Further, Xx. Xxxxx X. Ricketts and Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, separately, agreed to each cancel a total of 500,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock of the Company, totaling 1,000,000 shares in the aggregate, returning such shares to the Company’s treasury, and thus rendering the share exchange contemplated in the original Definitive Agreement null and void. Separately, the Parties agreed to execution of the Xxxxxxxxx Settlement Agreement.
Further, Xx. Xxxxxxxx may sign and return this Release at any time prior to September 30, 1999.
Further, Xx. Xxxxxxxxx acknowledges and agrees that a breach of any of the provisions of Section 6 will result in immediate, irreparable and continuing damage to the Company for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and the Company will be entitled to injunctive relief and a decree of specific performance, in addition to other relief as may be proper, including monetary damages and relief provided for in Section 3 above.
Further, Xx. Xxxxx hereby fully, finally and unconditionally releases, forever discharges and, except as allowed by law, covenants not to file a lawsuit against the Released Parties from and for any and all lawsuits, claims for monetary or equitable relief, liabilities personal injuries, demands, debts, liens, damages, costs, grievances, and injuries all of any nature whatsoever, known or unknown, whether related or unrelated to Xx. Xxxxx’ employment, accruing prior to the execution by Xx. Xxxxx of this Agreement. The aforementioned also means Xx. Xxxxx waives any right to any form of recovery, compensation or other remedy in any action or charge brought by Xx. Xxxxx or on his behalf.
Further, Xx. Xxxxxxx shall not, without Xxxx'x prior written consent in each instance and in Xxxx'x sole and absolute discretion, publish, directly or indirectly, or cause or induce the publication of, any Surveillance Coverage (which shall include any public use including, but not limited to, on Social Media).
Further, Xx. Xxx Xxxxx Xxx (“LKH”), a son of TSLKT, is the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of the Company. LKH is also the Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director of GENT and a Director of KHR, KHIL and Parkview. Both TSLKT and LKH are substantial shareholders of GENT, with each of them having a deemed interest of 42.85% in the shares of GENT by virtue of them being beneficiaries of a discretionary trust of which Parkview is the trustee. Parkview as trustee of the discretionary trust owns 100% of the voting shares of KHIL which in turn owns 100% of the voting shares in KHR. As such, Parkview as trustee of the discretionary trust is deemed interested in the ordinary shares of GENT held by KHR (42.61%) and Inverway Sdn Bhd (“Inverway”) (0.24%), a wholly-owned subsidiary of KHR by virtue of its controlling interest in KHR and Inverway. TSLKT and LKH are substantial shareholders of GENP and shareholders of Parkview. Tan Kong Han (“TKH”), the Chief Executive and Executive Director of the Company is also the President and Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director of GENT. Premised on the above, GENT, TSLKT, LKH and TKH are deemed interested in the Proposed Transactions. Accordingly, TSLKT, LKH and TKH had therefore abstained and will continue to abstain from deliberating and voting on the relevant resolutions pertaining to the Proposed Transactions at GENP’s Board meetings. Save as disclosed above, none of the directors and major shareholders of GENP and/or persons connected to them has any interest, direct or indirect, in the Proposed Transactions.
Further, Xx. Xxxxx and Ms. Xxxxx stated that Xxxxxx was let out of his kennel three times a day, but be mostly opted to urinate and defecate in his outside kennel, which was cleaned daily. Although Xxxxxx had a memory foam bed inside his kennel, Xx. Xxxxx and Xx. Xxxxx reported that he preferred lying in bis outside run.
Further, Xx. Xxxxx did not provide a single instance, even when pressed, where she thought Disability Management would seek an IME without an employee’s physician being involved. (Closing Argument, at para. 439) 2018 CanLII 116964 (BC LA) I find as well that the Employer does not tell employees with suspected substance use disorders that they have a choice as to which specialist carries out the IME. The Employer responds in part by submitting the Union’s arguments fail to differentiate between the Policy and the associated practices of IHA, as distinct from the practices of Great West Life. The latter assumes responsibility for permanent employees with benefits who may have a substance use disorder, which are most of the employees who become subject to the Policy. The Employer submits it has “no say” over how GWL undertakes the assessment, treatment or monitoring of persons with substance use disorders. Nonetheless, the Employer maintains its practice is consistent with that of GWL both in terms of arranging an IME with an addictions specialist and the ensuing steps. The Employer submits I do not have jurisdiction to address any allegations concerning the practices of GWL, citing HEABC and HEU (2009), 99 CLAS 146 (Xxxxx). Without deciding the point, I note there is authority which holds an employer cannot use that company as a shield to effectively contract out of the proper administration of its collective agreement: see Canada Post Corp. -and- CUPW, [2016] CLAD No. 247 (Xxxxxx), at para. 33. Regardless, I do not accept that the practices of GWL necessarily justify the Employer’s practices under the Policy. The Union’s possible inability to challenge GWL because the insurer is not a party to the Collective Agreement cannot be taken as an acceptance of the latter’s practices. Nor is the Union is precluded from challenging actions taken by the Employer before one of its members “enters” the GWL process, or from asserting there are steps the Employer should take while its members are being assessed under that process. Finally, and obviously, the Union is not precluded from raising issues over how its members are treated by the Employer once they “exit” the GWL process and return to the workplace. A more specific answer to how the “least intrusive” means of obtaining medical information should apply in the present circumstances turns to a large degree on another 2018 CanLII 116964 (BC LA) issue raised by the grievance: whether the Employer should seek information from an ...
Further, Xx. Xxxxx purchased the car from agent of Xx. Xxxxxx, he got good title. Hence, Xx. Xxxxxx cannot recover his car from Xx. Xxxxx. Free Consent Consent Free Consent Consent not free if induced by a) Coercion
Further, Xx. Xxxxxx agrees to appoint Buyer and his designees as officers and directors of the Company. In addition, Sellers agree to cause the Class B Preferred Stock of the Company to be convertible if Buyer so desires.
