Comparable transactions Sample Clauses
The Comparable Transactions clause defines how parties will reference or use similar transactions as benchmarks or standards within an agreement. Typically, this clause outlines the criteria for identifying transactions that are sufficiently similar in terms of size, scope, industry, or other relevant factors, and may specify how such comparisons will influence pricing, terms, or dispute resolution. Its core function is to ensure fairness and objectivity by providing a clear basis for evaluating whether the terms of the current deal are in line with market norms, thereby reducing ambiguity and potential disagreements.
Comparable transactions. In considering whether it is a normal business for agreements of the type similar to each of the Agreements to have term of such duration, Donvex Capital has, at its best endeavors, identified certain transactions of the type similar to each of the Agreements entered into by other companies listed on the Stock Exchange (“Comparable Transactions”). The duration of the Comparable Transactions ranges from 4 years to 30 years. As such, the duration of each the Agreements falls within the range of the duration of the Comparable Transactions.
Comparable transactions. 4 Components ............................................. 14
Comparable transactions. During the Term, *** shall not *** pursuant to this Agreement, in the aggregate, for *** under this Agreement, taking into account, among other things, *** As used herein,*** shall mean that *** under this Agreement. In the event that *** reasonably believes that *** Nothing contained in this Section 19 shall give *** or any Other Party or its agents or representatives a right, and *** and the Other Parties hereby waives any right each may have under this Agreement or otherwise to *** In addition, *** shall not *** by the Interactive Parties hereunder, taking into account *** including without limitation, ***
Comparable transactions. The Independent Financial Adviser has reviewed certain finance leases entered into between the Company and its subsidiaries and independent third parties from 2011 to 2014 with lease duration of nine (9) years, which are longer than three years. The Independent Financial Adviser has also performed search of comparable transactions involving finance leases of equipment entered into by companies listed on the Stock Exchange. Such comparable transactions are selected by the Independent Financial Adviser based on the criteria that such transactions would involve finance leases equipment entered into by companies listed on the Stock Exchange within a year and such transactions have been announced on the website of the Stock Exchange. The comparable transactions identified by the Independent Financial Adviser based on the criteria have duration ranging from 30 months to five (5) years, with an average of 3.75 years which is longer than three years. Accordingly, the Independent Financial Adviser is of the view that leases of more than three years of this type, such as those under the finance lease(s) to implement the Strategic Cooperation Agreement, are normal business practice. Based on the above, the Independent Financial Adviser is of the view that the term of the finance lease(s) to implement the Strategic Cooperation Agreement, which will span more than three years, is the normal business practice for financial lease arrangements of this type to be of such duration.
Comparable transactions. This method was not selected given the lack of comparable past transactions (in terms of oil and gas prices, geographical exposure and business mix) of which the terms are publicly available. The net asset value method consists in calculating the value of a company by subtracting its debts from its assets as recorded in the balance sheet. This method, which is based on the historical value of assets and liabilities, was not selected in so far as it does not account for the current value of a company’s assets and liabilities or development prospects. The dividend discount model is relevant where a value is traditionally considered as capitalised income value. In the present case, the method was rejected since MAUREL & PROM has not distributed dividends since 2013.