Justifications Sample Clauses
The 'Justifications' clause requires parties to provide reasons or explanations for certain actions, decisions, or requests made under the agreement. In practice, this clause may obligate a party to explain why a deadline extension is needed, why a particular standard was not met, or why a specific course of action was chosen. Its core function is to promote transparency and accountability between the parties, ensuring that actions are not taken arbitrarily and that all parties have a clear understanding of the rationale behind key decisions.
Justifications. ANP undertakes to, whenever it exercises its discretionary power, justify the act pursuant to the Applicable Laws and Regulations and the Best Practices of the Oil Industry.
Justifications. The National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels – ANP – undertakes to, whenever it exercises its discretionary power, justify the act pursuant to Applicable Laws and Regulations and the Best Practices of the Oil industry.
Justifications. See general justification. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent believes that the requested documents exist and are in possession custody or control of the Claimants because would have been prepared and kept in the ordinary course of business given the importance attributed to the events surrounding the preparation of the documents.
Justifications. The ANP shall be committed, whenever it exercises its discretionary power, justifiably to act, according to the applicable Brazilian legislation, as well as the Best Practices of the Oil Industry.
Justifications. See general justification. The Respondent is not in possession of the requested documents. The Respondent believes that the requested Documents exist considering the relevance of the transaction and because they would have been kept in the ordinary course of business.
Justifications. Mexico noted at paragraph 363 of the Statement of Defense that: “[n]either the Business Plan nor ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ email mentions Competitive Tandem Services at all. In fact, it appears that this line of business was conceived in 2017 –after the Claimants submitted their Notice of intent and Notice of Arbitration– in order to maximize the claim for damages.” Mexico went on to quote a document prepared in May 2017 that appears to support that view: It is important to point out that the final dimensions of the proposed project must be tied to a modeling study that reveals, in the light of the real fixed telephony traffic flowing between Telmex and the rest of the Public Telecommunications Networks (RPTs), what the final magnitude of this project will be and that it is within the legal and regulatory framework armor of what is proposed (this last [point] must be included in the modeling to be done). So that it can be incorporated in the end in the financial damages model in the NAFTA claim with the confidence that it is dully grounded and supported, which will contribute to increase the credibility of what is to be presented to the International Arbitral Panel and evidently will increase the amount of the claim. [Emphasis added] The requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome as they will show: (i) whether or not there was a plan to offer Competitive Tandem Services in Mexico, and if so, (ii) whether contemporaneous projections, studies and analysis are consistent with the claim for damages arising from this line of business. They will also provide important insight into the legality of the intended line of business (also a contentious point) and how exactly it was intended to operate. This information will assist the Respondent’s damages and legal experts to further elaborate on their opinions to rebut the Claimants’ evidence. If Tele Fácil did in fact intend to offer these services (i.e., Competitive Tandem Services) it is reasonable to assume that the requested documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants as they would have been prepared and kept in the ordinary course of business. The requested documents are not in the Respondent’s custody or control.
Justifications. In his second statement, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ states that the geographic number transfer process and the number portability process are “entirely different concepts”.18 This conclusion is adopted by ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and quoted in her reply expert report with the purpose of demonstrating the legality of the transfer of numbering blocks.19 The requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome as they will provide important insight into the legality of the intended line of business (also a contentious point) and how exactly it 18 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ second witness statement ¶4-7, C-109.
Justifications. Justifications for a reduced sentence clustered around two basic themes: (1) independence from the Nazis; and (2) active resistance to the Nazi regime.
Justifications. See general justification. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ reply report states that Tele Fácil suffered “reputational harm created by not honoring the fact that GLCC had several key customers ready to enter to Mexico”.46 The Requested documents are relevant and material to the outcome of the case as they are needed to challenge the expert assertions and ascertain whether GLCC had entered into agreements with its key customers that could not be honoured on account of the measures at issue in this case. The Respondent will further observe that, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the IBA Rules (which apply in this case pursuant to PO 1, section 20.3 the expert reports shall contain inter alia: the “Documents on which the Party-Appointed Expert relies that have not already been submitted shall be provided”. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ indirectly relies on these documents by citing to ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ witness statement but does not include the document referenced therein. The Respondent believes that the requested documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because they are referred to in ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ second expert report and/or ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ witness statement.
Justifications. See general justification. Moreover, the second report prepared by ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ states that there is nothing unusual about Tele Fácil’s lines of business, including competitive tandem services. In support of this statement ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ second expert report refers to ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ first witness statement but does not include the document referenced therein.40 The Respondent will observe that, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the IBA Rules (which apply in this case pursuant to PO 1, section 20.3 the expert reports shall contain inter alia: the “Documents on which the Party- Appointed Expert relies that have not already been submitted shall be provided”. The “proven model in the United States” referred to in ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ witness statement is one of such documents. The requested document is relevant to the case and material to its outcome because it will disprove the Expert’s assertion that the competitive tandem services are provided in the United States. The requested document is not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent believes that the requested document exists and is in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ and/or ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ because ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ relies on the ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ statement in his report for the proposition that competitive tandem services are provided in the United States.