, Ex. In case of employment by a structure including different departments or institutes, please specify the degree of autonomy between them. I hereby declare on my honour that the disclosed information is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
, Ex. Article 75 TEC) 1 In the case of transport within the Union, discrimination which takes the form of carriers charging different rates and imposing different conditions for the carriage of the same goods over the same transport links on grounds of the country of origin or of destination of the goods in question shall be prohibited.
, Ex. KK at 1. The government argues that this constitutes an accord and satisfaction, barring any claims for copyright infringement by 4DD. It claims that the “facts and circumstances giving rise to this particular modification” refers to all instances of alleged over-installation by the government, and because 4DD did not reserve the right to seek compensation for the copies for which it now seeks compensation, then plaintiff’s infringement claims are waived. 4DD presents multiple challenges to the government’s release. It argues that (1) the release does not cover copyright infringement, as it only 27 See id. (discussing repeatedly whether certain types of copies Xx. Xxxxx counts should count as functional copies).
, Ex. If a State employee is doing field work and needs to make an unexpected, unscheduled overnight stay due to safety reasons, said hotel shall offer the State Lodging Per Diem for any available room regardless of booking policy or room allotment.) Abuse of this policy should be reported immediately.
, Ex. A (a certificate constitutes “a beneficial interest in a trust that owns a pool of assets 23 In Ret. Bd. of the Policeman’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of N.Y. Xxxxxx, No. 11 Civ. 5459, 2012 WL 1108533 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2012) (“BONY”), the parties “agree[d] that the TIA applies to the mortgage-backed notes issued by the Delaware trust.” Id. at *4 (emphasis added). Although the Trusts are all Delaware statutory trusts, the parties were not able to reach such an agreement here--and defendants make arguments similar to those that the defendants in the BONY action made with respect to the certificates issued by the New York statutory trusts there.
, Ex. D 1 After the Customer specifically disputes charges, inform Customer that mandatory blocking will be established on Customer’s line and disputed amount is adjusted accordingly on Customer’s bill. Inform Customer that the Information Providers may pursue collection of charges directly with Customers. . Adjustments granted as the result of refusal to pay, denies all knowledge, unsatisfactory payment arrangements, etc., should be classified as an uncollectible adjustment and blocking should be established after first request. On the database, Adjustments granted as the result of poor transmission, call not completed or calls completed due to failure to establish blocking, such as service order issued incorrectly, should be classified as correct charges on the Ameritech entity code (R or NBT). . Blocking must be imposed on those Customers who refuse to pay legitimate Per-Per-Call charges, to the extent permitted under Applicable Law. Sch. 7.1, Ex. D 2 SCHEDULE 7.7.2 OS/DA Operator Services
, Ex. 3A, ¶ 53). Three years after entering into the transaction, NutraSweet and Daesang were sued by a class of aspartame purchasers in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for violation of federal antitrust laws, captioned In Re Aspartame Antitrust Litigation ("Antitrust Action") (Ex. D, annexed to the Xxxxxxx Aff.). On March 20, 2007, NutraSweet notified Daesang that, pursuant to section 10 of the JDA, it was exercising its right to rescind the transaction based on the Antitrust Action, and sought the return of all payments made to Daesang (Ex. F, annexed to the Xxxxxxx Aff.). Xxxxxxx rejected NutraSweet's attempt to cancel the transaction, and instead, [*2] declared an event of default and purported to exercise its contractual right to accelerate the remaining purchase price obligations (Xxxxxxx Aff., Ex. A, P. 18). On June 4, 2008, Xxxxxxx filed a request for arbitration with the ICC, asserting claims against NutraSweet for breaches of the APA and the Processing Agreement and seeking the balance of the purchase price installments (Ex. I, annexed to the Xxxxxxx Aff.). In its terms of reference and pleadings, NutraSweet asserted the following counterclaims and defenses: rescission based upon section 10 of the JDA; equitable rescission; fraud seeking recsissionary and consequential damages; breach of contract alleging that Daesang breached multiple provisions of the agreements, including sections 3, and 6 of the APA, and Articles 2.5, 2.10, 3.2, 4 and Exhibits 4.2 (a) and
, Ex. The temporary all import taxes exemption procedures apply to project operation and transport vehicles such as heavy trucks, loaders, compacters, bulldozers, tractors, drills, fork-lift trucks, cranes, etc. (excluding service trucks and passengers cars), to be renewed every three years if necessary. The payment of the customs duties for the plant equipment is evenly distributed without interest on a yearly basis during the technical life of the equipment. The payment of the custom duties for trucks and passengers cars is distributed evenly over a 3-year period.
, Ex. A at 1). The Agreement included an exclusivity provision, under which CDI would “exclusively work with GT Solar . . . [to] produce TCS BEP [Basic Engineering Packages] solely for GT Solar’s clients,” and GT Solar “would exclusively work with CDI” and would “provide TCS technology to any client except for projects in which CDI is used exclusively to produce GT Solar TCS BEP.” (Id. at 2). In this suit, CDI alleges that GT Solar breached the exclusivity clause by soliciting and receiving work on projects providing TCS technology to clients without using CDI to provide the TCS BEP. CDI alleges that on one project, GT Solar solicited bids from other engineering firms for work within the scope of work identified for CDI on the project. CDI alleges that in February 2011, when confronted, GT Solar denied that it had any contractual or other obligation to CDI. (Docket Entry No. 22, ¶¶ 14–16).
, Ex. 6. Those who sought an exemption from the timeliness requirement prior to the October 31, 2001 deadline were advised of the option to file a comment with the Court, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice of Fairness Hearing. See SSI Declaration at ¶14, Ex.6. Throughout the claims process, SSI maintained a toll-free telephone number that was staffed from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday, and fielded hundreds of telephone calls from Class Members. This number was provided to the Class on the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Consent Decree, as well on the websites of both Class Counsel and the FDIC. SSI collected contact information for each person who called SSI, provided information about the settlement and the distribution formula, answered Class Members’ questions and responded to requests for copies of documents. Where Class Members sought the advice of an attorney or wanted to discuss further the provisions of the settlement, SSI referred such requests to Class Counsel. SSI also created a database that tracks communications between claimants and others who contacted SSI or Class Counsel. See SSI Declaration at ¶¶ 15, 16, Ex. 6.
