Acquisition Discussion Sample Clauses

Acquisition Discussion. (i) Each Requirement will have an associated Acquisition Discussion that will commence upon Buyer advising Seller of Buyer’s Tentative Requirement Schedule and shall end when a Cargo or Cargoes covering the Requirement are Supplied to Buyer. (ii) Until Buyer’s Tentative Requirements Schedule has become Buyer’s Requirements Schedule (as described in Clause 6), Buyer shall have the right to adjust the dates with the exception of any Requirements covered with Cargoes, which shall not be adjusted or modified without Seller’s consent. (iii) As long as the relevant Acquisition Discussion has not concluded, the GPO / RGPO shall contain the alternatives as described in this Clause 5 for each Requirement.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (6)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Acquisition Discussion

  • Mutual Discussions The Employer and the Union acknowledge the mutual benefits to be derived from dialogue between the parties and are prepared to discuss matters of common interest.

  • Informal Discussion If an employee has a problem relating to a work situation, the employee is encouraged to request a meeting with his or her immediate supervisor to discuss the problem in an effort to clarify the issue and to work cooperatively towards settlement.

  • Existing Discussions The Company agrees that it will immediately cease and cause to be terminated any existing activities, discussions or negotiations with any Persons conducted heretofore with respect to any Acquisition Proposal. The Company agrees that it will take the necessary steps to promptly inform the individuals or entities referred to in the first sentence hereof of the obligations undertaken in this Section 6.2. The Company also agrees that it will promptly request each Person that has heretofore executed a confidentiality agreement in connection with its consideration of acquiring it or any of its Subsidiaries to return or destroy all confidential information heretofore furnished to such Person by or on behalf of it or any of its Subsidiaries.

  • Informal Discussions The employee's concerns will be presented orally by the employee to the appropriate supervisor. Every effort shall be made by all concerned in an informal manner to develop an understanding of the facts and the issues in order to create a climate which will lead to resolution of the problem. If the employee is not satisfied with the informal discussion(s) relative to the matter in question, he/she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure.

  • Discussion Staff has reviewed the proposal relative to all relevant policies and advise that it is reasonably consistent with the intent of the MPS. Attachment B provides an evaluation of the proposed development agreement in relation to the relevant MPS policies.

  • Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- pared to the t-test for small p-values.

  • Information Acquisition Connecting Transmission Owner and Developer shall each submit specific information regarding the electrical characteristics of their respective facilities to the other, and to NYISO, as described below and in accordance with Applicable Reliability Standards.

  • Settlement Discussions This Agreement is part of a proposed settlement of matters that could otherwise be the subject of litigation among the Parties hereto. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of any kind. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any applicable state rules of evidence, this Agreement and all negotiations relating thereto shall not be admissible into evidence in any proceeding other than to prove the existence of this Agreement or in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement.

  • No Existing Discussions As of the date hereof, the Company is not engaged, directly or indirectly, in any discussions or negotiations with any other party with respect to an Acquisition Proposal.

  • Acquisition Proposals (a) Except as provided in this Section 6.2(a) and in Section 6.2(d), the Company shall not (and shall cause the Company Subsidiaries to not), and shall take such reasonable actions to cause (and shall cause the Company Subsidiaries to take such reasonable actions to cause) each Company Entity’s officers, directors, investment bankers, attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, agents, and other representatives (collectively, the “Representatives”) not to, (i) directly or indirectly initiate, solicit, knowingly encourage, or facilitate (including by way of furnishing non-public information) any inquiries with respect to, or the making or submission of, any proposal that constitutes, or would reasonably be expected to lead to, an Acquisition Proposal, or (ii) participate or engage in discussions or negotiations with, furnish any non-public information or data relating to any Company Entity or any Company Asset to, or provide access to the properties, books or records of any Company Entity to, any Person that has made an Acquisition Proposal or in contemplation of an Acquisition Proposal. Notwithstanding the immediately foregoing sentence, at any time prior to obtaining the Company Required Vote, the Company and the Company’s Board are permitted to take any actions described in clause (ii) of this Section 6.2(a) with respect to a third party if (w) the Company has received a written Acquisition Proposal from such third party (and such Acquisition Proposal did not result from a breach of this Section 6.2(a), whether by any Company Entity or any Representative (as if all Company Entities and Representatives were bound by this Section 6.2(a))), (x) the Company gives the Parent the notice required by Section 6.2(e), (y) after receiving the advice of its financial advisors, the Company’s Board determines in good faith that such proposal constitutes, or is reasonably likely to lead to, a Superior Proposal, and (z) the Company’s Board determines in good faith, after consultation with its outside legal counsel, that the failure to participate in such negotiations or discussions or to furnish such information or data to such third party is likely to be inconsistent with the Company Board’s fiduciary duties under applicable Law; except that (1) the Company shall not deliver any non-public information to such third party without first entering into a confidentiality agreement with such third party on terms no less favorable to the Company than those contained in the Confidentiality Agreement (any such confidentiality agreement with such third party, an “Acceptable Confidentiality Agreement”) and (2) subject to applicable Law, the Company shall make available to the Parent any non-public information concerning any Company Entity that is made available to any other Person or group in connection with any actual or potential Acquisition Proposal that was not previously made available to the Parent, contemporaneously with the delivery of such information to (or as promptly as practicable after such information is delivered to) such Person. Nothing contained in this Section 6.2 will prohibit the Company or the Company’s Board from taking and disclosing to the Company’s stockholders a position with respect to an Acquisition Proposal pursuant to Rule 14d-9 or 14e-2(a) promulgated under the Exchange Act or from making any similar disclosure, in either case to the extent required by applicable Law, including the Company Board’s fiduciary duties; except that compliance with such rules will not permit the Company to make an Adverse Recommendation Change other than in accordance with Section 6.2(d). (b) Except as provided in Section 6.2(d) and in Section 6.2(g), each of the Company, the Company’s Board, and each Company Board Committee shall not (i) withdraw or withhold (or amend or modify in a manner adverse to any Buyer Entity), or publicly propose to withdraw or withhold (or amend or modify in a manner adverse to any Buyer Entity), the approval, recommendation, or declaration of advisability by the Company’s Board or any Company Board Committee of this Agreement, the Merger, or any Transactions, (ii) recommend, adopt, or approve, or propose publicly to recommend, adopt, or approve, any Acquisition Proposal (any action described in the immediately foregoing clauses (i) or (ii), an “Adverse Recommendation Change”). (c) Except as provided in Section 6.2(d), the Company shall not (and shall cause the Company Subsidiaries to not), and shall take reasonable actions to cause (and shall cause the Company Subsidiaries to take reasonable actions to cause) each Company Entity’s Representatives not to, execute or enter into any Contract (including any merger agreement, acquisition agreement, option agreement, joint venture agreement, partnership agreement or other similar agreement), or any letter of intent, term sheet, memorandum of understanding, or agreement in principle, (i) relating to or that could reasonably be expected to lead to any Acquisition Proposal (other than an Acceptable Confidentiality Agreement in circumstances contemplated in the penultimate sentence of Section 6.2(a)), or (ii) requiring the Company to abandon, terminate, or fail to consummate the Merger or any of the Transactions. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing set forth in this Section 6.2, at any time prior to obtaining the Company Required Vote, and subject to the Company’s compliance at all times with the provisions of this Section 6.2 and Section 6.4(a), with respect to an Acquisition Proposal, the Company’s Board is permitted to make an Adverse Recommendation Change if (i) a written Acquisition Proposal (that did not result from a breach of Section 6.2(a), whether by any Company Entity or any Representative (as if all Company Entities and Representatives were bound by this Section 6.2(d))) is made to the Company by a third party, and such Acquisition Proposal is not withdrawn, (ii) the Company’s Board determines in good faith after consultation with its legal and financial advisors that such Acquisition Proposal constitutes a Superior Proposal, (iii) the Company’s Board determines in good faith, after consultation with its outside legal counsel, that the failure to make such an Adverse Recommendation Change is likely to be inconsistent with the Company Board’s fiduciary duties under applicable Law, (iv) subject to compliance with applicable Law, the Company provides the Parent three Business Days’ prior written notice of the Company’s intention to make an Adverse Recommendation Change because of such Acquisition Proposal (such notice, a “Notice of Acquisition Proposal”), it being understood that a Notice of Acquisition Proposal does not in itself institute an Adverse Recommendation Change for purposes hereof, which notice must include the information with respect to such Acquisition Proposal that is specified in Section 6.2(e); except that, if there are any material revisions to the Acquisition Proposal (relative to the terms of the Acquisition Proposal as set forth in the Notice of Acquisition Proposal as provided to the Parent), then the Company must provide to the Parent a new Notice of Acquisition Proposal and, if the Company has not made an Adverse Recommendation Change, and subject to compliance with applicable Law, an additional three Business Days following the provision of such new Notice of Acquisition Proposal, and (v) at the end of the three-Business Day period described in the immediately foregoing clause (iv) (including any extension of such period required thereunder), the Company Board again makes the determination in good faith after consultation with its outside legal counsel and financial advisors (and taking into account any adjustment or modification of the terms hereof that the Parent proposes) that the Acquisition Proposal constitutes a Superior Proposal and that the failure to make such Adverse Recommendation Change is likely to be inconsistent with the Company Board’s fiduciary duties under applicable Law. If the Parent proposes to the Company any adjustment or modification of the terms hereof in response to a Notice of Acquisition Proposal, and such proposed adjustment or modification, if implemented, would reverse the determination of the Company Board that the Acquisition Proposal constituted a Superior Proposal, then the Company and Parent shall negotiate in good faith with the Parent to implement such adjustment or modification to the terms hereof and, upon implementation of such adjustment or modification, the Company Board shall not make an Adverse Recommendation Change (or, if already made, will reinstate its recommendation in favor of the Merger and this Agreement, as so adjusted or modified). (e) As promptly as practicable after receipt thereof (but in any event within 24 hours after the Company’s receipt thereof), the Company shall (i) advise Parent in writing of any request for non-public information or any Acquisition Proposal received from any Person, or any inquiry, discussions, or negotiations with respect to any Acquisition Proposal, and the material terms of such request, Acquisition Proposal, inquiry, discussions, or negotiations, and (ii) promptly provide to Parent a detailed, written summary of all of the material terms, provisions, and other information set forth in any materials (including any draft agreements) that the Company receives in connection with any Acquisition Proposal (or, at the Company’s election, a copy thereof) and the identity of the Person or group making any such request, Acquisition Proposal, or inquiry or with whom any discussions or negotiations are taking place. The Company shall keep the Parent reasonably informed of the status of any Acquisition Proposals (including disclosing to the Parent the identity of the parties, the price involved, and any material changes to any terms thereof and providing to the Parent detailed, written summaries of all of the material terms, provisions, or other information set forth in any amended or additional documents received from or provided to any Person with respect to such Acquisition Proposal). The Company shall not release any third party from, or waive any provisions of, any confidentiality or standstill agreement to which the Company is a party and shall use its reasonable efforts to enforce any such agreement at the request of or on behalf of the Parent. (f) Immediately after the execution and delivery hereof, the Company shall (and shall cause the Company Subsidiaries to) instruct the Representatives to cease and terminate any existing activities, discussions, or negotiations with any parties conducted heretofore with respect to any possible Acquisition Proposal. The Company shall (i) take the necessary steps to promptly inform the Representatives involved in the Transactions of the obligations undertaken in Section 6.2(a) and (ii) request each Person who has heretofore executed a confidentiality agreement in connection with such Person’s consideration of acquiring the Company or any portion thereof to return or destroy (and certify such destruction in writing by an executive officer of such Person) all confidential information heretofore furnished to such Person by or on its behalf. (g) Nothing in this Agreement will prohibit or restrict the Company’s Board from effecting an Adverse Recommendation Change not involving or relating to an Acquisition Proposal in response to a material adverse development or change in circumstances with respect to the Parent Business occurring or arising after the Signing Date, if (i) the Company’s Board determines in good faith after consultation with its outside legal counsel that not making such Adverse Recommendation Change is likely to be inconsistent with the Company Board’s fiduciary duties under applicable Law (ii) subject to compliance with applicable Law, the Company provides the Parent three Business Days’ prior written notice of the Company’s intention to make public an Adverse Recommendation Change because of such material development or change in circumstances (such notice, a “Notice of Material Development”); and that it is considering such a recommendation change and summarizing in reasonable detail the reasons therefor; and (iii) at the end of the three-Business Day period described in the immediately foregoing clause (ii), the Company Board again makes the determination in good faith after consultation with its outside legal counsel and financial advisors (and taking into account any adjustment or modification of the terms hereof that the Parent proposes in writing) that failure to make such an Adverse Recommendation Change is likely to be inconsistent with the Company Board’s fiduciary duties under applicable Law. If the Parent proposes to the Company any adjustment or modification of the terms hereof in response to a Notice of Material Development, and such proposed adjustment or modification, if implemented, would reverse the determination of the Company Board that it make an Adverse Recommendation Change, then the Company and Parent shall negotiate in good faith (during a period not exceeding three Business days, unless otherwise mutually agreed) with respect to such adjustment or modification to the terms hereof and, upon implementation of such adjustment or modification, the Company Board shall not make an Adverse Recommendation Change (or, if already made, will reinstate its recommendation in favor of the Merger and this Agreement, as so adjusted or modified).

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!