Decision Making The Joint Development Committee and Joint Commercialization Committee shall each act by unanimous agreement of its members, with each Party having one vote. If the Joint Development Committee or Joint Commercialization Committee, after [* * *] (or such other period as the Parties may otherwise agree) of good faith efforts to reach a unanimous decision on an issue, fails to reach such a unanimous decision, then either Party may refer such issue to the Executive Officers. Such Executive Officers shall meet promptly thereafter and shall negotiate in good faith to resolve the issues. If Executive Officers cannot resolve such issue within [* * *] of referral of such issue to the Executive Officers, the resolution of such issue shall be as follows:
(a) if such issue properly originated at the Joint Development Committee, determined by the Developing Party of the relevant Licensed Compound or Licensed Product at issue; provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing:
(i) if Acceleron is the Developing Party and such issue relates to (x) the approval of an Additional Development Disease, or (y) matters under Section 5.6.3(d), then such issue shall be determined by [* * *];
(ii) regardless of which Party is the Developing Party, such issue shall be determined by [* * *] following the earliest of: (x) [* * *], and (y) the Joint Development Committee’s decision to go forward with a Phase 3 Clinical Trial of the relevant Licensed Compound or Licensed Product; provided that [* * *] shall continue to determine any issues that relate to the budget for and the conduct of the [* * *]; and
(iii) regardless of which Party is the Developing Party, such issue shall be determined by [* * *] following the earliest of: (x) [* * *], and (y) the occurrence of any [* * *]; and
(b) if such issue properly originated at the Joint Commercialization Committee, determined by Celgene. Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of Acceleron, Celgene, the Joint Development Committee or the Joint Commercialization Committee may make any decision inconsistent with the express terms of this Agreement without the prior written consent of each Party.
Decision-Making Authority BMS shall have the sole decision-making authority for the operations and Commercialization strategies and decisions, including funding and resourcing, related to the Commercialization of Products; provided that such decisions are not inconsistent with the express terms and conditions of this Agreement, including BMS’ diligence obligations set forth in Section 5.1.
Selection and Payment of Appeal Panel In the event an Appellant delivers an Appeal Notice to the Appellee (together with proof of payment of the applicable bond) in compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 5.1 above, the Appeal will be heard by a three (3) person arbitration panel (the “Appeal Panel”).
(a) Within ten (10) calendar days after the Appeal Date, the Appellee shall select and submit to the Appellant the names of five (5) arbitrators that are designated as “neutrals” or qualified arbitrators by Utah ADR Services (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx) (such five (5) designated persons hereunder are referred to herein as the “Proposed Appeal Arbitrators”). For the avoidance of doubt, each Proposed Appeal Arbitrator must be qualified as a “neutral” with Utah ADR Services, and shall not be the arbitrator who rendered the Arbitration Award being appealed (the “Original Arbitrator”). Within five (5) calendar days after the Appellee has submitted to the Appellant the names of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators, the Appellant must select, by written notice to the Appellee, three (3) of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators to act as the members of the Appeal Panel. If the Appellant fails to select three (3) of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators in writing within such 5-day period, then the Appellee may select such three (3) arbitrators from the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators by providing written notice of such selection to the Appellant.
(b) If the Appellee fails to submit to the Appellant the names of the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators within ten (10) calendar days after the Appeal Date pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, then the Appellant may at any time prior to the Appellee so designating the Proposed Appeal Arbitrators, identify the names of five (5) arbitrators that are designated as “neutrals” or qualified arbitrators by Utah ADR Service (none of whom may be the Original Arbitrator) by written notice to the Appellee. The Appellee may then, within five (5) calendar days after the Appellant has submitted notice of its selected arbitrators to the Appellee, select, by written notice to the Appellant, three (3) of such selected arbitrators to serve on the Appeal Panel. If the Appellee fails to select in writing within such 5-day period three (3) of the arbitrators selected by the Appellant to serve as the members of the Appeal Panel, then the Appellant may select the three (3) members of the Appeal Panel from the Appellant’s list of five (5) arbitrators by providing written notice of such selection to the Appellee.
(c) If a selected Proposed Appeal Arbitrator declines or is otherwise unable to serve, then the party that selected such Proposed Appeal Arbitrator may select one (1) of the other five (5) designated Proposed Appeal Arbitrators within three (3) calendar days of the date a chosen Proposed Appeal Arbitrator declines or notifies the parties he or she is unable to serve as an arbitrator. If at least three (3) of the five (5) designated Proposed Appeal Arbitrators decline or are otherwise unable to serve, then the Proposed Appeal Arbitrator selection process shall begin again in accordance with this Paragraph 5.2; provided, however, that any Proposed Appeal Arbitrators who have already agreed to serve shall remain on the Appeal Panel.
(d) The date that all three (3) Proposed Appeal Arbitrators selected pursuant to this Paragraph 5.2 agree in writing (including via email) delivered to both the Appellant and the Appellee to serve as members of the Appeal Panel hereunder is referred to herein as the “Appeal Commencement Date”. No later than five (5) calendar days after the Appeal Commencement Date, the Appellee shall designate in writing (including via email) to the Appellant and the Appeal Panel the name of one (1) of the three (3) members of the Appeal Panel to serve as the lead arbitrator in the Appeal proceedings. Each member of the Appeal Panel shall be deemed an arbitrator for purposes of these Arbitration Provisions and the Arbitration Act, provided that, in conducting the Appeal, the Appeal Panel may only act or make determinations upon the approval or vote of no less than the majority vote of its members, as announced or communicated by the lead arbitrator on the Appeal Panel. If an arbitrator on the Appeal Panel ceases or is unable to act during the Appeal proceedings, a replacement arbitrator shall be chosen in accordance with Paragraph 5.2 above to continue the Appeal as a member of the Appeal Panel. If Utah ADR Services ceases to exist or to provide a list of neutrals, then the arbitrators for the Appeal Panel shall be selected under the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association.
Initial Decision Maker The Architect will serve as the Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Article 15 of AIA Document A201–2017, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as the Initial Decision Maker.
Considerations on Review In considering the review, the Plan Administrator shall take into account all materials and information the claimant submits relating to the claim, without regard to whether such information was submitted or considered in the initial benefit determination.
Decision on Review No later than sixty (60) days (forty-five (45) days with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled) following the receipt of the written application for review, the Claims Administrator or the Appeals Fiduciary, as applicable, shall submit its decision on the review in writing to the claimant involved and to his representative, if any, unless the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary determines that special circumstances (such as the need to hold a hearing) require an extension of time, to a day no later than one hundred twenty (120) days (ninety (90) days with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled) after the date of receipt of the written application for review. If the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary determines that the extension of time is required, the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary shall furnish to the claimant written notice of the extension before the expiration of the initial sixty (60) day (forty-five (45) days with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled) period. The extension notice shall indicate the special circumstances requiring an extension of time and the date by which the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary expects to render its decision on review. In the case of a decision adverse to the claimant, the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary shall provide to the claimant written notice of the denial. Any such notice of an adverse benefit determination shall be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant (and with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled, be provided in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner) and shall include:
(1) the specific reason or reasons for the adverse benefit determination;
(2) specific references to the pertinent provisions of this Agreement on which the adverse benefit determination is based;
(3) a statement that the claimant is entitled to receive, upon request and free of charge, reasonable access to, and copies of, all documents, records, and other information relevant to the claimant’s claim for benefits;
(4) a statement of the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA following the adverse benefit determination on review;
(5) a statement regarding the availability of other voluntary alternative dispute resolution options;
(6) in the case of a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled:
(A) a description of any contractual limitations period that applies to the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA, including the calendar date on which the contractual limitations period expires for the claim;
(B) a discussion of the decision, including an explanation of the basis for disagreeing with or not following: the views presented by the claimant to the Agreement of health care professionals treating the claimant and vocational professionals who evaluated the claimant, the views of medical or vocational professionals whose advice was obtained on behalf of the Agreement in connection with a claimant’s adverse benefit determination, without regard to whether the advice was relied upon in making the determination, and a disability determination regarding the claimant presented by the claimant to the Agreement made by the Social Security Administration;
(C) if the adverse benefit determination is based on a medical necessity or experimental treatment or similar exclusion or limit, either an explanation of the scientific or clinical judgment for the determination, applying the terms of the Agreement to the claimant’s medical circumstances, or a statement that such explanation will be provided free of charge upon request; and
(D) the specific internal rules, guidelines, protocols, standards or other similar criteria of the Agreement relied upon in making the adverse determination, or a statement that such rules, guidelines, protocols, standards or other similar criteria do not exist. The Claims Administrator has the discretionary authority to determine all interpretative issues arising under this Agreement and the interpretations of the Claims Administrator shall be final and binding upon Executive or any other party claiming benefits under this Agreement.
Standard of Review The Parties acknowledge and agree that the standard of review for any avoidance, breach, rejection, termination or other cessation of performance of or changes to any portion of this integrated, non-severable Agreement (as described in Section 22) over which FERC has jurisdiction, whether proposed by Seller, by Buyer, by a non-party of, by FERC acting sua sponte shall be the “public interest” standard of review set forth in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v.
Program Monitoring and Evaluation The Recipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and furnish to the Association not later than six months after the Closing Date, a report of such scope and in such detail as the Association shall reasonably request, on the execution of the Program, the performance by the Recipient and the Association of their respective obligations under the Legal Agreements and the accomplishment of the purposes of the Financing.”
Cost Responsibility for Interconnection Facilities and Distribution Upgrades 4.1 Interconnection Facilities 4.2 Distribution Upgrades
SITE-BASED DECISION MAKING A. The District shall provide the training and staff development to support accountability/site- based decision-making activities. Teachers shall be given release time to attend these programs.
B. Participation on the SAC shall not serve as a basis for the evaluation of any teacher.
C. A minimum of three (3) to a maximum of five (5) teachers from each school shall serve on their school’s budget advisory committee formed for the purpose of making recommendations on the school’s general fund budget. Teacher members shall be elected by the faculty. Minutes from such meetings may be requested by the faculty and may be posted on the CTA bulletin board at the school by the Association Representative.
