December 2007. January 2008 ........
December 2007. 154.88622422 May 2012.......... 208.50863705 August 2003....... 115.70112928 January 2008...... 155.75745925 June 2012......... 209.68149814 September 2003.... 116.35194803 February 2008.....
December 2007. The board of directors of USI Holdings Limited (the “Company”) announces that the following tenancy agreements (together, the “Tenancy Agreements”) have been entered into: The Company and various of its subsidiaries (SHTI, Impact Textiles, United Success, USIP and Fore Prosper) have entered into tenancy agreements, as tenant, with Unimix Properties, as landlord, for a term of 12 months commencing on 25 August 2007 and 1 September 2007 up to and including 31 August 2008. The Tenancy Agreements relate to units on Floors 3, 5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 (covering an aggregate gross area of 59,694 square feet) and car parks. The aggregate gross monthly rent and other payments amount to approximately HK$0.6 million and are payable monthly in advance.
December 2007. Prior to the expiration date of the contract term set forth in Article 1.1.1, if the Parties have no objections, the term of this Contract shall be extended for a period equal to the contract term specified in Article
December 2007. Your with-profits annuity
December 2007. 0.00 January 2008.... 0.00 February 2008... 0.00 March 2008...... 0.00 April 2008...... 0.00 May 2008........ 0.00 June 2008....... 0.00 July 2008....... 0.00 August 2008..... 0.00 September 2008.. 0.00 October 2008.... 0.00
December 2007. The Commencement Date may be adjusted in accordance with Section 3.2 of this Lease Common Area The common areas generally include space that is not included in portions of the Building set aside for leasing to tenants or reserved for Landlord’s exclusive use, including entrances, dining area, hallways, lobbies, elevator, restrooms. Common Area also includes sidewalks, walkways, parking, plazas, and all other parts of this site. Electrical Service. Six (6) wxxxx per useable square foot for convenience outlets.
December 2007. H.E. Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx e Xxxxx co-Chairman (EC) ACP-EC Committee of Ambassadors 000 Xxx xx xx Xxx 0000 Xxxxxxxx Dear co-Chairman, Towards the end of its current mandate, which will expire on 9 December 2007, the Executive Board of the CDE decided unanimously at its meeting on 29 and 30 November 2007 to forward its comments concerning the future of the CDE to the Centre’s supervisory authorities. We believe that, without an unprecedented mobilisation of the various parties concerned, and especially the ACP and EU supervisory bodies, the Centre will face an impasse. It is our duty, as the Centre’s Executive Board, to inform you. We wish above all, and without any self-interest, to place our experience in the private sector and that acquired over the past five years within the CDE at the disposal of the ACP and EU authorities. The Executive Board considers, overall, that the study ordered by the European Commission and undertaken by an independent consultant is pertinent. The recommendations presented to the members of the Board, as well as the ACP Secretariat and members of the ACP and EC Committees of Ambassadors, set out three hypotheses. As the Ambassador of Mauritius quite rightly suggested during the meeting to present the final report on 30 November 2007, in order to determine the final option to be retained and the accompanying “road map” it would be appropriate to form a small working group composed of representatives from the Executive Board and from the Centre’s supervisory authorities. The current Executive Board has been a strong advocate of the need to embark on the process of reforming the CDE, a reform that is awaited, moreover, by all the parties concerned. We wish, therefore, to draw the attention of the Centre’s supervisory authorities to the effect of a change in the Board’s current membership in terms of continuing the reform process. This leads us to suggest that the current Board should continue for a minimum period, possibly twelve months, in order to set the restructuring of the CDE in place. In the event that one of the parties does not agree, we recommend that the first two meetings of the Executive Board in 2008, which should approve the details of this restructuring, should be enlarged to include both incoming and outgoing members for the purpose of ensuring continuity in the orientations. In addition, there are important decisions that have to be taken urgently, such as the renewal of some staff contracts, and these decisions a...
December 2007. These arrangements were initially addressed by the introduction of section 61(6) CAA 2001. This applied section 61(7) CAA 2001, which sought to ensure that the net investment in the lease was adjusted to treat all lease payments made on or before the relevant date, as made the day after that date. However the amendments were not wholly effective, in particular it failed to address the premium issue described at BLM 62220 – insert hyperlink. Section 61(6)-(9) CAA 2001 were repealed for leases whose inception was on or after 13 November 2008 when item 5A of the table at section 61(2) CAA 2001 was rewritten to include the ‘qualifying lease payments’ as determined by section 61(5A) CAA 2001 which specifically included initial payments. Another method used to reduce the lessor’s “net investment in the lease” involved the lessor funding the purchase of the plant or machinery asset partly by way of a non-recourse loan (a non-recourse loan is a loan where the creditor in the event of default has recourse only to the plant and machinery to recover his debt and not to any other assets of the debtor). The net investment in the lease as recorded in the accounts of the lessor was reduced by the amount of this loan. As this reduced the balance of the net investment in the lease in the accounts, it resulted in an inappropriate disposal value for the lessor on granting the long funding lease. A similar method was used with the funding being obtained through the issue of share capital that fell to be treated as a liability of the lessor company. To address both of these cases legislation was introduced at sections 61(8) and 61(9) CAA 2001, effective for long funding leases granted on or after 12 March 2008. Section 61(8) CAA 2001 ensured that the net investment in the lease was adjusted to the amount it would have been if the lessor had no liabilities of any kind (but only if to do so has the effect of increasing the disposal value given by item 5A of the table at section 61(2) CAA 2001). Section 61(9) CAA 2001 then expanded the subsection to include as a liability any issued share capital which fell to be treated as a liability for accounting purposes. Sections 61(6)-(9) CAA 2001 were repealed for leases whose inception was on or after 13 November 2008. At the same time item 5A in the table within section 61(2) CAA 2001 was rewritten so that disposal value was the greater of the ‘qualifying lease payments’ and the market value of the plant and machinery, and so had no reg...
December 2007. As the above mismatch could arise in a number of ways, the legislation to combat it addressed the issue in the following ways: Non long funding head lease, with a long funding sub lease, entered into on or after 13 December 2007
