Harm. Nuix may suspend access to the Software if Nuix reasonably considers that any part of the Software is being used for illegal activity or the use of the Software is causing material and ongoing harm to Nuix or any third party. Nuix will endeavor to provide reasonable notice of any such suspension to Licensee.
Harm. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all of the shares of Restricted Stock will be automatically forfeited by the Grantee if the Grantee causes "Harm" (as defined below) to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries during the Restricted Period. For purposes of this Agreement, "Harm" includes, but is not limited to, any actions that adversely affect the financial standing, reputation, or products of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any actions involving personal dishonesty, a felony conviction related to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any material violation of any confidentiality or non-competition agreement with the Company or any of its Subsidiaries.
Harm. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, all of the PSUs and Dividend Equivalent PSUs will be automatically forfeited by the Grantee if the Grantee causes Harm (as defined below) to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries prior to the Settlement Date. For purposes of this Agreement, "Harm" includes, but is not limited to, any actions that adversely affect the financial standing, reputation, or products of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any actions involving personal dishonesty, a felony conviction related to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any material violation of any confidentiality or non-competition agreement with the Company or any of its Subsidiaries.
Harm. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, all of the Performance RSUs and Dividend Equivalent RSUs will be automatically forfeited by the Grantee if the Grantee causes Harm (as defined below) to the Company prior to the Settlement Date. For purposes of this Agreement, “Harm” includes, any actions that adversely affect the Company’s financial standing, reputation, or products, or any actions involving personal dishonesty, a felony conviction related to the Company, or any material violation of any confidentiality or non-competition agreement with the Company.
Harm. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, if prior to the Stated Expiration Date the Optionee causes Harm (as defined below) to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, the Option Grant, to the full extent then remaining outstanding, will immediately be forfeited for no consideration. For purposes of this Agreement, “Harm” includes, but is not limited to, any actions that adversely affect the financial standing, reputation, or products of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any actions involving personal dishonesty, a felony conviction related to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any material violation of any confidentiality or non-competition agreement with the Company or any of its Subsidiaries.
Harm. Xxxxxxx and Xxxx (2009), in the exposition of their debris environment model, introduce several impor- tant performance metrics relevant to environmental risk assessment. The model, a mean-field approxi- mation set of ordinary differential equations, computes rates of change of spacecraft, rocket bodies, and 3 7/1/01 to 7/1/09. Use of an eight-year launch period follows practice for long-term debris models (Xxxxxx et al., 2004; Xxxx and Xxxxxxx, 2005). 4For tractability of assigning ownership interests, we exclude the seven multi-nation owner sets. 40% 35% 30% 25% launch 20% share 15% 10% 5% 0% nation # Figure 1: Projected share of launch rate to the shell of interest (SOI) for our proxy Case I of seven spacecraft-owning nations, sorted high to low [derived from the UCS database]. fragments in a SOI for T ∈ [0, ∞), where 0 is the present. The model categorizes spacecraft as opera- tional or no longer operational, with or without deorbit capability; rocket bodies with or without deorbit capability; and fragments as hazardous or benign in collision with other objects depending on collision velocity and fragment characteristics. Parameters for the differential equations are expectations over the same distributions that govern an object-by-object simulation. The model’s primary metric is “lifetime risk", which Xxxxxxx and Xxxx define as “the probability that a spacecraft launched at time t will be destroyed (via an intact-intact or catastrophic intact-fragment collision) while it is still operational” (p. 1376). Fig. 3 shows lifetime risk for an operational spacecraft launched at time t in the SOI given a baseline set of parameters (launch rates, existing debris flux, spacecraft characteristics, fraction of spacecraft deorbited, etc.). Risk increases at a modest rate for the next several hundred years, increases rapidly starting at about year 500, then levels off ca. 3000 years.5 The time frame explored in Xxxxxxx and Xxxx’x paper and herein (e.g., 10,000 years in Fig. 3) is substantially longer than that explored by most debris evolution models. (Object-by-object evolution models generate predictions for periods extending up to 200 years (Xxxx and Xxxxxxx, 2008; Xxxxxx et al., 2006). The extended time horizon is necessary to provide a “debris footprint" or quantification of the full consequence (or lack thereof) of a mitigation measure. From the lifetime-risk metric, Xxxxxxx and Xxxx derive a second metric, “sustainable lifetime risk” defined as the maximu...
Harm. Barriers that preclude fish movement can harm Arctic grayling by restricting movement to more favorable stream locations (e.g., thermal refugia, spawning sites). This is expected to harm grayling by preventing them from spawning and by decreasing survival by preventing Arctic grayling from finding cooler, feeding or shelter habitat. Take of Arctic grayling from fish barriers will be minimized by installing fish ladders and other infrastructure that allow fish passage. • Livestock management may result in direct trampling of habitat and streambanks by livestock. This is expected to harm Arctic grayling by increasing sedimentation and reducing riparian habitat, both of which decrease quality of pool habitat used by Arctic grayling for resting and foraging. Excessive sedimentation also can reduce survival of Arctic grayling eggs. Take resulting from livestock management will be minimized by implementing riparian and grazing management plans and developing alternative stockwater sites. • Habitat restoration activities are expected to result in take of Arctic grayling. These activities, including stream channel and riparian restoration, may temporarily increase sediment to adjacent and downstream habitats. Increased sedimentation may affect survival of Arctic grayling eggs. Take from these activities will be minimized by implementing projects outside the spawning season for Arctic grayling.
Harm. A fatality, or human injury, or ill-health, or adverse environmental effect, or a combination of these, which results from a hazard or work practice or a sequence or combination thereof.
Harm. An act that kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation which results in injury of or death to wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. See 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. Harm is one component of the legal definition of “take” under the ESA. Impact Activities – The construction of oil and gas pads, compressor stations, private roads (e.g., lease roads), distribution lines, and industrial buildings. Impact Buffers – Defined distances around Impact Activities within which LEPC habitat is deemed impacted as a result of the Impact Activity. These buffers vary depending on the type of Impact Activity. Impact Unit – A quantified measurement of impacts to LEPC habitat resulting from Impact Activities. Impact Units are a function of the number of acres impacted by an Impact Activity, the quality of the impacted LEPC habitat, and a multiplier that reflects the CHAT category where the impacts occur. Lek – An area where male LEPCs gather during the mating season and engage in competitive displays to attract female LEPCs for mating. Mitigation Fees – Fees a Participant is required to pay when impacts to the LEPC from Impact Activities cannot be avoided or minimized. Mitigation Fees are calculated using the process described in Appendix A of the CCAA and Exhibit 2 of the CI and will be applied to generate offset units. New Property – Property located within the Covered Area that a Participant enrolls in the CCAA by amending its CI. A CI may be amended to enroll New Property at any time before the effective date of any decision to list the LEPC. If the FWS in the future decides to allow post-listing enrollment of property in CCAAs, it will consider whether to propose an amendment to this CCAA that would allow a CI to be amended to enroll New Property after listing, consistent with any potential criteria that may be developed if the FWS allows post- listing enrollments in the future.
Harm. Physical injury or damage to the health of people, or damage to property or the environment. Immediately, without any delay that could not be justified. Incident: • Any malfunction or deterioration in the characteristics and/or performance of a device, as well as any inadequacy in the labelling or the instructions for use which, directly or indirectly, might lead to or might have led to serious injury or the death of a patient, or user or of other persons or to a serious deterioration in their state of health. • Any technical or medical reason related to the characteristics or performances of a device (see first bullet point) that leads to a systematic recall of devices of the same type by the manufacturer.
