Justifications Sample Clauses

Justifications. See general justification. The requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome as they are necessary to challenge Xx. Xxxxxx´s assertion that Respondent’s expert made a series of errors by concluding that revenue from activation, equipment and technical support listed in Tele Fácil’s Concession Application should be excluded because operators allegedly no longer charge for this, “despite IFT and other evidence to the contrary”.35 This “IFT and other evidence”, was not included in the expert’s report despite the obligation to provide it pursuant to Article 5(2) of the IBA Rules (which apply in this case) pursuant to PO 1, section 20.3. 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 the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because Xx. Xxxxxx use them in his expert report.
Justifications. The requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome as they will be used by Mexico’s damages expert to estimate costs for its alternative valuation. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent believes that the requested documents exists and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because they are referred to in the expert report.
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. 31.8 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. The Respondent intends to challenge Xx. Xxxxxx’x assertion that FreeCC and other DID vendor’s commercial strategy was designed to ensure higher growth in Mexico than in any other market in which it participated and, because of that, the data that the Respondent’s expert had to rely upon for countries other than Mexico is not comparable. 24 The requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome because they are necessary to challenge Xx. Xxxxxx’x assertions and fully understand his assessment of damages. In addition, Xx. Xxxxxx has stated that DID demand in the United States is the relevant standard to determine Tele Fácil’s DID lost revenues because DID services in the United States were provided and operated in the same way as they would have operated in Mexico. That is the reason why Xx. Xxxxxx “forecasted” the DID demand in Mexico, using “actual historic data” of companies (i.e. FreeCC, NCC, AudioNow, SIP, among other) that had indicated interest in entering in the Mexican market.25The 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”.
Justifications. At paragraph 55 of the SoC, the Claimants state that “in considering the formation of a telecommunications company, Messrs. Blanco, Nelson, and Sacasa hired the law firm Bello, Gallardo, Bonequi y Xxxxxx, S.C. (“BGBG”), in Mexico City, to [inter alia] develop a clear understanding of the legal and regulatory requirements necessary to undertake the various lines of business that were being considered.” At paragraph 151 the Claimants further state that “[…] Tele Fácil’s founders, together with their legal counsel, continued to keep a close eye on the regulatory reforms, and how those reforms might impact their business.” The Respondent submits that the requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome. The requested documents are needed to determine the impact of the very substantial reform that occurred in the years following the incorporation of Tele Fácil, in particular, the impact over the intended scope of the Claimant’s operations in Mexico (the Claimants contend that their business plan was amended to take advantage of the new business opportunities that the reform offered – see section II.E); the Claimant’s understanding of IFT’s role and powers concerning the resolution of interconnection disputes between operators, such as the one that ensued with Telmex; and the decision to submit the disagreement with Telmex to IFT for resolution in July 2014 shortly after the PEA Declaration. (ICSID Case No. UNCT/17/1) Procedural Order No. 5 The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent reasonably believes that the documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants as would have been prepared as part of the due diligence prior to their investment in Mexico and in response to the extensive reform of the Telecommunications regulations in Mexico in 2013-2014. Moreover, as stated at ¶¶ 55 and 151 quoted above, the Claimants acknowledge that it was their interest to develop a clear understanding of the legal framework and “to keep a close eye on regulatory reforms”.
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. Same justification as the previous request. In addition, according to Xx. Xxxxxxxx; “Tele Fácil’s business model was directed at the wholesale market, not the end user or retail market”.15 The latter, “by providing calling termination services to other operators”.16 In fact, Xx. Xxxxxxxx has already argued that Tele Fácil was foreseeing a transfer equivalent to the 50% of subscribers or clients from companies other than Telmex (“NCR”) to Tele Fácil’s network.17 The requested documents are also relevant to the case and material to its outcome because they will allow the Respondent’s expert to challenge Xx. Xxxxxxxx’x assertions and/or assumptions. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. 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 agreements executed by Tele Fácil and the seven other operators (and any other operator) with the purpose to provide calling termination services through the competitive tandem services, in its original file format, fall into that category. The Respondent believes that the requested documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because they would have been prepared and kept in the ordinary course of business given the importance attributed to the agreements executed with seven telecommunication operators.