Notices of Violation Sample Clauses

Notices of Violation. On August 25, 2016, Davia served Settling Defendants and various public enforcement agencies with a document entitled “60-Day Notice of Violation” that provided public enforcers and the noticed entities with notice of alleged violations of Health & Safety Code § 25249.6 for failing to warn consumers of the presence of DEHP and DINP found in Covered Packaging sold in California. Each Settling Defendant received a 60-Day Notice of Violation (the “Notice”). Each Settling Defendant and Davia represent that, as of the date each executes this Agreement, it is not aware of any public enforcer that is diligently prosecuting a Proposition 65 enforcement action related to DEHP or DINP in the Covered Packaging as identified in that Settling Defendant’s 60-Day Notice.
Notices of Violation. From the Effective Date to the date of Closing, as soon as Contributor has knowledge or immediately upon receipt of written notice thereof, Contributor shall provide GIPLP with written notice of any violation of any legal requirements or insurance requirements affecting the Property, any service of process relating to the Property or which affects Contributor’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement, any complaints or allegations of default received from Tenant or any other correspondence or notice received by Contributor which has or has the potential to have a material adverse effect on the Property.
Notices of Violation. Tenant, at its expense, and with diligence and dispatch, shall procure the cancellation or discharge of all notices of violation arising from or otherwise connected with Tenant’s Changes which shall be issued by any governmental, public, or quasi-public authority having or asserting jurisdiction. However, nothing herein contained shall prevent Tenant from contesting, in good faith and at its own expense, any such notice of violation, provided that Landlord’s rights hereunder are in no way compromised or diminished thereby.
Notices of Violation. Seller has received no notice, and, to the Knowledge of Seller, there is no pending notice, of violation of any Legal Requirement, nor the pendency of any Proceeding, threatened or otherwise, which could prohibit, impede, delay or adversely effect the ability of Seller to effect the transactions contemplated in this Agreement.
Notices of Violation. On December 2, 2019, Xxxxxxxx served Xxxxxxx brand licensor Roraj Trade, LLC (“Roraj), Burlington, and the requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Xxxxxxxx Notice”), alleging that Roraj and Burlington violated Proposition 65 when they failed to warn their customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to DEHP from the Products. Parlux was subsequently identified as the licensee of the Products and entered into negotiations with Citizen Enforcers as indemnitor to Burlington to resolve the claims concerning the Products. On December 20, 2019, Xxxxxxxxx served Parlux, Perfumania, Inc., Burlington and the requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Xxxxxxxxx Notice”), alleging that Parlux, Perfumania and Burlington violated Proposition 65 when they failed to warn their customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to DEHP from the Products. On January 24, 2020, Alliance served Xxxxxxx Xxxx Consumer Direct, LLC (“Xxxxxxx Xxxx”), Bloomingdale’s, and the requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation (“Alliance Notice”), alleging that Xxxxxxx Xxxx and Bloomingdale’s violated Proposition 65 when they failed to warn their customers and consumers in California of the health hazards associated with exposures to DEHP from the Products. Parlux was subsequently identified as the licensee of the Products and entered into negotiations with Citizen Enforcers as indemnitor to Bloomingdale’s to resolve the claims concerning the Products. The December 2, 2019, December 20, 2019 and January 24, 2020 notices shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Notices.” No public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting the allegations set forth in the Notices.
Notices of Violation. Seller shall promptly notify Purchaser in writing of, and shall promptly deliver to Purchaser a copy of any written notice Seller may receive, on or before the Closing, from any Governmental Authority, concerning a violation of laws at the Property that has not been previously disclosed to Purchaser.
Notices of Violation. Seller hereby covenants and agrees that all -------------------- written notices of violation of federal, state or municipal laws, ordinances, orders, regulations or requirements ("Notices of Violation") issued, filed, or served by any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the Hotel against or affecting the Hotel on or before the Closing Date of which Seller has actual knowledge shall be promptly disclosed to Purchaser.
Notices of Violation. On or about September 24, 2015, Englander served Dylan’s Candybar, LLC and certain requisite public enforcement agencies with a 60-Day Notice of Violation, alleging that Dylan’s Candybar, LLC violated Proposition 65 when it failed to warn customers and consumers in California that certain ceramicware with exterior designs exposed users to lead (the "September 24, 2015 Notice"). To the best of the Partiesknowledge, no public enforcer has commenced and is diligently prosecuting the allegations set forth in the September 24, 2015 Notice. Englander and DRL have agreed to resolve the allegations in the September 24, 2015 Notice through this Settlement Agreement and thereby releasing Dylan’s Candybar, LLC. On or about February 25, 2016, Englander served DRL, Dylan’s Candybar, Inc., Dylan’s Candybar, LLC and various public enforcement agencies with a “Supplemental 60-Day Notice of Violation” (the “February 25, 2016 Notice”) that provided the recipients with notice of alleged violations of Proposition 65 based on DRL’s alleged failure to warn consumers that certain ceramicware with exterior designs exposed users in the State of California to lead. To the best of the Parties’ knowledge, no public enforcer has prosecuted the allegations set forth in the February 25, 2016 Notice.