Possible. “Undoing” of a Change in Control. If a report is filed with the SEC disclosing that a person (the “Acquiror”) is or has become a beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of securities of the Company representing 50% or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s outstanding securities and, as a result of that filing, a Change in Control, as defined in Paragraph 1(a), above, occurs, while Employee is in the employ of the Company, then, as provided in Paragraph 1, above, this Agreement will become immediately operative. However, if:
Possible solutions It would seem that the procedure of ratification of mixed agreements could be improved in a number of ways, both substantive and procedural. These vary in scope from fundamental to barely intrusive. Any solution must depend on how seriously any problem is regarded by those affected, and those able to bring about changes. Abolition of mixed agreements The abolition of mixed agreements is included here for one reason only - to highlight the role played by the division of competences. It stands at one extreme, and would extend further than is necessary to resolve any problems regarding ratification. The temptation to refer to it at all arises from occasional suspicion that mixed agreements were not contemplated by the Treaty, they were not necessary anyway (certainly not in the convoluted way in which they have been applied), and that everyone would have been better off had they never existed.. Although scholars have mused about their legitimacy within the Community legal order from time to time, it is not realistic to expect that Member States will forego something that they like doing – taking part in the Community’s international agreements. Moreover, the Court’s tendency to downplay the division of competences signifies that mixed agreements are likely to become more, rather than less, prevalent. Definition of respective competences Defining respective competences would not of course dispense with the need for mixed agreements altogether, but it would curtail their incidence to a significant degree. Defining competences would mean separating Community competences from those of the Member States, so that each international agreement is concluded by either – but never (or seldom) both. As such, this is a version of the previous solution. The separation can occur in three ways: - respective competences are defined for all foreseeable time; - respective competences are revisited at regular intervals, or - respective competences continue to flutter capriciously as at present. Thus the solution would simply disentangle the two protagonists wherever possible (assuming that they even wish to be disentangled, which is a dubious assumption). It would not necessarily impose limits on the expansion of Community competence. But it would mean that, once the Community is empowered to conclude an agreement characterized as relating to a subject matter within its competence, it will be so empowered notwithstanding that certain “non-core” elements of the agreemen...
Possible. (1) This Agreement shall be ratified. Instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at The Hague as soon as
Possible. “red flags” to watch out for The UK authorities are given wide discretion by the Bribery Act and everyone is watching closely to see where they draw the line in practice in the numerous grey areas that exist in the legislation. Whilst the following are not necessarily examples of bribery or improper conduct, they are “red flags” which should make you think very carefully before proceeding. ● Any request for a fee to help “oil the wheels” of a commercial deal or tender, or to release goods from customs or speed up a regulatory application ● A counterparty that requests payment to a third party or involving several individuals and companies where there is no obvious relationship between them. ● Transactions where money or property is passed through a consultant or representative with the aim of obtaining or influencing certain government actions or approvals. ● A suggestion that some form of “thank you” would be appropriate in return for past or future business. ● The provision of unusually lavish corporate hospitality or a request that you provide such hospitality. ● A refusal by a counterparty or agent to accept an anti-bribery clause in an agreement.
Possible. There is a temporal coincidence between intake of study medication and occurrence of the adverse event. A contribution of the study medication is possible (e.g. due to the pharmacological properties of the study medication), but other explanations are also possible (e.g. underlying disease, concomitant medication).