a business); (4) the activities of which affected interstate or foreign commerce."50 Conspiracy is sometimes referred to as an inchoate, or incomplete crime, because a defendant may not be found guilty of the completed offense but may still be found guilty of conspiracy—so long as there is proof of their intentional involvement in a plan to commit the crime.51 The Anti-Kickback Statute punishes individuals in the healthcare industry who offer bribes to healthcare providers to arrange for medical services that will be paid for by a federal healthcare program, including Medicare and Medicaid.52 The Insys defendants were also charged under the mail and wire fraud statutes, which prohibit schemes developed to obtain money or property by means of "false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises" over the mail system or wires.53

Prosecutors were able to establish RICO conspiracy based upon several underlying crimes or "racketeering activities,"54 including drug distribution,55 mail and wire fraud,56 breach of the duty of honest services57 and bribery.58 They were also able to establish violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute. As discussed above, Insys offered a creative array of bribes to its "speakers" for writing Subsys prescriptions, including compensation, lap dances, area business liaisons and fancy dinners.59 These bribes violated, inter alia, the Controlled Substance Act and state fraud statutes, which can both support a RICO claim. Insys executives regularly conducted their illegal activities using emails and texts, thus implicating the wire fraud statute. These communications, which clearly crossed the desk of Kapoor and other top executives, made it possible for prosecutors to prove they participated in the conspiracy. Insys executives also committed wire fraud by setting up the "reimbursement center" to contact insurance companies directly and to say whatever was necessary to gain authorization for payment. They committed mail fraud by bypassing distributors and sending Subsys directly to pharmacies.

The well-documented, egregious conduct of the Insys executives sets their case apart from previous cases involving executive misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry. Prosecutors have celebrated their case against the executives as a great success and have vowed to continue to hold executives individually liable for wrongful conduct.60, 61 However, events since the trial may compel prosecutors to pause before throwing the book at executives in the future.

Settlement and Bankruptcy

On June 5, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office released news that a settlement had been reached with the operating subsidiary of Insys, including payment of a $2 million fine, a $28 million forfeiture, and payment of $195 million to settle False Claims Act allegations.62

Just five days after agreeing to the settlement, Insys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.63 In addition to this settlement, Insys still faced over 1,000 lawsuits, including 10 filed by state attorneys general.64 It remains unclear how much of this settlement the government will ever see.

PUBLIC NUISANCE LITIGATION

William Prosser, the leading authority of his generation on tort law, famously blasted nuisance law as a "legal garbage can," opining, "there is perhaps no more impenetrable jungle in the entire law than that which surrounds the word 'nuisance.' It has meant all things to all people, and has been applied indiscriminately to everything from an alarming advertisement to a cockroach in a baked pie."65

Some prosecutors and plaintiff attorneys use the age-old legal garbage can in pursuit of recovery. Public nuisance theory has been criticized widely because of its vagueness, unpredictability and tendency to compel a judge to step into the shoes of a legislator.66 Despite this criticism from the bench and the bar, attempts have been made to expand this theory into opioid litigation. This is by no means the first time plaintiffs have attempted to expand public nuisance law, which has historically been used to address harms such as toxic fumes, water pollution and bright lights from stadiums. Plaintiff lawyers who are active in the opioid litigation have drawn comparisons to the successful strategy employed to compel enormous settlements from the tobacco companies in the 1990s based on such theories.67 The settlements were obtained even though no tobacco case was ever brought to trial on a public nuisance theory.68

The Eighth Circuit rejected a public nuisance claim when plaintiffs attempted to apply it to a manufacturer of cold medicine containing ephedrine, based upon the manufacturer's alleged failure to prevent criminals from using the medication to make methamphetamine.69 The court reasoned that the independent criminal actions of the methamphetamine cooks caused the injury and stated that it was "reluctant to open Pandora's Box to the avalanche of actions that would follow if we found this case to state a cause of action."70

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY SHIFTS

A brief review of shifting DOJ policy helps elucidate the course of the DOJ's role in the opioid litigation thus far and may assist those in the industry in making predictions concerning the likelihood of civil and criminal actions against pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributers, pharmacies and individual doctors.71 On September 5, 2015, Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general, issued a policy announcement now known as the Yates Memorandum on the subject of civil and criminal "Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing."72 The memorandum announced a shifting emphasis from corporate to individual prosecution, stating: "One of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrated the wrongdoing."73 With respect to both criminal and civil suits, the policy imposed a "condition of cooperation," which mandated that a company identify "all individuals involved in or responsible for the misconduct at issue, regardless of their position, status or seniority, and provide to the Department all facts relating to the misconduct," or its cooperation would not be considered a mitigating factor for sentencing or settlement amounts.74 The policy also announced that considerable deference has been removed from civil attorneys at DOJ: "Absent extraordinary circumstances," department lawyers are no longer permitted to agree to corporate resolutions that provide immunity to individual officers or employees.75 Moreover, attorneys are not permitted to consider an individual officer's ability to pay when determining whether to pursue action against him or her.76

However, the Yates Memorandum did not have the intended effect and has since been largely walked back. On November 29, 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein highlighted the failures of the Yates Memorandum policies. Rosenstein announced that the DOJ would shift away from duplicative prosecutions, stating: "It is important to punish wrongdoers. But we should discourage the sort of disproportionate and inefficient enforcement that can result if multiple authorities repeatedly pursue the same violator for the same misconduct." He also highlighted the unfair effects that prosecutions can have on employees and shareholders.77

Moreover, Rosenstein indicated that the focus of investigations would be on top officials going forward, and a company must only identify the individuals who were "substantially involved," in order to qualify for cooperation credit.78 He also restored discretion to the civil DOJ attorneys to close a case without investigating every employee, to negotiate civil releases for individuals who will not be prosecuted criminally and to consider an individual's ability to pay in deciding whether to pursue a civil judgment.79 Rosenstein stated, "We generally do not want attorneys to spend time pursuing civil litigation that is unlikely to yield any benefit; not while other worthy cases are competing for our attention."80

POSSIBLE TRENDS Q&A

Will there be additional criminal prosecutions of pharmaceutical executives?

There may be some, but it is unlikely we will see widespread criminal prosecutions against individuals. The DOJ has indicated it plans to focus its limited resources on catching the biggest fish. Per Rosenstein: "We want to focus on the individuals who play significant roles in setting a company on a course of criminal conduct. We want to know who authorized the misconduct, and what they knew about it." However, he also admitted: "Our policies need to work in the real world of limited investigative resources."

The Insys trial lasted 10 weeks, and the jury deliberated for 15 days. The government spent considerable resources pursuing the criminal case against those individuals. The DOJ recognizes that it is important to hold individuals accountable, but it is also important to recover resources to put toward solutions. Only one of these goals was achieved with Insys because the criminal prosecution destroyed the company.

Does AG litigation pose an existential threat to pharmaceutical companies?

It depends on the company. Obviously, the conduct of the company is the most important factor. Size also matters because the more dispersed the company structure, the harder it will be to establish claims such as those based upon RICO. Insys was unusual, in part, because top executives were copied on multiple highly incriminating emails and could not plead ignorance to the actions of their subordinates.

Moreover, the DOJ has evidenced a policy shift that supports a more moderate approach to enforcement efforts to mitigate the unfair effects on innocent shareholders and employees.

Should we expect to see an uptick in civil litigation, criminal suits or both?

Unfortunately, the kind of misconduct featured in the Insys case can negatively color public perception of the industry as a whole—and capture the attention of prosecutors. But that misconduct was an outlier, not the norm. Illegal conduct warrants prosecution, but the Insys result should not be read as a red flag for good corporate citizens in this sector. On the civil side, plaintiffs' lawyers typically file suits where there is a reasonable chance of recovery. To that end, companies facing bankruptcy amid government prosecution provide long odds for pragmatic plaintiffs. So, it's difficult to see these types of actions paired together going forward to any increased degree of frequency.

Footnotes

1 See Founder and Four Executives of Insys Therapeutics Convicted of Racketeering Conspiracy, U.S. Dep't of Justice (May 2, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/founder-and-four-executives-insys-therapeutics-convicted-racketeering-conspiracy; Taylor Telford, Insys becomes first drugmaker to file for bankruptcy to cover opioid penalties, Washington Post (June 10, 2019),

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/10/insys-becomes-first-drugmaker-file-bankruptcy-cover-opioid-penalties/.

2 See Telford, supra note 1.

3 United States v. Michael Babich, Alec Burlakoff, Richard Simon, Sunrise Lee, Joseph Rowan, and Michael Gurry, John Kapoor, Docket 16-cr-10343-ADB, https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/victim-and-witness-assistance-program/united-states-v-michael-babich-alec-burlakoff-richard-simon-sunrise-lee-joseph-rowan-and.

4 Id.

5 See Opioid Manufacturer Insys Therapeutics Agrees to Enter $225 Million Global Resolution of Criminal and Civil Investigations, U.S. Dep't of Justice (June 5, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/opioid-manufacturer-insys-therapeutics-agrees-enter-225-million-global-resolution-criminal.

6 Id.

7 See Robert Field & Vincent Buccola, Opioid Settlements: Why Insys Is the Tip of the Iceberg, Knowledge@Wharton (June 18, 2019), https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/opiod-settlements-is-insys-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 James K. Holder, Opening the Door Wider? Opioid Litigation and the Scope of Public Nuisance Law, 13 No. 2, In-House Def. Q. 33 (2018).

11 Andrew Rosenblum, et al., Opioids and the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Controversies, Current Status, and Future Directions, J. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology (2008).

12 See Matthew Herper, An Opioid Spray Showered Billionaire John Kapoor In Riches. Now He's Feeling The Pain, Forbes (October 25, 2016), https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/10/04/death-kickbacks-and-a-billionaire-the-story-of-a-dangerous-opioid/.

13 See Evan Hughes, The Pain Hustlers, New York Times (May 2, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/02/magazine/money-issue-insys-opioids-kickbacks.html.

14 See Opioid Manufacturer Insys Therapeutics Agrees to Enter $225 Million Global Resolution of Criminal and Civil Investigations, supra note 4.

15 Chris Villani, Ex-Insys Execs Found Guilty in RICO Opioid Bribe Scheme, Law360 (May 2, 2019, 2:42 PM EDT), https://www.law360.com/articles/1148719/ex-insys-execs-found-guilty-in-rico-opioid-bribe-scheme.

16 See Herper, supra note 12.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 See Hughes, supra note 13.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Alexandria Hein, Former stripper-turned-drug exec gave doctor lap dance while pitching painkiller, witness testifies, Fox News (January 30, 2019), https://www.foxnews.com/us/former-stripper-turned-drug-exec-gave-doctor-lap-dance-while-pitching-painkiller-witness-testifies.

26 Indictment, ¶ 64.

27 See Hughes, supra note 13.

28 Indictment, ¶ 81.

29 Id. at ¶ 85.

30 Id.

31 See Villani, supra note 15.

32 Id.

33 See Telford, supra note 1.

34 Id.

35 Indictment, ¶ 92.

36 See Telford, supra note 1.

37 Indictment, ¶¶ 71-73, 155.

38 Indictment, ¶ 97.

39 Indictment, ¶ 98.

40 Indictment, ¶ 105.

41 Indictment, ¶ 102.

42 Indictment, ¶ 105.

43 Indictment, ¶ 92.

44 Id.

45 Id.

46 Id.

47 Id.

48 See Insys executives used rap video to push sales of potentially lethal opioid, CBS News (Feb. 14, 2019), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insys-executives-used-rap-video-to-push-sales-of-highly-addictive-opioid/.

49 See Jake DuCharme, et al., Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 56 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1323, 1326 (2019) (listing the crimes that qualify as a racketeering activity).

50 Id. Although the RICO statute does not contain an explicit statute of limitations, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a five-year limitations period for criminal RICO prosecutions "because Congress explicitly provided a five-year term as the default statute of limitations for criminal actions." Id. (citing Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assoc., Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987)). There is a four-year statute of limitations for civil RICO actions. Id.

51 See Id.

52 See 42 U.S.C.A § 1320(a)-7b(b)(2).

53 Indictment, ¶ 97.

54 See Peter Henning, RICO Offers a Powerful Tool to Punish Executives for the Opioid Crisis, New York Times (May 23, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/business/dealbook/rico-insys-opioid-executives.html.

55 See 21 U.S.C. § 841.

56 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346; Indictment ¶ 246.

57 Id.

58 Id.

59 Indictment, ¶ 71-73.

60 See Opioid Manufacturer Insys Therapeutics Agrees to Enter $225 Million Global Resolution of Criminal and Civil Investigations, supra note 5.

61 Indeed, by mid-summer 2019, the DOJ had also charged executives with Rochester Drug Co-Operative (RDC) and Miami-Luken with illegal distribution of opioids. The RDC executives were potentially spared since the company paid a penalty and agreed to make changes to its operations. But Miami-Luken was no longer in business when the charges were filed against its ex-president, compliance officer and two pharmacists. https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/drug-distributor-and-two-its-executives-hammered-felony-criminal-charges-for-opioid; https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/doj-indicts-second-opioid-distributor-for-role-illegally-pushing-pills-despite-warning-signs.

62 Id.

63 See Field & Buccola, supra note 7.

64 Ryan Boysen, Insys Hit With Nationwide Opioid Class Claim In Ch. 11, Law360 (June 17, 2019, 6:01 PM EDT), https://www.law360.com/articles/1169821/insys-hit-with-nationwide-opioid-class-claim-in-ch-11.

65 See Holder, supra note 10.

66 Id.

67 Id.

68 Yet the general public nuisance theory has not borne fruit against gun manufacturers, who have aggressively and successfully defended similar lawsuits. Public nuisance claims against gun manufacturers have been dismissed based upon several theories, including the following: "(1) the lawful sale of guns did not meet the requirement of a nuisance that interfered with a right common to the general public, (2) the gun manufacturers did not have control over the use of guns once they had been shipped to licensed distributors and dealers and thus the manufacturers could not have caused the nuisance; and (3) proximate causation was missing between the criminal misuse of handguns and the mere manufacture of the guns themselves, which were a lawful and legitimate product when used appropriately." See Holder, supra, note 10.

69 See Ashley Cty. v. Pfizer, 552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009).

70 Id. at 671.

71 Sally Quillian Yates, Memorandum for the Assistant Attorney General: Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing, U.S. Dep't of Justice (Sept. 9, 2015).

72 Id.

73 Id.

74 Id.

75 Id.

76 Id.

77 Id.

78 Id.

79 Id.

80 Id.

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

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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