Case Selection. Cases are chosen from the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, which is responsible for the official approval of cross-border M&As in China. Case selection is based on four criteria. First, SOEs are manufacturers. This is because cross-border M&As of Chinese SOEs initially started with the manufacturing industry and it is still one of the favourite industries for foreign firms making M&As with Chinese SOEs. In addition, a large number of SOEs are manufacturers and therefore investigating SOEs from manufacturing industry is representative. Second, Western acquirers are restricted to the U.S., the U.K. and their relevant countries because of cultural homogeneity. The U.S., the U.K. and their relevant countries have a similar culture and thus their managerial culture, leadership style and value are similar. This homogeneity leads to similar post-acquisition management, which does not violate the research results. Third, Chinese SOEs are restricted to the same region as Chinese culture slightly varies between different regions. In general, Southern China shows a more open culture than Northern China because it opened up to the world earlier and more deeply than the Northern region. The traditional Chinese culture manifests more strongly and deeply in Northern China than in the Southern region so this research has chosen the SOEs located in Northern China. The fourth criteria is that the research investigates acquisition activities carried out between 2004 and 2006 because, as indicated in the Introduction chapter, China’s international M&As market has boomed since 2003. This period provides more available candidates for case selection than other periods. In total, six SOEs from the manufacturing industry have been chosen as research cases. This research conducted a pilot study as a preliminary test and separated it from the main study. This is because the purposes of the pilot study for this research were to test whether respondents showed a good understanding of questions, to see whether some key points were missed out or whether other new issues emerged and to choose key points for the following in-depth main study. Two of the cases were assigned to the pilot study and others were assigned to the main study. One of the pilot companies (hereinafter referred to as ‘Company A’) was acquired by a U.S. company in 2004, the other (hereinafter referred to as ‘Company B’) was acquired by an Irish company in 2006. Both Company A and Company B were ...
Case Selection. The researcher targets the theoretical replication to strengthen the external validity of the findings (Xxx 2003). In general, it is important to select cases with contrasting characteristics (instead of looking for direct replication in similar cases) because the external validity will be stronger than the external validity obtained from a multiple case study of similar cases (Xxxxx 1996, pp. 93- 94; Xxx 2003). The sampling method gives the freedom to change the number of cases, composing the multiple case study, during the process of the research (Xxxxxxxxxx 1989; Xxxxxxxxx 2011).
Case Selection. This research will conduct case study research of five recent inter- national conflicts that were managed by multiple mediators. As Beach and Xxxxxxxx (2012) prescribe, the selection criteria was based on two principles: the fact that a given international crisis was managed by a multiparty mediation endeavor, and more importantly that each pro- cess had both the hypothesized X (in this case observable dynamics of cooperation and/or coordination between mediators) and outcome Y (success or failure of multiparty mediation activities). In order to achie- ve a large degree of theoretical relevance the cases were selected from different regional and spatial contexts: different continents, different historical circumstances and managed by different international actors (even though some actors, such as the US and Russia/Soviet Union tend to be quite present within almost all cases). Therefore, the present study will reflect on three cases that contemporary scholarship descri- bes as successful and two that were unsuccessful. Successful cases of multiparty mediation took place in Tajikistan (Xxx 2001; Xxxxxxxxx xxx Xxxxxx 0000), Namibia (Zartman 1989; Xxxxxxx 1999) and Cambodia (Xxxxxxx 2000; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 2012). Multiparty mediation efforts were unsuccessful to yield any results in managing the conflicts in Kosovo (Xxx-Xxxxxxx 2009) and Sri Lanka (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2011).
Case Selection. No later than forty-five days before each Expedited Arbitration Date, the Union Plant Chairman (or his/her designee) and the site Labor Relations lead (or his/her designee) will meet to select those grievances to be heard at the next Expedited Arbitration Date. In order to be eligible for selection, a case must have been placed on the Expedited Arbitration Case List at least sixty days prior to the Expedited Arbitration Date. Absent mutual agreement, no more than two grievances will be scheduled to be heard on an Expedited Arbitration Date. The parties agree to attempt in good-faith to agree on the grievances to be heard. If the parties cannot agree, then each side will have the right to select one case each from the Expedited Arbitration Case List. In the event that a selected grievance is resolved prior to the expedited arbitration, then the parties may select a replacement grievance upon mutual agreement.
Case Selection. Customer understands, agrees and acknowledges that during the Term it shall (a) retain complete authority for case selection, management and administration with respect to each individual who shall participate in Electronic Monitoring (hereinafter “Client”), including, without limitation, monitoring responsibility with respect to each Client; (b) be responsible for all liaison work with the involved courts and/or agencies; (c) identify and make available Customer staff and/or equipment that complies with Provider’s policies as in effect from time to time, in order to use and access the Monitoring Services, including, without limitation, with respect to Provider’s policy that establishes a specifically correct method of equipment (i.e.: fax, phone, pager) for the purpose of Provider notification of Alert Conditions to Customer; (d) perform or oversee Client orientation, installation and de- installation of Equipment and overall compliance with Provider’s policies, which policies include, without limitation, a specific method of equipment installation, and Client equipment use guidelines; establish alert notification protocols and parameters, in accordance with available Notification Options, and an alert response policy, and respond to Alert Conditions in accordance with that policy; (f) assume the financial responsibility for the cost associated with replacing any lost, stolen, or damaged Equipment or accessories; and (g) provide to Provider the required information and parameters for monitoring each Client, including, without limitation, each Client’s case curfew, movement restrictions, inclusion and exclusion zone information, essential demographic and case information. Customer will be solely responsible for properly recording all Alert Conditions and other information relative to monitoring The Equipment when located on a Client, including, without limitation, data entry and data storage of all such Customer specified information into Provider’s computer system.
