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.
Independent Decision The Investor is not relying on the Issuer or on any legal or other opinion in the materials reviewed by the Investor with respect to the financial or tax considerations of the Investor relating to its investment in the Shares. The Investor has relied solely on the representations and warranties, covenants and agreements of the Issuer in this Agreement (including the exhibits and schedules hereto) and on its examination and independent investigation in making its decision to acquire the Shares.
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.
Arbitration Decisions Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the arbitrator(s) shall render a decision within ninety (90) Calendar Days of appointment and shall notify the Parties in writing of such decision and the reasons therefor. The arbitrator(s) shall be authorized only to interpret and apply the provisions of this LGIA and shall have no power to modify or change any provision of this Agreement in any manner. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Parties, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrator(s) may be appealed solely on the grounds that the conduct of the arbitrator(s), or the decision itself, violated the standards set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act or the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The final decision of the arbitrator(s) must also be filed with FERC if it affects jurisdictional rates, terms and conditions of service, Interconnection Facilities, or Network Upgrades.
Arbitration Decision The arbitrator’s decision will be final and binding. The arbitrator shall issue a written arbitration decision revealing the essential findings and conclusions upon which the decision and/or award is based. A party’s right to appeal the decision is limited to grounds provided under applicable federal or state law.
Review of Decision Within sixty (60) days after the Secretary’s receipt of a request for review, he or she will review the Company’s determination. After considering all materials presented by the Claimant, the Secretary will render a written opinion, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the Claimant, setting forth the specific reasons for the decision and containing specific references to the pertinent provisions of this Agreement on which the decision is based. If special circumstances require that the sixty (60) day time period be extended, the Secretary will so notify the Claimant and will render the decision as soon as possible, but no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after receipt of the request for review.
Introduction and Statement of Policy The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has established NIH-designated data repositories (e.g., database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), Sequence Read Archive (SRA), NIH Established Trusted Partnerships) for securely storing and sharing controlled-access human data submitted to NIH under the NIH Genomic Data Sharing (GDS)
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.
Claim Decision Upon receipt of such claim, the Plan Administrator shall respond to such claimant within ninety (90) days after receiving the claim. If the Plan Administrator determines that special circumstances require additional time for processing the claim, the Plan Administrator can extend the response period by an additional ninety (90) days for reasonable cause by notifying the claimant in writing, prior to the end of the initial ninety (90) day period, that an additional period is required. The notice of extension must set forth the special circumstances and the date by which the Plan Administrator expects to render its decision. If the claim is denied in whole or in part, the Plan Administrator shall notify the claimant in writing of such denial. The Plan Administrator shall write the notification in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant. The notification shall set forth:
(i) The specific reasons for the denial;
(ii) The specific reference to pertinent provisions of the Agreement on which the denial is based;
(iii) A description of any additional information or material necessary for the claimant to perfect the claim and an explanation of why such material or information is necessary;
(iv) Appropriate information as to the steps to be taken if the claimant wishes to submit the claim for review and the time limits applicable to such procedures; and
(v) A statement of the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under ERISA Section 502(a) following an adverse benefit determination on review.
Automated decisions For purposes hereof “automated decision” shall mean a decision by the data exporter or the data importer which produces legal effects concerning a data subject or significantly affects a data subject and which is based solely on automated processing of personal data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to him, such as his performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc. The data importer shall not make any automated decisions concerning data subjects, except when:
a) i. such decisions are made by the data importer in entering into or performing a contract with the data subject, and
