OUR REVIEW Sample Clauses

OUR REVIEW. For the purposes of giving this opinion we have examined and relied upon the documents listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 (the “Documents”). For the purposes of giving this opinion we also have carried out the Company Search described in Part 2 of Schedule 1. We have not made any other enquiries concerning the Company and in particular we have not investigated or verified any matter of fact or opinion (whether set out in any of the Documents or elsewhere) other than as expressly stated in this opinion. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalised terms have the meanings assigned to them in Schedule 1. LIMITATIONS Our opinion is limited to, and should be construed in accordance with, the laws of Mauritius at the date of this opinion. We express no opinion on the laws of any other jurisdiction. This opinion is strictly limited to the matters stated in it and does not extend to, and is not to be extended by implication, to any other matters. We express no opinion as to the accuracy or correctness of the number of shares issued by the Company or any financial data or figures provided in the Prospectus or the Prospectus Supplement. We express no opinion on the commercial implications of the Documents or whether they give effect to the commercial intentions of the parties. This opinion is addressed to you, as representatives of the Underwriters, in connection with the registration of Shares with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be made available to, or relied on by any other person or entity, or for any other purpose nor quoted or referred to in any public document nor filed with any governmental agency or person, without our prior written consent, except as may be required by law or regulatory authority. Further, this opinion speaks as of its date and is strictly limited to the matters stated herein and we assume no obligation to review or update this opinion if applicable laws or the existing facts or circumstances should change.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
OUR REVIEW. Any reviews that we conduct under this Section 4 are only for our benefit. You acknowledge that our review and approval of a site, lease, sublease, design plans or renovation plans for a Franchised Business do not constitute a recommendation, endorsement, or guarantee of the suitability of that location or the terms of the lease, or sublease, or purchase agreement. You agree that you will take all steps necessary to determine for yourself whether a particular location and the terms of any lease, sublease, or purchase agreement for the site are beneficial and acceptable to you.
Sample 1
OUR REVIEW. For the purposes of giving this opinion we have examined and relied upon the Document and the documents listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1. We have not examined any other documents, even if they are referred to in the Document. In giving this opinion we have relied upon and assume the accuracy and completeness of the Director’s Certificate, the Certificate of Incumbency, and the Registers (all as defined in Part 2 of Schedule 1), the contents of which we have not verified. For the purposes of giving this opinion we have carried out the Litigation Search described in Part 3 of Schedule 1. We have not made any other enquiries concerning the Company and in particular we have not investigated or verified any matter of fact or opinion (whether set out in the Document or elsewhere) other than as expressly stated in this opinion. Bermuda ◾ British Virgin Islands ◾ Cayman Islands ◾ Guernsey ◾ Hong Kong ◾ Isle of Man ◾ Jersey ◾ Mauritius ◾ Seychelles ◾ Shanghai Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalised terms have the meanings assigned to them in Schedule 1. LIMITATIONS Our opinion is limited to, and should be construed in accordance with, the laws of the Cayman Islands at the date of this opinion. We express no opinion on the laws of any other jurisdiction. This opinion is limited to the matters stated in it and does not extend to, and is not to be extended by implication, to any other matters. We express no opinion on the commercial implications of the Document or whether they give effect to the commercial intentions of the parties. This opinion is given solely for the benefit of the addressee(s) in connection with the matters referred to herein and, except with our prior written consent it may not be transmitted or disclosed to or used or relied upon by any other person or be relied upon for any other purpose whatsoever, save as, and to the extent provided, below. A copy of this opinion may be provided where required by law or judicial process and (b) for the purpose of information only to the addressee’s affiliates, professional advisers, auditors, insurers and regulators.
Sample 1

Related to OUR REVIEW

  • Peer Review Dental Group, after consultation with the Joint ----------- Operations Committee, shall implement, regularly review, modify as necessary or appropriate and obtain the commitment of Providers to actively participate in peer review procedures for Providers. Dental Group shall assist Manager in the production of periodic reports describing the results of such procedures. Dental Group shall provide Manager with prompt notice of any information that raises a reasonable risk to the health and safety of Group Patients or Beneficiaries. In any event, after consultation with the Joint Operations Committee, Dental Group shall take such action as may be reasonably warranted under the facts and circumstances.

  • Program Review The Contracting Officer or other authorized government representative may hold semi- annual program review meetings. Such meetings will be held via telecom or video teleconferencing. However, the Government reserves the right to request a meeting in person. The meetings will include all BPA holders, representatives from prospective customer agencies, a combination of current and prospective customer agencies, or individual BPA holders. Some Federal Government Agencies and any approved State, Local and Tribal agencies may establish a central program management function. Such users may require their primary suppliers to participate in agency program review meetings on a periodic basis, at no additional cost to the Government.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be:

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Claims Review The IRO shall perform the Claims Review annually to cover each of the five Reporting Periods. The IRO shall perform all components of each Claims Review.

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

  • Position Review ‌ The Employer may initiate a position review for a position it believes is improperly classified, and will inform the Union in writing when it has initiated a reallocation process for a bargaining unit position. An individual employee who believes that their position is improperly classified may request a review according to the following procedure:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.