Common use of Consent to Jurisdiction; Appointment of Agent for Service of Process Clause in Contracts

Consent to Jurisdiction; Appointment of Agent for Service of Process. The choice of law provisions set forth in this Agreement will be recognized by Chilean courts; the Selling Shareholder has the legal capacity to xxx and be sued in its own name under the laws of Chile; the irrevocable submission of the Selling Shareholder to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the New York Courts, the waiver by the Selling Shareholder of any objection to the venue of a proceeding in a New York Court and the agreement of the Selling Shareholder that this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of New York are legal, valid and binding under the laws of Chile and will be respected by the Chilean courts; and the service of process effected in the manner set forth in this Agreement, provided personal service of process is made and assuming its validity under New York law, will be effective, insofar as Chilean law is concerned, to confer valid personal jurisdiction over the Selling Shareholder. The provisions in this Agreement as to the choice of New York Law as the governing law thereof and the provisions thereof as to (i) the submission by the Selling Shareholder to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the New York Court, and (ii) the manner of effecting service of process as set forth therein, are valid, binding and enforceable under the laws of Chile. If a final and conclusive judgment for the payment of money is rendered by such courts outside Chile against the Selling Shareholder in respect of this Agreement, such judgment will be recognized in the courts of Chile and such courts would, subject to a review of the judgment in order to ascertain whether certain basic principles of due process and public policy have been complied with, grant or fail to grant, under the following circumstances, a judgment which would be enforceable against the Selling Shareholder in Chile. That is (A) if there is a treaty between Chile and the country where the judgment was rendered with respect to the enforcement of foreign judgments, the provisions of said treaty shall be applied, (B) if there shall be no treaty, the judgment would be enforced if there is reciprocity as to the enforcement of judgments (i.e., the relevant foreign court would enforce a judgment of a Chilean court under comparable circumstances), (C) if the judgment has been rendered by the courts of a country which does not enforce the judgments of Chilean courts, such judgment will not be enforced in Chile, (D) if reciprocity or the lack of reciprocity cannot be proven, the judgment would be enforced if it has not been rendered by default within the meaning of Chilean law; the judgment would not be considered to have been rendered by default if personal service of process was made upon an agent of the Selling Shareholder (assuming that such manner of service is valid under applicable law), unless the Selling Shareholder was able to prove that due to other reasons it was prevented from assuming its defense, and (E) in any event, the judgment shall not be contrary to the public policy of Chile and shall not affect in any way properties located in Chile. Upon compliance with all of the above, and provided that the judgment is submitted to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chile, the courts of Chile will enforce a final and conclusive judgment for the payment of money recorded by a court outside of Chile in accordance with the procedures contemplated for the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Chilean Civil Procedure Code. Access to the courts of Chile will not be subject to any conditions that are not applicable to residents, citizens or companies incorporated under the laws of Chile.

Consent to Jurisdiction; Appointment of Agent for Service of Process. The choice of law provisions set forth in this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement will be recognized by Chilean courts; the Selling Shareholder Company has the legal capacity to xxx and be sued in its own name under the laws of Chile; the irrevocable submission of the Selling Shareholder Company to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the State and Federal courts in the Borough of Manhattan, the City of New York, New York Courts(“New York Court”), the waiver by the Selling Shareholder Company of any objection to the venue of a proceeding in a New York Court and the agreement of the Selling Shareholder Company that this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of New York are legal, valid and binding under the laws of Chile and will be respected by the Chilean courts; and the service of process effected in the manner set forth in this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement, as applicable, provided personal service of process is made and assuming its validity under New York law, will be effective, insofar as Chilean law is concerned, to confer valid personal jurisdiction over the Selling ShareholderCompany. The provisions in this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement as to the choice of New York Law as the governing law thereof and the provisions thereof as to (i) the submission by the Selling Shareholder Company to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the New York Court, and (ii) the manner of effecting service of process as set forth therein, are valid, binding and enforceable under the laws of Chile. If a final and conclusive judgment for the payment of money is rendered by such courts outside Chile against the Selling Shareholder Company in respect of this Agreement or the Deposit Agreement, such judgment will be recognized in the courts of Chile and such courts would, subject to a review of the judgment in order to ascertain whether certain basic principles of due process and public policy have been complied with, grant or fail to grant, under the following circumstances, a judgment which would be enforceable against the Selling Shareholder Company in Chile. That is (A) if there is a treaty between Chile and the country where the judgment was rendered with respect to the enforcement of foreign judgments, the provisions of said treaty shall be applied, (B) if there shall be no treaty, the judgment would be enforced if there is reciprocity as to the enforcement of judgments (i.e., the relevant foreign court would enforce a judgment of a Chilean court under comparable circumstances), (C) if the judgment has been rendered by the courts of a country which does not enforce the judgments of Chilean courts, such judgment will not be enforced in Chile, (D) if reciprocity or the lack of reciprocity cannot be proven, the judgment would be enforced if it has not been rendered by default within the meaning of Chilean law; the judgment would not be considered to have been rendered by default if personal service of process was made upon an agent of the Selling Shareholder Company (assuming that such manner of service is valid under applicable law), unless the Selling Shareholder Company was able to prove that due to other reasons it was prevented from assuming its defense, and (E) in any event, the judgment shall not be contrary to the public policy of Chile and shall not affect in any way properties located in Chile. Upon compliance with all of the above, and provided that the judgment is submitted to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chile, the courts of Chile will enforce a final and conclusive judgment for the payment of money recorded by a court outside of Chile in accordance with the procedures contemplated for the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Chilean Civil Procedure Code. Access to the courts of Chile will not be subject to any conditions that are not applicable to residents, citizens or companies incorporated under the laws of Chile.

Consent to Jurisdiction; Appointment of Agent for Service of Process. The choice of law provisions set forth in this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement will be recognized by Chilean courts; the Selling Shareholder Company has the legal capacity to xxx and be sued in its own name under the laws of Chile; the irrevocable submission of the Selling Shareholder Company to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the State and Federal courts in the Borough of Manhattan, the City of New York, New York Courts(each, a “New York Court”), the waiver by the Selling Shareholder Company of any objection to the venue of a proceeding in a New York Court and the agreement of the Selling Shareholder Company that this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of New York are legal, valid and binding under the laws of Chile and will be respected by the Chilean courts; and the service of process effected in the manner set forth in this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement, as applicable, provided personal service of process is made other than by mail and assuming its validity under New York law, will be effective, insofar as Chilean law is concerned, to confer valid personal jurisdiction over the Selling ShareholderCompany. The provisions in this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement as to the choice of New York Law as the governing law thereof and the provisions thereof as to (i) the submission by the Selling Shareholder Company to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the New York Court, and (ii) the manner of effecting service of process as set forth thereintherein other than by mail, are valid, binding and enforceable under the laws of Chile. If a final final, valid and conclusive judgment for the payment of money is rendered by such courts outside Chile against the Selling Shareholder Company in respect of this Agreement or the Deposit Agreement, such judgment will be recognized in the courts of Chile and such courts would, subject to a review will enforce such final and conclusive judgment without any retrial or re-examination of the judgment in order to ascertain whether certain basic principles merits of due process and public policy have been complied withthe original action, grant or fail to grant, under provided the following circumstances, a judgment requirements are met (the satisfaction or non-satisfaction of which would be enforceable against determined by the Selling Shareholder in Supreme Court of Chile. That is ): (A) if there is a treaty between Chile and the country where the judgment was rendered with respect to the enforcement of foreign judgments, the provisions of said treaty shall be applied, (B) if there shall be no treaty, the judgment would be enforced if there is reciprocity as to the enforcement of judgments (i.e., the relevant foreign court would enforce a judgment of a Chilean court under comparable circumstances), (C) if the judgment has been rendered by the courts of a country which does not enforce the judgments of Chilean courts, such judgment will not be enforced in Chile, (D) if reciprocity or in the lack absence of reciprocity canforeign court precedents enforcing Chilean courts’ decisions in application of principles of reciprocity, the foreign judgment will still be enforced in Chile, provided that: (1) the judgment shall not be proven, contrary to the laws of Chile (but procedural laws to which the proceedings of the case would have been subject to in Chile will not be taken into consideration) and (2) the judgment would be enforced if it has not been rendered by default within the meaning of Chilean law; the judgment would shall not be considered to have been rendered by default if personal service of process was made upon an agent of the Selling Shareholder in conflict with Chilean jurisdiction (assuming that such manner of service is valid under applicable law), unless the Selling Shareholder was able to prove that due to other reasons i.e. it was prevented from assuming its defense, and (E) in any event, the judgment shall not be contrary to the public policy of Chile and shall not nor directly affect in any way properties property located in ChileChile by imposing injunctions, attachments, embargos, precautionary or similar measures over any such property or ordering the foreclosure of any such property, which are as a matter of Chilean applicable law subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of Chilean courts); (3) the party against whom the enforcement of the judgment is sought was duly served process of the action or complaint; and (4) the judgment is final in accordance with the laws of the country in which it was issued. Upon compliance with all of the above, and provided that the judgment is submitted to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chile, in a duly legalized (by the competent Chilean Consul) form and, if not in Spanish, translated by an official translator of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, the courts of Chile will enforce a final and conclusive judgment for the payment of money recorded rendered by a court outside of Chile in accordance with the procedures contemplated for the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Chilean Civil Procedure Code. Access to the courts of Chile will not be subject to any conditions that are not applicable to residents, citizens or companies incorporated under the laws of Chile. The Supreme Court of Chile will hear arguments from the party against whom enforcement is sought, but such hearing will be limited to aspects relating to such enforcement and not to substantive issues resolved in the foreign judgment. As of the date hereof, there is no treaty between the Republic of Chile and the United States on the enforcement of foreign judgments. In practice, due to the difficulties of proving in each case whether the reciprocity rule on the enforcement of foreign judgments applies or not in respect of a specific country, the Supreme Court of Chile’s approach on the matter has generally been the examination of whether circumstances in letter (D) above are duly met by such foreign judgment.

Consent to Jurisdiction; Appointment of Agent for Service of Process. The choice of law provisions set forth in this Agreement Agreement, the Indenture (including the Guarantee provided therein) and the Securities will be recognized by Chilean courts; each of the Selling Shareholder Company and the Guarantor has the legal capacity to xxx and be sued in its own name under the laws of Chile; the irrevocable submission of each of the Selling Shareholder Company and the Guarantor to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the State and Federal courts in the Borough of Manhattan, the City of New York, New York Courts(“New York Court”), the waiver by each of the Selling Shareholder Company and the Guarantor of any objection to the venue of a proceeding in a New York Court and the agreement of each of the Selling Shareholder Company and the Guarantor that this Agreement Agreement, the Indenture (including the Guarantee and provided therein) and the Securities shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of New York are legal, valid and binding under the laws of Chile and will be respected by the Chilean courts; and the service of process effected in the manner set forth in this Agreement, the Indenture or the Securities, as applicable, provided personal service of process is made and assuming its validity under New York law, will be effective, insofar as Chilean law is concerned, to confer valid personal jurisdiction over the Selling ShareholderCompany or the Guarantor, as applicable. The provisions in this Agreement Agreement, the Indenture and the Securities as to the choice of New York Law as the governing law thereof and the provisions thereof as to (i) the submission by each of the Selling Shareholder Company and the Guarantor to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the New York Court, and (ii) the manner of effecting service of process as set forth therein, are valid, binding and enforceable under the laws of Chile. If a final and conclusive judgment for the payment of money is rendered by such courts outside Chile against the Selling Shareholder Company or the Guarantor in respect of this Agreementthe Securities, such judgment will be recognized in the courts of Chile and such courts would, subject to a review of the judgment in order to ascertain whether certain basic principles of due process and public policy have been complied with, grant or fail to grant, under the following circumstances, a judgment which would be enforceable against the Selling Shareholder Company or the Guarantor, as applicable, in Chile. That is (A) if there is a treaty between Chile and the country where the judgment was rendered with respect to the enforcement of foreign judgments, the provisions of said treaty shall be applied, (B) if there shall be no treaty, the judgment would be enforced if there is reciprocity as to the enforcement of judgments (i.e., the relevant foreign court would enforce a judgment of a Chilean court under comparable circumstances), (C) if the judgment has been rendered by the courts of a country which does not enforce the judgments of Chilean courts, such judgment will not be enforced in Chile, (D) if reciprocity or the lack of reciprocity cannot be proven, the judgment would be nonetheless enforced if if: (i) it has not been rendered by default within the meaning of Chilean law; the judgment would not be considered to have been rendered by default if personal service of process was made upon an agent of the Selling Shareholder Company (assuming that such manner of service is valid under applicable law), unless the Selling Shareholder Company was able to prove that due to other reasons it was prevented from assuming its defense, (ii) it does not contain anything contrary to the laws of Chile, notwithstanding differences in procedural rules, (iii) it is not in conflict with Chilean jurisdiction and (iv) it is final under the laws of the relevant foreign jurisdiction rendering such judgment, and (E) in any event, the judgment shall not be contrary to the public policy of Chile and shall not affect in any way properties located in Chile. Upon compliance with all of the above, and provided that the judgment is submitted to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chile, the courts of Chile will enforce a final and conclusive judgment for the payment of money recorded by a court outside of Chile in accordance with the procedures contemplated for the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Chilean Civil Procedure Code. Access to the courts of Chile will not be subject to any conditions that are not applicable to residents, citizens or companies incorporated under the laws of Chile.

Consent to Jurisdiction; Appointment of Agent for Service of Process. The choice of law provisions set forth in this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement will be recognized by Chilean courts; the Selling Shareholder Company has the legal capacity to xxx and be sued in its own name under the laws of Chile; the irrevocable submission of the Selling Shareholder Company to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the State and Federal courts in the Borough of Manhattan, the City of New York, New York Courts(“New York Court”), the waiver by the Selling Shareholder Company of any objection to the venue of a proceeding in a New York Court and the agreement of the Selling Shareholder Company that this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of New York are legal, valid and binding under the laws of Chile and will be respected by the Chilean courts; and the service of process effected in the manner set forth in this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement, as applicable, provided personal service of process is made and assuming its validity under New York law, will be effective, insofar as Chilean law is concerned, to confer valid personal jurisdiction over the Selling ShareholderCompany. The provisions in this Agreement and the Deposit Agreement as to the choice of New York Law as the governing law thereof and the provisions thereof as to (i) the submission by the Selling Shareholder Company to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the New York Court, and (ii) the manner of effecting service of process as set forth therein, are valid, binding and enforceable under the laws of Chile. If a final and conclusive judgment for the payment of money is rendered by such courts outside Chile against the Selling Shareholder Company in respect of this Agreement or the Deposit Agreement, such judgment will be recognized in the courts of Chile and such courts would, subject to a review of the judgment in order to ascertain whether certain basic principles of due process and public policy have been complied with, grant or fail to grant, under the following circumstances, a judgment which would be enforceable against the Selling Shareholder Company in Chile. That is (A) if there is a treaty between Chile and the country where the judgment was rendered with respect to the enforcement of foreign judgments, the provisions of said treaty shall be applied, (B) if there shall be no treaty, the judgment would be enforced if there is reciprocity as to the enforcement of judgments (i.e., the relevant foreign court would enforce a judgment of a Chilean court under comparable circumstances), (C) if the judgment has been rendered by the courts of a country which does not enforce the judgments of Chilean courts, such judgment will not be enforced in Chile, (D) if reciprocity or the lack of reciprocity cannot be proven, the judgment would be enforced if it has not been rendered by default within the meaning of Chilean law; , (E) the judgment would shall not be considered contrary to have been rendered by default if personal service the laws of process was made upon an agent of the Selling Shareholder (assuming that such manner of service is valid under applicable law), unless the Selling Shareholder was able to prove that due to other reasons it was prevented from assuming its defense, Chile and (EF) in any event, the judgment shall not be contrary to the public policy of Chile and shall not affect in any way properties located in Chile. Upon compliance with all of the above, and provided that the judgment is submitted to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chile, in a duly legalized (by the competent Chilean Consul) form and, if not in Spanish, translated by an official translator of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, the courts of Chile will enforce a final and conclusive judgment for the payment of money recorded by a court outside of Chile in accordance with the procedures contemplated for the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Chilean Civil Procedure Code. Access to the courts of Chile will not be subject to any conditions that are not applicable to residents, citizens or companies incorporated under the laws of Chile. The Supreme Court of Chile will hear arguments from the party against whom enforcement is sought, but such hearing will be limited to aspects relating to such enforcement and not to substantive issues resolved in the foreign judgment. As of the date hereof, there is no treaty between the Republic of Chile and the United States on the enforcement of foreign judgments. In practice, due to the difficulties of proving in each case whether the reciprocity rule on the enforcement of foreign judgments applies or not in respect of a specific country, the Supreme Court of Chile’s approach on the matter has generally been the examination of whether circumstances in letters (E) and (F) above are duly met by such foreign judgment.