the United States. The parties expressly agree that the terms of this limited non-competition provision under this section are reasonable, enforceable, and necessary to protect the Company's interests, and are valid and enforceable. In the unlikely event, however, that a court of competent jurisdiction were to determine that any portion of this limited non-competition provision is unenforceable, then the parties agree that the remainder of the limited non-competition provision shall remain valid and enforceable to the maximum extent possible.
the United States. (A) Each of the Underwriters hereby represents, warrants and agrees that, in relation to each member state of the European Economic Area which has implemented the Prospectus Directive (each, a “Relevant Member State”), with effect from and including the date on which the Prospectus Directive is implemented in that Relevant Member State (the “Relevant Implementation Date”) it has not made and will not make an offer of Securities which are the subject of the offering contemplated by this prospectus supplement to the public in that Relevant Member State other than: (i) to any legal entity which is a qualified investor as defined in the Prospectus Directive; (ii) to fewer than 100 or, if the Relevant Member State has implemented the relevant provision of the 2010 PD Amending Directive, 150, natural or legal persons (other than qualified investors as defined in the Prospectus Directive), as permitted under the Prospectus Directive, subject to obtaining the prior consent of the underwriters for any such offer; or (iii) in any other circumstances falling within Article 3(2) of the Prospectus Directive; provided that no such offer of Securities shall require the Company or any Underwriter to publish a prospectus pursuant to Article 3 of the Prospectus Directive. For the purposes of this provision, the expression an “offer of Securities to the public” in relation to any Securities in any Relevant Member State means the communication in any form and by any means of sufficient information on the terms of the offer and the Securities to be offered so as to enable an investor to decide to purchase or subscribe for the Securities, as the same may be varied in that Relevant Member State by any measure implementing the Prospectus Directive in that Relevant Member State; “Prospectus Directive” means Directive 2003/71/EC (and amendments thereto, including the 2010 PD Amending Directive, to the extent implemented in the Relevant Member State), and includes any relevant implementing measure in the Relevant Member State; and “2010 PD Amending Directive” means Directive 2010/73/EU; and
the United States. The parties expressly agree that the terms of this limited non-competition provision under this section are reasonable, enforceable, and necessary to protect Vectren's interests, and are valid and enforceable. In the unlikely event, however, that a court of competent jurisdiction were to determine that any portion of this limited non-competition provision is unenforceable, then the parties agree that the remainder of the limited non-competition provision shall remain valid and enforceable to the maximum extent possible.
the United States. As described above, the United States employs a mixed system,163 where common law is applied by Federal Courts. American Courts are used to handling distinct categories of law, which either spring from the Federal level or from each Federal State. Since the 1950’s, the United States has also been familiar with private uniform law, such as the Uniform Commercial Code, which remains, however, within national boundaries. The Supreme Court of the United States never attached a clear value to the Vienna hermeneutical principles,164 despite the Federal government considering other provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention as customary international law on the law of treaties.165 The Supreme Court has developed its own mechanisms of interpreta- tion, which have slightly varied over time. The core principles can be found in Xxxxx, where the following methodology was adopted: When interpreting a treaty, we ‘begin “with the text of the treaty and the context in which the written words are used”’. […] ‘Other general rules of construction may be brought to bear on difficult or ambiguous passages’. […] Moreover, ‘trea- ties are construed more liberally than private agreements, and to ascertain their meaning, we may look beyond the written words to the history of the treaty, the negotiations, and the practical construction adopted by the parties’. […] We pro- ceed to apply these methods in turn.166 161 Xxxxx v. Xxxxxx Xxxx Tour Operator Ltd, (2014) UKSC 15, at 59.
the United States. On return to the United States, the Employee may return to their previous role or may be assigned to another role that will be decided at that time.
the United States. After many years of controversies resulting from the so-called antitrust revolution of the 1980’s,89 the antitrust law enforcement authorities of the USA have issued Guidelines for Licensing of Intellectual Property, which are based on the following express or implied principles:90 . Intellectual property is regarded as being essentially comparable to any other form of property, therefore no particular rules should apply to IPR-related re- straints of competition. . There is no presumption that intellectual property by itself creates market power. . Unless licensing agreements are concluded between competitors (or at least actual-potential competitors), it is generally recognized that intellectual property allows enterprises to combine complementary factors of production and, there- fore, is pro-competitive; this concerns in particular cross-licensing, but also field- of-use, territorial and other limitations on licenses. . Unless the combined market shares of the parties to a license agreement exceed 20 % of the relevant markets, the antitrust authorities will not intervene (so called “safe haven”).
the United States. Bankruptcy Court for the ------------ District of Delaware, or any other court exercising jurisdiction over the Debtor's estate, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement and enter any and all appropriate injunctions, contempt orders, orders for specific performance and other relief as may be just and equitable.
the United States. Since World War II, the United States has advocated trade liberalization and the elimination, on a reciprocal and nondiscriminatory basis, of measures that restrict commercial transactions across national boundaries. To achieve this, it had relied on the GATT, now the WTO, and had demonstrated its com- mitment through its active participation in the successive rounds of trade ne- gotiations under the GATT framework. However, the GATT process has been slow and ineffective in liberalizing trade in general, particularly in certain sectors such as agriculture. The regional approach was thus considered an at- tractive alternative to the multilateral framework for achieving rapid prog- ress in trade liberalization. Second, the proliferation of regional common markets and the continued expansion of the European Union are considered to be important factors in influencing the United States to enter into a re- gional free trade agreement, as a response to the prevailing trend in interna- tional economic relations. Third, it was logical to embark on a free trade arrangement with Canada and Mexico, not only due to their geographical proximity but also because they are the most important trading partners to the United States. The United States is the destination for over 80 percent of Canadian and Mexican exports. Both countries also import about one-third of U.S. exports. The United States is also the largest investor in both coun- tries. It was in the interest of the United States to maintain and expand exist- ing trade and investment opportunities through a regional trade arrangement.
the United States. (A) Each of the Underwriters hereby represents and agrees that it has not offered, sold or otherwise made available and will not offer, sell or otherwise make available any notes to any retail investor in the European Economic Area (“EEA”). For these purposes, a retail investor means a person who is one (or more) of: (i) a retail client as defined in point (11) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (as amended, “MiFID II”); or (ii) a customer within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/97 (the “Insurance Distribution Directive”), where that customer would not qualify as a professional client as defined in point (10) of Article 4(1) of MiFID II; or (iii) not a qualified investor as defined in Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 (the “Prospectus Regulation”).
the United States. The three North American countries have implemented the treaties in different ways. In 1998, the United States passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a maximalist interpretation of the treaties. Sec- tion 1201 of the DMCA, subject to certain limitations, protects a TPM that restricts access and use in the service of a copyright owners’ rights. What makes the DMCA a maximalist interpretation of the WIPO Internet treat- ies is that it forbids people to “manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof,” that would allow individuals to circumvent TPMs designed to control access or limits copying of a work, if the follow- ing criteria are met: • The device is primarily designed for this purpose, • It has only limited commercially significant otherwise, or • It is marketed as such a circumvention device.25 Despite provisions to allow for circumvention in limited cases, includ- ing the exercise of fair-use rights and non-copyright-related matters, this ban, and a triennial “rule-making” process that allows for the expansion of this list, prohibiting trade in the tools needed for most people to exer- cise these rights makes it difficult for users to exercise their rights under the law. Since the passage of the DMCA, the US government and US con- tent industries have aggressively sought the implementation of DMCA- type rules by other countries, including Canada and Mexico.
