Institutional background Sample Clauses

Institutional background. Each Party shall establish or maintain an appropriate institutional framework and mechanisms necessary for the proper functioning of the public procurement system and the implementation of the principles in this Chapter.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (14)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Institutional background. 1. Each Party shall establish or maintain an appropriate institutional framework and mechanisms necessary for the proper functioning of the public procurement system and the implementation of the provisions of this Chapter. 2. In the framework of institutional reform, the Republic of Moldova shall designate in particular: (a) an executive body responsible for economic policy at central government level tasked with guaranteeing a coherent policy in all areas related to public procurement. Such a body shall facilitate and coordinate the implementation of this Chapter and guide the process of gradual approximation to the Union acquis; and (b) an impartial and independent body tasked with the review of decisions taken by contracting authorities or entities during the award of contracts. In that context, ‘independent’ means that that body shall be a public authority which is separate from all contracting entities and economic operators. There shall be a possibility to subject the decisions taken by that body to judicial review. 3. Each Party shall ensure that decisions taken by the authorities responsible for the review of complaints by economic operators concerning infringements of domestic law shall be effectively enforced. 1. No later than nine months from the entry into force of this Agreement, the Parties shall comply with a set of basic standards for the award of all contracts as stipulated in paragraphs 2 to 15. Those basic standards derive directly from the rules and principles of public procurement, as regulated in the Union acquis on public procurement, including the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment, transparency and proportionality.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
Institutional background. 1. Each Party shall establish or maintain an appropriate institutional framework and mechanisms necessary for the proper functioning of the public procurement system and the implementation of the principles in this Chapter. 2. The Trade and Sustainable Development Sub Committee shall appoint in particular: a) an executive body at central government level tasked with guaranteeing a coherent policy and its implementation in all areas related to public procurement. That body shall facilitate and coordinate the implementation of this Chapter and guide the process of gradual approximation; b) an impartial and independent body tasked with the review of decisions taken by contracting authorities or entities during the award of contracts. In this context, ‘independent’ means that that body shall be a public authority which is separate from all contracting entities and economic operators. There shall be a possibility to subject the decisions taken by this body to judicial review. 3. Each Party shall ensure that decisions taken by the authorities responsible for the review of complaints by economic operators concerning infringements of domestic law shall be effectively enforced.
Sample 1
Institutional background. Purdue University is a public university located in northwest Indiana with about 45,000 students of which 33,500 are undergraduates. Slightly more than 50 percent of the under- graduate students are Indiana residents and about 14 percent are international students. In-state student annual tuition is $10,000 and the total cost of attendance is $23,000. Out- of-state domestic student tuition is $29,000 and the total cost of attendance is $42,000. International student tuition is $31,000 and the total cost of attendance is $46,000. The average SAT score for undergraduate students is 1260 (28 ACT) but varies con- siderably by major. Potential students apply to and are accepted by colleges within the university and the admissions cutoff differs significantly by college. More than 40 percent of undergraduate students begin in engineering or science, but many switch to a major in an- other college after the first year. While not impossible, administrative hurdles make it very difficult for students to switch into engineering or science majors if they were not initially accepted into those colleges as a first-year student. Similar, but less insurmountable, hurdles exist for many other majors including those in the business school. Purdue’s ISA program is called “Back a Boiler.” The first year of the ISA program was the 2016-2017 academic year and the university offered the program to students in the final few months of the prior school year and over the summer. Interested students submit an application which includes permission to run a credit check. If the student has a bankruptcy or is currently in debt collection, they are disqualified. This is the only information the university requests as part of the credit check. To be eligible for the ISA, students must have remaining financial need after exhausting merit-based scholarships, grants, and opportunities for direct subsidized federal loans, direct unsubsidized federal loans, and Xxxxxxx loans. Purdue presents its ISA program as an alternative to a direct PLUS loan or a private student loan.4 Direct PLUS loans have higher interest rates than the other federal student loan options and while the money goes to the student’s education, it is the parent who is the borrower and responsible for payments. Private student loans have the highest interest rates of all student loan options. While ISAs are similar to income-based student loan repayment, the fundamental differ- ence is that ISAs have no loan balance that the...
Sample 1
Institutional background. Describes the applicant institution in terms of its location, demographics, mission, relationship to the service area and past successes in the project area.
Sample 1
Institutional background. This part will describe and have an overview of the actual situation of gender diversity among European board of directors. It exposes the measures that the European Union and several of their member states have recently taken namely with regards to the introduction of gender quotas to strive for gender equality on boards of directors of large listed companies. Moreover, the positive and negative effects of the implementation of this law will be considered taken into account different views. 1. The actual situation of gender diversity on board 1.1. The actual situation in Europe and worldwide In 2018, as shown in Figure 1, Belgium board representation of women is higher than in most other countries (Eurostat, 2019). The fact that women’s representation is higher in some European countries than elsewhere is related to regulations on the gender composition of boards of directors of the large listed companies, that some European countries have recently implemented (Xxxxx, 2014). Figure 1 indicates that the highest share of female board members in the largest publicly listed companies is recorded in France having a 44% representation. They are followed by Italy and Sweden, Finland and Germany having approximately a 35% share. At the opposite side of the scale, women account for less than a fifth of board members. At European level, women board representation is just over a quarter, which is equivalent to 27%. Over the last five years, this share has increased by 9% while it amounted to only 18% in 2013 (Eurostat, 2019). Figure 1 : Proportion of female board members in the largest publicly listed companies in 2018 Source: Eurostat (2019) A study by SpencerStuart (2019) analysed the same situation (Appendix 1). This study reveals that progress varies between countries. Some such as Norway have an average of over 45% female board representation while it amounts to 24% in the USA and only counts 7,9% in Russia (SpencerStuart, 2019). A number of factors including regulations and culture drive these differences. It is being noticed that Belgium is doing rather well compared to the European average. However, it will take time to achieve boardroom gender equality. Therefore, policy regulations have been put in place to keep up the pace of change.
Sample 1
Institutional background. ‌ The federal judicial system is comprised of three court tiers. The first is the district or trial court. Federal defendants who contest their guilt are tried in one of 94 US district courts. Next, appeals are handled by one of 11 circuit or appellate courts. Lastly, the Supreme Court of the United States sits atop the system as the highest court in the land. Federal judges are appointed by the President for life, and cases are randomly allocated to judges within each district. As part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (Pub.L. 98–473, S. 1762, 98 Stat. 1976, October 12, 1984), Congress founded the United States Sen- tencing Commission (USSC). Prior to the Act, judges were free to sentence within a wide range allowed by law. The USSC was created in response to the perceived sentencing inequity that similarly culpable offenders would face when going before different judges; its principle job is to develop guidelines for sentencing convicted fed- eral offenders. Those guidelines take the form of a grid or table. One axis contains the severity of the offense, while the other contains the criminal history of the offender (see Figure A1). Upon a conviction, a judge calculates the offender’s position in the table and chooses a sentence within the given range. The ranges are fairly narrow, with the lower bound typically being about 75% of the upper bound. The guidelines became binding in 1987, at which point federal parole was abol- ished. Judges were able to depart from the guidelines, but any departure could be reversed on appeal. Over time, Congress grew concerned about the frequency of downward departures and took steps to reduce them in part of an omnibus crime xxxx, the PROTECT Act (Pub.L. 108–21, 000 Xxxx. 000, X. 151, April 30, 2003).2 In the years preceding the Act, departures were reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. The PROTECT Act instated a stricter de novo standard of review. It also strengthened reporting requirements and put extra limits on the grounds for departure. Furthermore, then Attorney General Xxxx Xxxxxxxx urged prosecutors to oppose downward departures (Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2010). Roughly a year and a half later, in a watershed case, the US Supreme Court excised the portion of law making the guidelines mandatory upon judges (United States x. Xxxxxx , 543 U.S. 220 [2005]). As courts grappled with how much weight to afford the guide- lines, now formally advisory, the Court clarified that a sentence within the guide...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Institutional background. 1. Each Party shall establish or maintain an appropriate institutional framework and mechanisms necessary for the proper functioning of the public procurement system and the implementation of the provisions of this Chapter. 2. In the framework of institutional reform, the Republic of Moldova shall designate in particular: (a) an executive body responsible for economic policy at central government level tasked with guaranteeing a coherent policy in all areas related to public procurement. Such a body shall facilitate and coordinate the implementation of this Chapter and guide the process of gradual approximation to the Union acquis; and (b) an impartial and independent body tasked with the review of decisions taken by contracting authorities or entities during the award of contracts. In that context, "independent" means that that body shall be a public authority which is separate from all contracting entities and economic operators. There shall be a possibility to subject the decisions taken by that body to judicial review. 3. Each Party shall ensure that decisions taken by the authorities responsible for the review of complaints by economic operators concerning infringements of domestic law shall be effectively enforced.
Sample 1
Institutional background. 1. Each Party shall establish or maintain an appropriate institutional framework and mechanisms necessary for the proper functioning of the public procurement system and the implementation of the principles in this Chapter. 2. Each Party shall designate in particular: (a) an executive body at central government level tasked with guaranteeing a coherent policy and its implementation in all areas related to public procurement. That body shall facilitate and coordinate the implementation of this Chapter; (b) an impartial and independent body tasked with the review of decisions taken by contracting authorities or entities during the award of contracts. In this context, ‘independent’ means that that body shall be a public authority which is separate from all contracting entities and economic operators. There shall be a possibility to subject the decisions taken by this body to judicial review or, where that body is a judicial body, appeal to a higher judicial body. 3. Each Party shall ensure that decisions taken by the authorities responsible for the review of complaints by economic operators concerning infringements of domestic law shall be effectively enforced. 1. The Parties shall comply with a set of basic standards for the award of all contracts as stipulated in paragraphs 2 to 15 of this Article. These basic standards derive directly from the rules and principles of public procurement including the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment, transparency and proportionality.
Sample 1

Related to Institutional background

  • Institutional Certification Certification by the Submitting Institution that delineates, among other items, the appropriate research uses of the data and the uses that are specifically excluded by the relevant informed consent documents. Further information may be found here.

  • Transfers to Non-QIB Institutional Accredited Investors The following provisions shall apply with respect to the registration of any proposed transfer of a Note to any Institutional Accredited Investor which is not a QIB (excluding Non-U.S. Persons): (i) The Registrar shall register the transfer of any Note, whether or not such Note bears the Private Placement Legend, if (x) the requested transfer is after the time period referred to in Rule 144(k) under the Securities Act or (y) the proposed transferee has delivered to the Registrar (A) a certificate substantially in the form of Exhibit C hereto and (B) if the aggregate principal amount of the Notes being transferred is less than $100,000, an opinion of counsel acceptable to the Company that such transfer is in compliance with the Securities Act. (ii) If the proposed transferor is an Agent Member holding a beneficial interest in the U.S. Global Notes, upon receipt by the Registrar of (x) the documents, if any, required by paragraph (i) above and (y) instructions given in accordance with the Depositary's and the Registrar's procedures, the Registrar shall reflect on its books and records the date and a decrease in the principal amount of the U.S. Global Notes in an amount equal to the principal amount of the beneficial interest in the U.S. Global Notes to be transferred, and the Company shall execute, and the Trustee shall authenticate and deliver, one or more U.S. Physical Notes of like tenor and amount.

  • Institutional Arrangements 1. The AIA Council, as established by the AEM under the AIA Agreement, shall be responsible for the implementation of this Agreement. 2. The ASEAN Coordinating Committee on Investment (CCI) as established by the AIA Council and comprising senior officials responsible for investment and other senior officials from relevant government agencies, shall assist the AIA Council in the performance of its functions. The CCI shall report to the AIA Council through the Senior Economic Officials Meeting (SEOM). The ASEAN Secretariat shall be the secretariat for the AIA Council and the CCI. 3. The functions of the AIA Council shall be to: (a) provide policy guidance on global and regional investment matters concerning promotion, facilitation, protection, and liberalisation; (b) oversee, coordinate and review the implementation of this Agreement; (c) update the AEM on the implementation and operation of this Agreement; (d) consider and recommend to the AEM any amendments to this Agreement; (e) Update and endorse the Reservation Lists of this Agreement; (f) facilitate the avoidance and settlement of disputes arising from this Agreement; (g) supervise and coordinate the work of the CCI; (h) adopt any necessary decisions; and (i) carry out any other functions as the AEM may agree.

  • ACCREDITED INVESTOR QUESTIONNAIRE In order for the Company to offer and sell the Securities in conformance with state and federal securities laws, the following information must be obtained regarding your investor status. Please initial each category applicable to you as a Purchaser of Securities of the Company. (1) A bank as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act, or any savings and loan association or other institution as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act whether acting in its individual or fiduciary capacity; (2) A broker or dealer registered pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; (3) An insurance company as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act; (4) An investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 or a business development company as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of that Act; (5) A Small Business Investment Company licensed by the U.S. Small Business Administration under Section 301(c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958; (6) A plan established and maintained by a state, its political subdivisions, or any agency or instrumentality of a state or its political subdivisions, for the benefit of its employees, if such plan has total assets in excess of $5,000,000; (7) An employee benefit plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, if the investment decision is made by a plan fiduciary, as defined in Section 3(21) of such act, which is either a bank, savings and loan association, insurance company, or registered investment adviser, or if the employee benefit plan has total assets in excess of $5,000,000 or, if a self-directed plan, with investment decisions made solely by persons that are accredited investors; (8) A private business development company as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; (9) An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, a corporation, Massachusetts or similar business trust, or partnership, not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the Securities, with total assets in excess of $5,000,000; (10) A trust, with total assets in excess of $5,000,000, not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the Securities, whose purchase is directed by a sophisticated person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of investing in the Company; (11) A natural person whose individual net worth, or joint net worth with that person’s spouse, at the time of his purchase exceeds $1,000,000; (12) A natural person who had an individual income in excess of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years, or joint income with that person’s spouse in excess of $300,000, in each of those years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year; (13) An executive officer or director of the Company; (14) An entity in which all of the equity owners qualify under any of the above subparagraphs. If the undersigned belongs to this investor category only, list the equity owners of the undersigned, and the investor category which each such equity owner satisfies. A. FOR EXECUTION BY AN INDIVIDUAL: B. FOR EXECUTION BY AN ENTITY:

  • Acknowledgment and Consent to Bail-In of EEA Financial Institutions Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Loan Document or in any other agreement, arrangement or understanding among any such parties, each party hereto acknowledges that any liability of any EEA Financial Institution arising under any Loan Document may be subject to the Write-Down and Conversion Powers of an EEA Resolution Authority and agrees and consents to, and acknowledges and agrees to be bound by: (a) the application of any Write-Down and Conversion Powers by an EEA Resolution Authority to any such liabilities arising hereunder which may be payable to it by any party hereto that is an EEA Financial Institution; and (b) the effects of any Bail-In Action on any such liability, including, if applicable: (i) a reduction in full or in part or cancellation of any such liability; (ii) a conversion of all, or a portion of, such liability into shares or other instruments of ownership in such EEA Financial Institution, its parent entity, or a bridge institution that may be issued to it or otherwise conferred on it, and that such shares or other instruments of ownership will be accepted by it in lieu of any rights with respect to any such liability under this Agreement or any other Loan Document; or (iii) the variation of the terms of such liability in connection with the exercise of the Write-Down and Conversion Powers of any EEA Resolution Authority.

  • Accredited Investor Status The Buyer is an “accredited investor” as that term is defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D (an “Accredited Investor”).

  • Qualified Institutional Buyer Each Initial Purchaser severally and not jointly represents and warrants to, and agrees with, the Company that it is a "qualified institutional buyer" within the meaning of Rule 144A under the 1933 Act (a "Qualified Institutional Buyer") and an "accredited investor" within the meaning of Rule 501(a) under the 1933 Act (an "Accredited Investor").

  • Accredited Investors The Optionee is an accredited investor as defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act.

  • Acknowledgement and Consent to Bail-In of EEA Financial Institutions Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Loan Document or in any other agreement, arrangement or understanding among any such parties, each party hereto acknowledges that any liability of any EEA Financial Institution arising under any Loan Document, to the extent such liability is unsecured, may be subject to the write-down and conversion powers of an EEA Resolution Authority and agrees and consents to, and acknowledges and agrees to be bound by: (a) the application of any Write-Down and Conversion Powers by an EEA Resolution Authority to any such liabilities arising hereunder which may be payable to it by any party hereto that is an EEA Financial Institution; and (b) the effects of any Bail-in Action on any such liability, including, if applicable: (i) a reduction in full or in part or cancellation of any such liability; (ii) a conversion of all, or a portion of, such liability into shares or other instruments of ownership in such EEA Financial Institution, its parent undertaking, or a bridge institution that may be issued to it or otherwise conferred on it, and that such shares or other instruments of ownership will be accepted by it in lieu of any rights with respect to any such liability under this Agreement or any other Loan Document; or (iii) the variation of the terms of such liability in connection with the exercise of the write-down and conversion powers of any EEA Resolution Authority.

  • Company is not an Ineligible Issuer (i) At the time of filing the Registration Statement and (ii) as of the Execution Time (with such date being used as the determination date for purposes of this clause (ii)), the Company was not and is not an Ineligible Issuer (as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act), without taking account of any determination by the Commission pursuant to Rule 405 of the Securities Act that it is not necessary that the Company be considered an Ineligible Issuer.

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