Common use of Public Benefit Clause in Contracts

Public Benefit. It is Raghuvir’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as

Public Benefit. It is RaghuvirApex’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Apex under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Apex that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Apex failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public asas to those Products

Public Benefit. It is RaghuvirBumsei’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Bumsei under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Bumsei that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Bumsei failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public asas to those Products

Public Benefit. It is Raghuvir’s ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Belnick that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Belnick failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP BPA prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public asas to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Belnick is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Public Benefit. It is Raghuvir’s ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Surell that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Surell failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP CrVI prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public asas to those Products

Public Benefit. It is RaghuvirHarold’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP BPA prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public asas to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that ▇▇▇▇▇▇ is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Public Benefit. It is RaghuvirWincrest’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Wincrest under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Wincrest that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Wincrest’s failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP acrylamide prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as

Public Benefit. It is Raghuvir’s the Parties’ understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Jiangsu under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the Parties’ intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Jiangsu’s alleged failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP CrVI prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public asnot

Public Benefit. It is Raghuvir▇▇▇▇▇’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Leatt under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Leatt that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Leatt failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP DINP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public asas to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Leatt is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Public Benefit. It is RaghuvirHornady’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Hornady under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Hornady that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Hornady failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP DINP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public asas to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Hornady is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Public Benefit. It is RaghuvirRiffe’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public asas to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that ▇▇▇▇▇ is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.