Notifications and filings The Principal Paying Agent shall (on behalf of the Issuers) make all necessary notifications and filings as may be required from time to time in relation to the issue, purchase and redemption of Notes by all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines and, in particular but without limitation, those promulgated by, Japanese governmental or regulatory authorities, in the case of Notes denominated in Japanese Yen and the Bank of England, in the case of Notes denominated in sterling. Save as aforesaid, the relevant Issuer shall be solely responsible for ensuring that each Note to be issued or other transactions to be effected hereunder shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of any governmental or other regulatory authority and that all necessary consents and approvals of, notifications to and registrations and filings with, any such authority in connection therewith are effected, obtained and maintained in full force and effect.
Reservations and Exceptions 1. Articles 3, 4, 6 and 12 shall not apply to:
EXCLUSIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 12.1 DBS shall not be responsible or liable to the Cardmember or any Cardholder for any loss or damage incurred or suffered as a consequence of:
GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND SECTOR SPECIFIC ALLOWANCES, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS The following allowances and conditions shall apply where relevant: Where the company does work which falls under the following headings, the company agrees to pay and observe the relevant respective conditions and/or exceptions set out below in each case.
Limitations and Exceptions In calculating a Recovery, the following shall not be included:
Removal After Your Tax Filing Deadline If you are correcting an excess contribution after your tax filing deadline, including extensions, remove only the amount of the excess contribution. The six percent excess contribution penalty tax will be imposed on the excess contribution for each year it remains in the IRA. An excess withdrawal under this method will only be taxable to you if the total contributions made in the year of the excess exceed the annual applicable contribution limit.
Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
Additional Matters (a) Any claim on account of a Liability which does not result from a Third Party Claim shall be asserted by written notice given by the Indemnitee to the related Indemnifying Party. Such Indemnifying Party shall have a period of 30 days after the receipt of such notice within which to respond thereto. If such Indemnifying Party does not respond within such 30-day period, such Indemnifying Party shall be deemed to have refused to accept responsibility to make payment. If such Indemnifying Party does not respond within such 30-day period or rejects such claim in whole or in part, such Indemnitee shall be free to pursue such remedies as may be available to such party as contemplated by this Agreement and the Ancillary Agreements.
Certification of claims by Statutory Auditors Any claim or document provided by the Concessionaire to the Authority in connection with or relating to receipts, income, payments, costs, expenses, accounts or audit, and any matter incidental thereto shall be valid and effective only if certified by its Statutory Auditors. For the avoidance of doubt, such certification shall not be required for exchange of information in the normal course of business including the submission of Monthly Fee Statements under Clause 19.5.
COPIES OF REGULATORY REPORTS AND FILINGS Upon reasonable request, Competitive Supplier shall provide to the Town a copy of each public periodic or incident-related report or record relating to this ESA which it files with any Massachusetts or federal agency regulating rates, service, compliance with environmental laws, or compliance with affirmative action and equal opportunity requirements, unless the Competitive Supplier is required by law or regulation to keep such reports confidential. The Town shall treat any reports and/or filings received from Competitive Supplier as confidential information subject to the terms of Article 16. Competitive Supplier shall be reimbursed its reasonable costs of providing such copies.
