Background to the dispute Sample Clauses

Background to the dispute. 4 In 2017, the Mongolian government initiated the “Gold-2 Programme”. The programme aimed to support gold producers in Mongolia and assist in the recovery of Mongolia’s economy.6 To this end, Mongolia’s central bank, the Bank of Mongolia, provided loans to the gold producers in Mongolia.7 On or around 18 September 2020, the defendant obtained, through the Trade & 1 4th affidavit of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx dated 29 September 2023 (“AVLA”) at para 4. 2 AVLA at para 8. 3 AVLA at para 5. 4 AVLA at para 5. 5 AVLA at para 5. 6 1st affidavit of Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx dated 29 September 2023 (“JTS”) at paras 17– 18. 7 JTS at para 18. Development Bank of Mongolia (“TDB”), a US$10.5m loan from the Bank of Mongolia under the Gold-2 Programme (the “2020 Gold-2 Loan”). This loan was to be used for the expansion of the ATO Mine.8 5 To finance the expansion of the ATO Mine, the defendant needed more funds, in addition to the 2020 Gold-2 Loan.9 Pursuant to a contract executed on 24 October 2020 (the “Mandate Letter”), the defendant engaged the claimant as its “exclusive financial adviser in connection with the structuring, arrangement and placement of a US[$]50–80m debt financing (or a combination of financings) to be entered into by the [claimant] (the ‘Transaction’ or, each, a ‘Transaction’)”.10 All subsequent references to the word “Transaction” in this judgment refer to Transaction as defined in the Mandate Letter. 6 Under the Mandate Letter, the claimant was to provide deal advisory and deal execution services for the Transaction for a period of nine months.11 Under cl 2.1 of the Mandate Letter, the claimant was to identify “potential lenders and / or investors” (the “Investors”), initiate discussions with short-listed Investors and implement the deal.12 Under cl 2.2 of the Mandate Letter, the claimant had to prepare a financial model for the prospective Investors (the “Investor Financial Model”) and an information memorandum (the “Information Memorandum”).13 The claimant also had to design and advise on the structure 8 JTS at para 25.

Background to the dispute. 3 The dispute stemmed from Xxxxx’s intended purchase of the Property. Xx Xxxxx Xxx Xxxx (“Xxxxx”), a solicitor with the Defendant, was the solicitor in charge of this property transaction. The purchase was abortive and Xxxxx alleged that there were multiple instances where Xxxxx had failed to advise her adequately.

Background to the dispute. 4. Tele2

Background to the dispute. 6 In August 2012, the first defendant was first employed by Singpet Pte Ltd (“Singpet”), which is another company run by Xx Xxxxxxxxxx. The first defendant signed a contract of employment with Singpet dated 7 August 2012 (the “Singpet Contract”).7 On 3 April 2014, the plaintiff was incorporated, and the first defendant began working for the plaintiff some time thereafter. However, the first defendant did not sign a new written contract of employment with the plaintiff. There is therefore some disagreement concerning the precise start date and terms of his employment with the plaintiff. However, it is agreed that the plaintiff started paying the first defendant’s salary and making payments to the first defendant’s CPF account in January 2015. It is also agreed that from that point onwards, the first defendant was an employee of the plaintiff.8

Background to the dispute. The Acquisition Transaction

Background to the dispute. The Commission's initiatives with a view to the conclusion by the Community of international air transport agreements