Significantly changing the company’s business model, marketing strategy, management or customer relations;
Significantly the district court's decision permits the Department either to certify the grants at issue or to deny certification. The court did not direct that the Department certify the grants, although the plaintiffs had requested that relief. See Dist. Ct. Doc. 54-1 at 2, 20 (memorandum in support of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment). The court also did not preclude the Department from relying on either section 13(c)(1) or section 13(c)(2) if the Department again decided against certification. Instead, the court identified perceived deficiencies in the Department's stated reasoning for previously denying certification. Under section 13(c)(2), the court concluded that the Department should not have reflexively applied Xxxxxxx or equated pensions with defined benefit plans and should have considered that rights under state law form a backdrop for collective bargaining negotiations and the realities of public sector collective bargaining. Under section 13(c)(1), the court concluded that the Department should not have decided for itself, based on distinguishable NLRA decisions, that XxxXXX's collective bargaining agreement covered new employees when bargaining here was constrained by XXXXX and the agreement, in the court's view, defines the bargaining unit as employees that have already started working in SacRTD's service. Accordingly, and in light of the district court's remand decision, I hereby set out an analysis of sections 13(c)(1) and (2) that does not rely on Xxxxxxx or equate pensions with defined benefit plans. I then address decisions holding that rights under state law form a backdrop to collective bargaining and the realities of collective bargaining. I conclude that XxxXXX's application of PEPRA prevents the "continuation of collective bargaining" as that phrase is used in section 13(c)(2). I also conclude, as an independent reason for denying certification, that XxxXXX's application of PEPRA prevents "the preservation of rights, privileges, and benefits (including continuation of pension rights and benefits) under existing collective bargaining agreements," contrary to section 13(c)(1).
Significantly a buyer may not replace the lender or the loan program identified in their Pre-Approval Letter (e.g. conventional, DVA, FHA, USDA loan programs) without seller’s consent; and (f) Lastly, the Sale Agreement also contains a provision stating that the source of buyer’s funds (i.e. for xxxxxxx money, and downpayment) are not contingent, unless disclosed in the document. This means that if the buyer is obtaining any funds from third-party sources (e.g. relatives, or withdrawals from IRAs, 401-Ks, 529s, or proceeds from another closing, etc.), it must be disclosed in the Sale Agreement.
Significantly subaverage general intellectual func- tioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and mani- fested during the developmental pe- riod, that adversely affects a preschool child’s or child’s educational perform- ance.
Significantly. FAQ 8 indicates that access may be required to some forms of derived personal data, such as non-sensitive marketing data that are used to determine whether or not to send an individual a catalog. On the other hand, access is not required to “confidential commercial information,” a term taken from the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that refers to information that an organization “has taken steps to protect from disclosure, where disclosure would help a competitor in the market.” The FAQ further states that “a computer program, modeling program, or the details of that program may be confidential commercial information,” and that an organization may deny or limit access to avoid revealing its own confidential commercial information, “such as marketing inferences or classifications generated by the organization.” This language appears to shield from access proprietary “profiling” information, which may be of critical concern to many organizations that are considering whether to certify to the Safe Harbor Principles.
Significantly change the character of the Borrower's business;
Significantly. Progresso Point included a header on its revised Exhibit 9 that states “As of August 20, 2009” (which was the application deadline for the 2009 Universal Application Cycle).
Significantly epistemic communities press state authorities and policy makers to adopt or modify legislation and support activities facilitating the goals of global statements, resolutions, and guidelines. In 2012, the Coalition for Organ Failure Solutions (COFS) – a non-profit organization concerned with combating the global organ trade – encouraged “…the U.S. Congress to incorporate human trafficking for organ removal 113In fact, during his briefing at the Xxx Xxxxxx Human Rights Commission, Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx, an investigator of the organ trade in Southeast Asia, recommended that the US State Department play a more “active role” in combating the global organ trade (Xxxxxxxxxxxx 2012: 4). under the rubric of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act” (Danovitch et al. 2013: 3). Additionally, Pakistan’s Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (2010) and Israel’s Organ Transplantation Law (2008) were largely the outcome of persistent efforts by small, cohesive groups of physicians who pushed for legislation (Efrat 2013), while in Britain, the British Transplantation Society (BTS) has been “increasingly involved in national policy making” (BTS 2014).114 As well, experts affiliated with the global TTS “played major roles” in the development of recent laws and regulations in China and India, amongst other countries (Xxxxxxxxx 2009: 117).115 In this context, medical epistemic communities, acting as receptor sites that transmit global models and promote ethical practices and conduct,116are key in states’ implementation of commercial transplantation legislation. Specifically, states with more physicians are more likely to implement commercial transplantation legislation.
Significantly new job duties are permanently added to the job or job description by the evaluating supervisor.
Significantly development agreements arguably allow municipalities to exact public benefits in excess of what would otherwise be permitted by “regulatory takings” rules.68 In addition, a municipality may achieve adequate comprehensive planning.69 Ordinarily, the lack of certainty in the development process damages municipalities through lengthy and costly litigation and administrative hearings regarding vested rights.70 Such disputes divert municipal staff energies and public money from more productive planning efforts, deter development, slow the growth of the tax base, and interfere with the planning and development of public facilities.71 Through the use of development agreements, however, municipalities can efficiently achieve long-range comprehensive plan[*PG728]ning goals (e.g., open space conservation, water and air quality protection, environmental mitigation, and affordable housing), avoid or reduce costly litigation and administrative proceedings, tailor regulations to the unique needs of individual projects and communities, and decrease the cost of development to the public as developers will no longer have high interest rates to pass on to consumers.72 In light of the benefits to both developers and municipalities, development agreements are an attractive tool in late vesting states.73
