Mutual Discussions The Employer and the Union acknowledge the mutual benefits to be derived from dialogue between the parties and are prepared to discuss matters of common interest.
Informal Discussions The employee's concerns will be presented orally by the employee to the appropriate supervisor. Every effort shall be made by all concerned in an informal manner to develop an understanding of the facts and the issues in order to create a climate which will lead to resolution of the problem. If the employee is not satisfied with the informal discussion(s) relative to the matter in question, he/she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure.
Existing Discussions The Company agrees that it will immediately cease and cause to be terminated any existing activities, discussions or negotiations with any Persons conducted heretofore with respect to any Acquisition Proposal. The Company agrees that it will take the necessary steps to promptly inform the individuals or entities referred to in the first sentence hereof of the obligations undertaken in this Section 6.2. The Company also agrees that it will promptly request each Person that has heretofore executed a confidentiality agreement in connection with its consideration of acquiring it or any of its Subsidiaries to return or destroy all confidential information heretofore furnished to such Person by or on behalf of it or any of its Subsidiaries.
Settlement Discussions This Agreement is part of a proposed settlement of matters that could otherwise be the subject of litigation among the Parties hereto. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of any kind. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and any applicable state rules of evidence, this Agreement and all negotiations relating thereto shall not be admissible into evidence in any proceeding other than to prove the existence of this Agreement or in a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
Finality of Disputes 13.1.1 Except as otherwise specifically provided for in this Agreement, no claim may be brought for any dispute arising from this Agreement more than twelve (12) months from the date the occurrence which gives rise to the dispute is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered with the exercise of due care and attention.
13.1.2 Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, a Party shall be entitled to dispute only those charges which appeared on a xxxx dated within the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date on which the Billing Party received notice of such Disputed Amounts.
Informal Discussion If an employee has a problem relating to a work situation, the employee is encouraged to request a meeting with his or her immediate supervisor to discuss the problem in an effort to clarify the issue and to work cooperatively towards settlement.
Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- pared to the t-test for small p-values.
Settlement of Disputes between the contracting parties
1. Any dispute between the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall, if possible, be settled through diplomatic channels.
2. If any dispute between the Contracting Parties cannot be settled within six months (6) It shall upon the request of either Contracting Party, be submitted to an arbitral tribunal.
3. Such an arbitral tribunal shall be constituted for each individual case in the following way. Within two (2) months of the receipt of the request for arbitration, each Contracting Party shall appoint one member of the Tribunal. The two members shall then select a national of a third State, who on approval by the two Contracting Parties shall be appointed Chairman of the Tribunal. The Chairman shall be appointed within two (2) months from the date of appointment of the other two members.
4. If within the periods specified in paragraph 3 of this article the necessary appointments have not been made, either Contracting Party may, in the absence of any other agreement, invite the President of the International Court of Justice to make the necessary appointments. If the President is a national of either Contracting Party or if he is otherwise prevented from discharging the said function, the Vice-President shall be invited to make the necessary appointments. if the Vice- President is a national of either Contracting Party or if he is also prevented from discharging the function, the said member of the International Court of Justice the oldest who is not a national of either Contracting Party shall be invited to make the necessary appointments.
5. The arbitral tribunal shall reach its decisions by a majority of votes and shall be binding on both contracting parties. each Contracting Party shall assume the costs of its own member of the Tribunal and of its representation in the arbitral proceedings; the cost of the Chairman and the remaining costs shall be borne in equal parts by the contracting parties. The Tribunal may, however, in its decision that a higher proportion of direct costs shall be borne by one of the two contracting parties, and this decision shall be binding on both contracting parties. the tribunal shall determine its own rules of procedure for all other matters.
6. The arbitral tribunal shall make its decision on the basis of this Agreement and any agreement in force between the two parties and international law in general and take into account, as appropriate, the domestic law of the Contracting Party where the investment concerned is located.
Mediation of Disputes The parties shall endeavor in good faith to settle within 90 days any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof through mediation with JAMS, Endispute or similar organizations. If the controversy or claim is not resolved within 90 days, the parties shall be free to pursue other legal remedies in law or equity.
Resolution of Disputes Choice of Law (a) This Transition Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to the principles of conflicts of law.
(b) All suits, actions or proceedings arising out of or relating to this Transition Agreement shall be brought in a state or federal court located in San Francisco County, California, which courts shall be the exclusive forum for all such suits, actions or proceedings. Executive and the Company hereby waive any objection which either of Executive may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue in any such court, including any claim based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens or any similar doctrine, for any such suit, action or proceeding. Executive and the Company each hereby irrevocably consent and submit to the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts located in San Francisco County, California for the purposes of any suit, action or proceeding arising out of relating to this Transition Agreement. If any action is necessary to enforce the terms of this Transition Agreement, the substantially prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in addition to any other relief to which such prevailing party may be entitled
(c) EXECUTIVE AND THE COMPANY EACH HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER THIS TRANSITION AGREEMENT OR RELATED IN ANY WAY TO EXECUTIVE’S EMPLOYMENT AND/OR TO THE TERMINATION OF EXECUTIVE’S EMPLOYMENT AND AGREE THAT ANY SUCH SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE TRIED BEFORE A COURT AND NOT BEFORE A JURY.
