Scenario D definition

Scenario D. The Consolidated Company’s Trailing Twelve Month's Economic Earnings is $60,000,000 for the twelve-month period ending on the First Vesting Date, $80,000,000 for the twelve-month period ending on the Second Vesting Date, and $60,000,000 for the twelve-month period ending on the Third Vesting Date. The resulting Performance Ratio at each Vesting Date is: First Vesting Date: $60,000,000 / $70,000,000 = 0.857 Second Vesting Date: $80,000,000 / $70,000,000 = 1.143 (deemed to be 1.0) Third Vesting Date: $60,000,000 / $70,000,000 = 0.857 Therefore, 85.7% of one third of the Performance Shares (or 28.57% of the Performance Shares) vest on the First Vesting Date, and, absent application of Section 2.3(b), 100.0% of one third of the Performance Shares vest on the Second Vesting Date and 85.7% of one third of the Performance Shares (28.57%) vest on the Third Vesting Date for total vesting of 90.48% of the Performance Shares. However, applying Section 2.3(b), at the Second Vesting Date, $10,000,000 of the Trailing Twelve Month's Economic Earnings of the Consolidated Company for the twelve-month period ending on the Second Vesting Date would be applied to the Trailing Twelve Month's Economic Earnings of the Consolidated Company for the twelve-month period ending on the First Vesting Date, as follows: Excess of Trailing Twelve Month's Economic Earnings for the twelve-month period ending on the Second Vesting Date over $70,000,000: $80,000,000 - $70,000,000 = $10,000,000 $60,000,000 + $10,000,000 = $70,000,000 $70,000,000 / $70,000,000 = 1.0 Resulting in a Catch-Up Ratio applicable to the First Vesting Date of 1.0. Therefore, after applying Section 2.3(b), at the Second Vesting Date, the portion of Performance Shares that did not vest at the First Vesting Date will be fully vested and 100.0% of one third of the Performance Shares will have vested as of the Second Vesting Date.
View Source
Scenario D. The Consolidated Company’s Trailing Twelve Month’s Earnings is $40,000,000 as of the First Vesting Date, $60,000,000 as of the Second Vesting Date and $40,000,000 as of the Third Vesting Date. The resulting Performance Ratio at each Vesting Date is: First Vesting Date: $40,000,000 / $50,000,000 = 0.8 Second Vesting Date: $60,000,000 / $50,000,000 = 1.2 (deemed to be 1.0) Third Vesting Date: $40,000,000 / $50,000,000 = 0.8 Therefore, 80.0% of one third of the Shares (or 26.66% of the Shares) vest on the First Vesting Date, and, absent application of Section 2.2, 100.0% of one third of the Shares vest on the Second Vesting Date for and 80.0% of one third of the Shares (26.66%) vest on the Third Vesting Date for total vesting of 86.65% of the Shares. However, applying Section 2.2, at the Second Vesting Date, $10,000,000 of the Trailing Twelve Month’s Earnings of the Consolidated Company for the Second Vesting Date would be applied to the Trailing Twelve Month’s Earnings of the Consolidated Company for the First Vesting Date, as follows: $60,000,000 - $50,000,000 = $10,000,000 $40,000,000 + $10,000,000 = $50,000,000 $50,000,000 / $50,000,000 = 1.0 Resulting in a Catch-Up Ratio applicable to the First Vesting Date of 1.0. Therefore, after applying Section 2.2, at the Second Vesting Date, the portion of Shares that did not vest at the First Vesting Date (20.0% of one third) will be fully vested and 100.0% of one third of the Shares will have vested as of the Second Vesting Date. Because there is a second Shortfall Date that occurs as of the Third Vesting Date, the provisions of Section 2.2 are unavailable to determine whether the additional Shares shall vest, as prior period performance is not considered for purposes of Section 2.2. That is, regardless of an excess over $50,000,000 for the Trailing Twelve Month’s Earnings at the Second Vesting Date, this excess cannot be used to calculate subsequent Catch-Up Ratios under Section 2.2. Therefore, the portion of Shares that did not vest at the Third Vesting Date (20.0% of one third) remain unvested. 100.0% of one third of the Shares will have vested at each of the First and Second Vesting Date and 80.0% of one third of the Shares will become Vested Shares at the Final Vesting Date.
View Source
Scenario D. If neither trial has shown superiority of a regimen, then the DSMB might recommend continuation of both trials unless there is very strong and consistent evidence of equivalence of the two regimens in the two trials. Such evidence might be that the RCI for the hazard ratio in each trial is entirely within the range 0.5 to 2, and the RCI for the hazard ratio in the two trials combined is entirely within the range 0.75 to 1.333. The requirement for consistency of evidence from the two trials might also involve the need for the estimated differences between NNRTI-based and PI-based therapy being in the same direction in both trials so that there is no concern that there may be a qualitative difference in which regimen might be preferred according to whether or not a woman had previously received SD NVP.
View Source

Examples of Scenario D in a sentence

  • Scenario D aimed at checking the formal quality of the output data.

  • If the Assumed Net HMO Share (Scenario D) is less than or equal to 75% of the aggregate of the Assumed Net CCPN Share (Scenario D) and the Assumed Net HMO Share (Scenario D), then the rights and obligations of CCPN and HMO shall be determined in accordance with the method of determining the Assumed Net CCPN Share (Scenario D) and Assumed Net HMO Share (Scenario D), as applicable, described in Section VII.D.1 above.

  • Some of the key trade‐offs in Scenario D operations (relative to operations with NTS) that are apparent at different locations include: − Kinbasket Reservoir: Potential improvements in Navigation, Recreation Dust and Heritage (inundation) vs.

  • We concluded that two 500-ft long horizontal ▇▇▇▇▇ located on the ▇▇▇▇▇ property could produce approximately 220 gpm year-round and up to approximately 280 gpm during the summer months (Scenario D).

  • In Scenario D, the model again predicts the overall incidence extremely well, with an estimate of 4.5%.

  • Factoring activities in Scenario D • The recourse and non-recourse arrangement entered into by X and Y.

  • For purposes of such comparison it shall be assumed that (a) CCPN would (1) reimburse HMO for 75% of the Pediatric Pool Deficit, (2) receive 25% of the Adult Pool Surplus, and (3) receive 25% of the Profit Product Pool Total (the net result, the "Assumed Net CCPN Share (Scenario D)"), and (b) HMO would (1) absorb 25% of the Pediatric Pool Deficit, (2) retain 75% of the Adult Pool Surplus, and (3) retain 75% of the Profit Product Pool Total (the net result, the "Assumed Net HMO Share (Scenario D)").

  • Scenario D • X is a supplier of electrical goods to the retail industry.

Related to Scenario D

  • Single Phase Aerosol Air Freshener means an aerosol air freshener with the liquid contents in a single homogeneous phase and which does not require that the product container be shaken before use.

  • Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener means an aerosol air freshener with the liquid contents in two or more distinct phases that requires the product container be shaken before use to mix the phases, producing an emulsion.

  • Soft drinks means nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners. "Soft drinks" does not include beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or that contains greater than fifty per cent vegetable or fruit juice by volume.

  • Energy Use Intensity (EUI) means the kBTUs (1,000 British Thermal Units) used per square foot of gross floor area.

  • Treatability study means a study in which a hazardous waste is subjected to a treatment process to determine: (1) Whether the waste is amenable to the treatment process, (2) what pretreatment (if any) is required, (3) the optimal process conditions needed to achieve the desired treatment, (4) the efficiency of a treatment process for a specific waste or wastes, or (5) the characteristics and volumes of residuals from a particular treatment process. Also included in this definition for the purpose of the § 261.4 (e) and (f) exemptions are liner compatibility, corrosion, and other material compatibility studies and toxicological and health effects studies. A “treatability study” is not a means to commercially treat or dispose of hazardous waste.