Xxxxx and Dr. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xx. Xxxx purchased all of the capital stock of the Company (the “Acquisition”); and
Xxxxx and Dr. Ke-Fei Xxxx xx the Department of Neuroscience of UNIVERSITY certain Know-How and Patent Rights have been developed;
Xxxxx and Dr. Xxxxxxxxx analyzed four scenarios: the 1959 geometry before the highway realignment, the 1977 geometry after the highway realignment but before the addition of the siding, the 1997 geometry immediately before the landslide, and a hypothetical case with the original CN fill and the siding fill but no 1960 highway fill. 146 The ground water levels predicted by the Xxxxxxxxxx/Xxxxxxx model represent maximum, or worst case, conditions. Drs. Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx concluded that the 1959 geometry before the highway realignment could have survived 100% of this worst case storm condition. In the second scenario, after the highway realignment but before the addition of the siding, the slope became un- stable when the pore water pressures reached 70% of the worst case storm values. In the third sce- xxxxx, representing the geometry immediately before the landslide, the slope became unstable when the pore water pressures reached 81% of the worst case storm values. For scenario 4, no failure oc- curred at 100% of the storm values.
Xxxxx and Dr. Xx collectively control the exercise of more than 30% of the voting power of the general meetings of Kuang-Chi Technologies and thus Kuang-Chi Technologies is an associate of Xx. Xxx, Xx. Xxxx, Xx. Xxxxx and Dr. Xx, and therefore a connected person of the Company pursuant to Rule 14A.12 of the Listing Rules. As such, the transactions contemplated under the Master Procurement Agreement constitute continuing connected transactions of the Company for the purpose of Chapter 14A of the Listing Rules. As one or more of the applicable percentage ratios relating to the Annual Caps for the continuing connected transactions contemplated under the Master Procurement Agreement is more than 5%, the continuing connected transactions contemplated under the Master Procurement Agreement are subject to the reporting, announcement, annual review and independent shareholders’ approval requirement under Chapter 14A of the Listing Rules.
Xxxxx and Dr. Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx shall have duly honored his initial Service Agreement with Caminus dated as of even date herewith as the same be amended, supplemented or superseded, for all period(s) covered by such service agreement(s) through the Exercise Date (regardless whether such individuals remain in the employment of the Caminus as of the Exercise Date), and (y) to the extent indicated in clause (c) below. The extent of vesting and exercisability of the Caminus Options shall be tested at the time of the first applicable Sale or Qualified Public Offering transaction involving the Company; no subsequent event or change in circumstances shall be considered.
Xxxxx and Dr. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, (“Menon”), by a separate agreement of even date herewith, agreed that they jointly invented the compounds and therapeutic uses disclosed and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 8,338,454 (“’454 Patent”), including Kevetrin (as defined below) and its therapeutic uses.
Xxxxx and Dr. St. Xxxxxxxxx Project Leader XXXXXXX (hereinafter called “GFZ” or “the Customer”), of the one part, and: the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences (hereinafter called “IAP-CAS ” or “the Subcontractor”), whose Registered Office is at: Bocni II, 1401 14100 Xxxxx 0 Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx represented by: Director of the IAP CAS: Prof. Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxxx Czech project leader: XXXXXX of the other part, the following has been agreed:
Xxxxx and Dr. Xiaoduo Lu as the developer and Maize EMS induced Mutant Database (MEMD) as the source of the MATERIAL, and indicate pertinent references.Two copies of the published article must be furnished to CAAS-BRI. The CAAS-BRI may disclose publicly, copy or otherwise use such publication for promotional purposes.
Xxxxx and Dr. T. D. G. Xxxxxx prac- tising at an address in Okehampton engaged Xx. X. X. Jones to assist them under an agreement which con- tained the following covenant. Xx. Xxxxx undertook that within a radius of 10 miles from that address and within a period of five years from the end of the engagement he would not practise or assist any other person to practise any form of medicine, surgery or xxxxxxxxx nor would he accept any professional appointment within those limits. The plaintiffs claimed that the agreement came to an end in February 1946, that the restrictive clause then came into effect and that an injunction should be granted to restrain Xx. Xxxxx from practising within the 10-mile radius in contravention of the covenant. These covenants ' in restraint of trade' are legally enforceable only if they are reasonable and not too vague. The classic statement of the law was uttered by Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx in Nordenfelt v. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx Co. in 1894. ' The public have an interest in everyone's carrying on his trade freely; so has the individual. All inter- xxxxxxx with individual liberty of action in trading and all restraints of trade of themselves if there is nothing more are contrary to public policy and therefore void. Thai, is the general rule but there are exceptions. . It is a sufficient justification if the restriction is reasonable?reasonable that is in reference to the interests of the parties concerned and reasonable in reference to the interests of the public so framed and so guarded as to afford adequate protection to the party in whose favour it is imposed while at the samp time it is in no way injurious .to the public.' 500 THE INDIAN MEDICAL GAZETTE [Aug., 1947 When the Okehampton case came before the Chancery Division last Decenibor, Xx. Xxxxx pleaded that the agreement was too wide and that in the circumstances it was unreasonable. He tendered evid- ence of the shortage of medical practitioners in the Okehampton area and he said he was willing to give an undertaking for a period of eighteen months from March 1946 not to accept as patients any patients whose names were on the plaintiffs' books at the termination of the engagement. Xx. Xxxxxxx (now Lord Justice) Xxxxxxxx dismissed the claim with costs. The xxxx was on the plaintiffs he said to establish that the covenant was reasonably required for their protection. He considered one part of the covenant to be too wide and therefore unenforceable. The plaintiffs appealed but without success. The Court...
Xxxxx and Dr. Xx Xx Xxxxx for their valuable comments and enthusiasm assistance. Last but not least, I would like to send sincere thanks to the external examiner, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx X. Yu, for his valuable comments and suggestions which help to improve the quality of this dissertation. I would like to express my high appreciation to scholarship donors, Vietnam International Education Department - Ministry of Education and Training (MOET)- Vietnam and AIT fellowship for providing financial support to enable me to continue the doctoral program at AIT. I would like to thank to all of my colleagues from the School of Economics and Management – Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Vietnam for their support and encouragement. Thanks are also extended to faculty members and staffs in ISE-SET, AIT for their kindness and guidance. Finally, I would express my sincere gratitude and deepest thanks to my father, my parents in law who are willing to look after my children, always support unconditionally and encourage me during my study. I would like also to express my heartfelt gratitude to my beloved husband, Xx. Xxxxx Xxxx Xx, my lovely son and daughter for their endless love, inspiration and sacrifice. Without their support and understanding, I would never have completed this challenge. Thanks to all of my AIT friends who have made my study time in AIT to become memorable.
