General Motors Corporation Sample Clauses

General Motors Corporation. In the California state court cases, oral arguments on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ motion in limine will be heard on April 21, 2009. The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada. The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the United States, and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of higher than competitive prices by U.S. consumers. The complaints, as amended, sought injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust law and treble damages under U.S. and state antitrust laws, but did not specify damages. The complaints further alleged unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices act. On March 5, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued a decision holding that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to state a claim for damages under federal antitrust law but allowed a separate claim seeking to enjoin future alleged violations to continue. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on March 10, 2006 certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule 23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief, and on March 21, 2007 stated that it would certify 20 separate statewide class actions for damages under various state law theories under Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period from January 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003. On October 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral arguments on our consolidated appeal of the both class certification orders. On March 28, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the certification of the injunctive class and ordered dismissal of the injunctive claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also vacated the certification of the damages class and remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for determination of several issues concerning federal jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction still exists, for reconsideration of that class certification on a more complete record. On remand, plaintiffs have again moved to certify a damages class, with argument on that motion projected for March, 2009. On July 6, 2009, the United States District Court for the dis...
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (6)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
General Motors Corporation. 2,900 $ 98,861.00 Chemicals (10.02%) ................................... E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ................ 2,480 99,224.80 Diversified Manufacturing Operations (9.98%) .........
Sample 1
General Motors Corporation. (for itself and its affiliates and subsidiaries) (for itself and its affiliates and subsidiaries) By: By: Print Name: Print Name: Title: Title: Dated: Dated: Exhibit X-0, X-0 — Price Increases Exhibit A-3 — Long Term Contract Provision Exhibit B — Parts Subject to Metals Market Escalation/De-Escalation Policy Exhibit C—Metals Market Escalation/De-Escalation Policy Exhibit D — Part to be Resourced Exhibit E — General Terms and Conditions of Purchase Exhibit F — Purchase Order Extensions Exhibit G — Term Sheet Exhibit H — Component Part Production Relocation Plan of Company Exhibit I —Customer Tooling Exhibit J-1, J-2 — Long Term Adjustments (LTAs) DETROIT.2674975.12 CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY BRACKETED ASTERISKS, HAS BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 406 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, AND RULE 24B-2 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED. THE OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. GM P/N Customer Location Program Current Total Contract Price As of May 8, 2007 (Metals Valued on June 1, 2007) (Local Currency) Current Base Price As of May 8, 2007 (Local Currency) Local Currency Less Metals Content Value at Original Contract Date (Local Currency) Price Increase Adjustment Effective Jan. 1, 2008 (Local Currency) Metals Audit Weights Price Adjustment Effective Jan. 1, 2008 (Local Currency) New Base Price Effective Jan. 1, 2008 (Local Currency) 12587429 GM North America Premium V8 [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 6.037245 0.543086 [*] 12609480 GM North America Inline 4, 5, and 6 [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 0.178144 0.425877 [*] 12611114 GM North America Xxx 0 Xxxxx Xxxxx 6.0L/6.2L/ 7.0L - Corvette [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 0.000000 0.425877 [*] 12610635 GM North America High Value V6 [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 7.395954 0.156849 28.303676 [*] 12610637 GM North America High Value V6 [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 2.936801 0.156849 [*] 12610636 GM North America High Value V6 [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 7.145954 0.156849 [*] 12610637 CAMI GMT191/192 [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 0.000000 0.156849 [*] 12594440 GM Xxxxx Xxxxxxx X0-0000 [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 2.985097 0.156849 [*] 12609317 GM North America L850 [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 4.755292 0.156849 [*] 12610302 GM North America Gen 1E (4.3L) [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 1.387698 0.156849 [*] 12611101 GM North America Gen 1E (4.3L) [*] [*] US$ 0.000000 1.258728 0.156849 [*] 12617808 GM North America Gen 1E (4.3L) [*] [*]...
Sample 1
General Motors Corporation. The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada. The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the United States, and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of higher than competitive prices by U.S. consumers. The complaints, as amended, sought injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust law and treble damages under U.S. and state antitrust laws, but did not specify damages. The complaints further alleged unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices act. On March 5, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued a decision holding that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to state a claim for damages but allowed a separate claim seeking to enjoin future alleged violations to continue. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on March 10, 2006 certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule 23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief, and on March 21, 2007 stated that it would certify 20 separate statewide class actions for damages under various state law theories under Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period from January 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003. On October 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral arguments on our consolidated appeal of the both class certification orders. On September 25, 2007, a claim was filed in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of a purported class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada claming that a similar alleged conspiracy was now preventing lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians. No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a class action, and it is not possible to determine the likelihood of liability or reasonably ascertain the amount of any damages.
Sample 1

Related to General Motors Corporation

  • NCL CORPORATION LTD an exempted company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda with its registered office at Park Xxxxx, 00 Xxx-xx-Xxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxxx XX 00, Bermuda (the "Guarantor")

  • S Corporation The Company has not made an election to be taxed as an "S" corporation under Section 1362(a) of the Code.

  • Asset Management Supplier will: i) maintain an asset inventory of all media and equipment where Accenture Data is stored. Access to such media and equipment will be restricted to authorized Personnel; ii) classify Accenture Data so that it is properly identified and access to it is appropriately restricted; iii) maintain an acceptable use policy with restrictions on printing Accenture Data and procedures for appropriately disposing of printed materials that contain Accenture Data when such data is no longer needed under the Agreement; iv) maintain an appropriate approval process whereby Supplier’s approval is required prior to its Personnel storing Accenture Data on portable devices, remotely accessing Accenture Data, or processing such data outside of Supplier facilities. If remote access is approved, Personnel will use multi-factor authentication, which may include the use of smart cards with certificates, One Time Password (OTP) tokens, and biometrics.

  • Financial Services Article 116

  • Corporation, etc The Buyer is a corporation (other than a bank, savings and loan association or similar institution), Massachusetts or similar business trust, partnership, or charitable organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

  • Real Property Holding Corporation The Company is not and has never been a U.S. real property holding corporation within the meaning of Section 897 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Company shall so certify upon Purchaser’s request.

  • General Management In the discharge of its general duty to manage the successful performance of the Services, Vendor shall: 3.2.1.1. within thirty (30) calendar days of the Effective Date, identify to Citizens the primary and secondary management contacts responsible for the oversight and management of Services for Citizens; 3.2.1.2. ensure Vendor Staff tasked with management and oversight of the Services are available promptly to perform Services during Business Hours; 3.2.1.3. ensure each assigned Adjuster submits a time record directly to Vendor’s manager or point of contact. At any time during this Agreement, Citizens may require copies of time records from Vendor; 3.2.1.4. ensure that no Vendor Staff carries a weapon on their person while performing Services; 3.2.1.5. ensure that no Vendor Staff uses impairing drugs, chemicals, or alcohol while performing Services; 3.2.1.6. ensure that Vendor Staff avoid using their duties and obligations under this Agreement to engage in any conduct that could create either an actual or perceived conflict of interest, such as due to an ongoing business relationship with an entity other than Citizens that would enable Vendor Staff to receive an improper benefit or unfair competitive advantage; 3.2.1.7. ensure that the Services comply with the Best Claims Practices & Estimating Guidelines as applicable to each Service Category and any other policies or processes set forth by Citizens, including but not limited to: a. monitoring applicable file production on a weekly basis to determine compliance with Citizens’ production requirements; and, b. providing detailed reports to Citizens related to Vendor performance upon request.

  • The Limited Liability Company The Members have created a limited liability company: The operations of the Company shall be governed by the laws located in the State of Governing Law and in accordance with this Agreement as follows:

  • Limited Liability Company Agreement The Member hereby states that except as otherwise provided by the Act or the Certificate of Formation, the Company shall be operated subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

  • Investment Management If and to the extent requested by the Advisor, the Sub-Advisor shall, subject to the supervision of the Advisor, manage all or a portion of the investments of the Portfolio in accordance with the investment objective, policies and limitations provided in the Portfolio's Prospectus or other governing instruments, as amended from time to time, the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "1940 Act") and rules thereunder, as amended from time to time, and such other limitations as the Trust or Advisor may impose with respect to the Portfolio by notice to the Sub-Advisor. With respect to the portion of the investments of the Portfolio under its management, the Sub-Advisor is authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the Portfolio with regard to any stock, bond, other security or investment instrument, and to place orders for the purchase and sale of such securities through such broker-dealers as the Sub-Advisor may select. The Sub-Advisor may also be authorized, but only to the extent such duties are delegated in writing by the Advisor, to provide additional investment management services to the Portfolio, including but not limited to services such as managing foreign currency investments, purchasing and selling or writing futures and options contracts, borrowing money or lending securities on behalf of the Portfolio. All investment management and any other activities of the Sub-Advisor shall at all times be subject to the control and direction of the Advisor and the Trust's Board of Trustees.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!