Informal Discussion If an employee has a problem relating to a work situation, the employee is encouraged to request a meeting with his or her immediate supervisor to discuss the problem in an effort to clarify the issue and to work cooperatively towards settlement.
Informal Discussions The employee's concerns will be presented orally by the employee to the appropriate supervisor. Every effort shall be made by all concerned in an informal manner to develop an understanding of the facts and the issues in order to create a climate which will lead to resolution of the problem. If the employee is not satisfied with the informal discussion(s) relative to the matter in question, he/she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure.
No Existing Discussions As of the date hereof, the Company is not engaged, directly or indirectly, in any discussions or negotiations with any other party with respect to an Acquisition Proposal.
Existing Discussions The Company agrees that it will immediately cease and cause to be terminated any existing activities, discussions or negotiations with any Persons conducted heretofore with respect to any Acquisition Proposal. The Company agrees that it will take the necessary steps to promptly inform the individuals or entities referred to in the first sentence hereof of the obligations undertaken in this Section 6.2. The Company also agrees that it will promptly request each Person that has heretofore executed a confidentiality agreement in connection with its consideration of acquiring it or any of its Subsidiaries to return or destroy all confidential information heretofore furnished to such Person by or on behalf of it or any of its Subsidiaries.
No Disclosure Provider acknowledges and agrees that it shall not make any re-disclosure of any Student Data or any portion thereof, including without limitation, user content or other non-public information and/or personally identifiable information contained in the Student Data other than as directed or permitted by the LEA or this DPA. This prohibition against disclosure shall not apply to aggregate summaries of De-Identified information, Student Data disclosed pursuant to a lawfully issued subpoena or other legal process, or to subprocessors performing services on behalf of the Provider pursuant to this DPA. Provider will not Sell Student Data to any third party.
Settlement Discussions This Agreement is part of a proposed settlement of matters that could otherwise be the subject of litigation among the Parties hereto. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of any kind. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any applicable state rules of evidence, this Agreement and all negotiations relating thereto shall not be admissible into evidence in any proceeding other than to prove the existence of this Agreement or in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. ≥ Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.
Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposal relative to all relevant policies and advise that it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. Attachment B provides an evaluation of the proposed development agreement in relation to the relevant MPS policies.
No Disputes There is no pending audit, examination, investigation, dispute, proceeding or claim with respect to any Taxes of the Acquiror, nor is any such claim or dispute pending or contemplated. The Acquiror has delivered to the Acquiree true, correct and complete copies of all Tax Returns and examination reports and statements of deficiencies assessed or asserted against or agreed to by the Acquiror, if any, since its inception and any and all correspondence with respect to the foregoing.
Revisions of Prospectus -- Material Changes If at any time prior to the Settlement Date any event shall occur or condition exist as a result of which it is necessary, in the opinion of counsel for the Agents, counsel for the Company or counsel for the Trust, to amend or supplement the Registration Statement in order that the Registration Statement will not contain an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading or to amend or supplement the Prospectus in order that the Prospectus will not include an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not misleading in light of the circumstances existing at the time the Prospectus is delivered to a purchaser, or if it shall be necessary, in the opinion of any such counsel, to amend or supplement the Registration Statement or amend or supplement the Prospectus in order to comply with the requirements of the 1933 Act or the 1933 Act Regulations, as applicable, the Company shall give prompt notice, confirmed in writing, to the Agents to cease the solicitation of offers for the purchase of Notes and to cease sales of any Notes by the Purchasing Agent, and the Company will promptly prepare and file with the Commission subject to Section III(b)(ii) hereof, such amendment or supplement as may be necessary to correct such statement or omission or to make the Registration Statement and Prospectus comply with such requirements, and the Company will furnish to the Agents, without charge, such number of copies of such amendment or supplement as the Agents may reasonably request. In addition, the Company will comply with the 1933 Act, the 1933 Act Regulations, the 1934 Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission under the 1934 Act (the "1934 Act Regulations") so as to permit the completion of the distribution of each offering of Notes.
