The Settlement Agreement. On November , 2016, the Parties 13 entered into a settlement agreement resolving all of the issues in the Lawsuits and related 14 issues in connection with the SR 241 Extension Project (“Settlement Agreement”). A 15 true and correct copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached to, and incorporated by 16 reference into, the [Proposed] Judgment Confirming and Implementing Settlement (“Final 17 Judgment”), attached hereto as Attachment A. The Parties desire to have the Settlement 18 Agreement incorporated into a judgment to give the settlement binding effect within the 19 litigation, with the Court to exercise continuing jurisdiction under Code of Civil 20 Procedure § 664.6 to ensure that the terms of the settlement are carried out.
The Settlement Agreement. 6.1. Where Settlement is reached and has been approved by the Board of the Commission, the terms of the Settlement will be formalised in a signed Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”).
The Settlement Agreement. The Owner, the City, the District and certain other community facilities districts of the City entered into that certain Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) dated February 7, 2017, which is incorporated herein by this reference. This Acquisition Agreement is intended to, among other things, implement the terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Settlement Agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Owner and the City are to enter into this Acquisition Agreement and similar acquisition agreements with respect to the Improvement Area, the City’s Community Facilities District No. 2016-2, the City’s Community Facilities District No. 2016-3 and Improvement Areas 8E and 17D of the District (the “Other Acquisition Agreements”) in order to, among other things, provide the terms pursuant to which the Owner is to design and construct certain DIF Improvements (defined below) or advance funds to the City to design and construct other DIF Improvements. The amount of the advances and expenditures for DIF Improvements shall be reimbursed to the Owner from the proceeds of special taxes and bonds of the Improvement Area as specifically provided for in this Acquisition Agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Owner has the right to receive a credit against DIFs for its design and construction of identified DIF Improvements.
The Settlement Agreement. 3.1 contemplates the establishment of a local economic development trust (the "Trust"), which is entitled to certain benefits under the Settlement Agreement;
The Settlement Agreement. Is Reasonable in Light of the Record as a Whole The Commission should adopt the Settlement Agreement as reasonable in light of the entire record. Before reaching this settlement, the Settling Parties carefully reviewed PG&E’s Application, PG&E’s Opening Testimony, the MOU, NDC’s Testimony, and PG&E’s Rebuttal Testimony on the issues and conducted discovery thereon. The Settlement Agreement represents equitable compromises reached after careful review and discussion by the Settling Parties of the Application and submitted testimony as well as information obtained during discovery. The Settlement Agreement is reasonable because it was reached only after meaningful give-and-take 6 D.00-00-000, mimeo, pp. 8-9, citing D.00-00-000 (30 CPUC 2d 189, 221-223) and D.00-00-000 (40 CPUC 2d. 301, 326). 7 D.00-00-000, 2010 Cal PUC LEXIS 467 at *87; and see D.00-00-000, mimeo, p. 8, citing D.00-00-000, 46 CPUC 2d 538, 553. See also D.00-00-000, 2010 Cal. PUC LEXIS 556 at *55 (Commission decisions “express the strong public policy favoring settlement of disputes if they are fair and reasonable”); D.10- 11-035, 2010 Cal. PUC LEXIS 495 at *17 (the Commission’s “long-standing policy favoring settlements…reduces litigation expenses [and] conserves scarce Commission resources”); and see D.10- 11-011, 2010 Cal. PUC LEXIS 533 at *50 (“There is a strong public policy favoring the settlement of disputes to avoid costly and protracted litigation[.]”) 8 See generally, D.00-00-000, mimeo, pp. 7-13, 18. in collaborative negotiations, during which all of the Settling Parties made concessions to resolve issues in a manner that reflects a fair compromise of their litigation positions.9 TURN and CforAT support the Motion to Approve the Settlement Agreement. CalAdvocates and the Small Business Utility Advocates (“SBUA”) do not oppose the Motion to Approve the Settlement Agreement. No party opposes. This Motion, the attached Settlement Agreement, and the prepared testimony submitted in this proceeding contain sufficient information for the Commission to conclude that the Settlement Agreement is reasonable and adopt it without modifications.
The Settlement Agreement. If you would like to obtain a complete copy of the Settlement Agreement and the exhibits, you may review them at xxx.XxxxxxXXXXxxxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxxxxx documents.
The Settlement Agreement. On 20 October 2020, the Final Award was issued in favour of the Aetos Parties against the Obligors, pursuant to which the Obligors are adjudged to owe and be liable to pay the Final Award Amount, together with interest accruing thereon. As at the date of this announcement, the Final Award Amount together with interest accruing thereon amounted to US$208,793,407 and has not been paid by the Obligors pursuant to the Final Award. The Company hereby announces that, on 4 March 2021, the Aetos Parties, the Obligors and the Yida Parties entered into the Settlement Agreement. The principal terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows:
The Settlement Agreement. The key provisions of the Settlement Agreement are as follows: The Settlement resolves all claims, allegations, disputes, and disagreements between CPED and SCG (“the Parties”) relating to the K.00-00-000 (“the Proceeding”). If the Settlement is adopted by the Commission, it releases SCG from all actual, potential, and contingent claims with respect to the following: All matters that were raised or could have been raised in the Proceeding and all disputes regarding the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Best Management Practices requirements that could be subject to an enforcement action pursuant to Resolution No. E-4550 that have been identified by the Commission or staff to SCG as of October 26, 2016 relating to the ACTRP. SCG agrees to pay Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand dollars ($250,000) to the State of California’s General Fund. SCG will pay the settlement amount within thirty (30) days of the Commission issuing a final decision approving the Settlement Agreement. SCG shall retain an independent firm, at shareholders’ expense, at an amount not to exceed Twenty-Five Thousand dollars ($25,000), to conduct a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance training seminar with a focus on promoting a uniform understanding of Commission FEIR and MMCRP monitoring obligations and SCG FEIR and MMCRP compliance obligations. The training seminar will be delivered in two locations, one in Northern California and another in Southern California. All SCG staff that are reasonably expected to directly manage and implement utility projects subject to the Commission’s approval process shall attend the seminar at one of the identified locations. Commission staff reasonably expected to oversee utility’s compliance with MMCRPs adopted in FEIRs are invited and strongly encouraged to attend the training seminar. The independent firm and the training seminar syllabus shall be subject to the Commission’s staff reasonable review and approval. SCG shall cause the independent firm to conduct the CEQA compliance training seminar within ninety (90) days of the Commission staff approving the independent firm and training seminar syllabus. The Parties agree that the Settlement Agreement represents a compromise, is not an endorsement of disputed facts or law, and does not constitute any admission by SCG or denial by CPED with respect to any issue of fact or law, or of any violation or liability by any party. The Parties acknowledge that no part of any payment under...
The Settlement Agreement. The Annual Progress Report shall identify the number of miles the City proposes to bank and document the basis for the City’s position that it has exceeded the mileage requirements in this Settlement Agreement. Sewer repair, rehabilitation and replacement mileage that is banked in accordance with Paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Settlement Agreement may be counted towards the City’s target mileage of repair, rehabilitation and replacement in a future year.
The Settlement Agreement. On [DATE], the Class Representatives, individually and on behalf of the putative class members, entered into that certain In Re: Champlain Towers South Collapse Litigation Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”), by and through the PSC, with the following Defendants and non-Defendant settling parties: the Town of Surfside, Florida (the “Town of Surfside”), Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Securitas”), Xxxx Xxxxxxxx & Associates of Florida, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (“JMAF”), Stantec Architecture Inc., a North Carolina corporation (“Stantec”), Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxxxx, P.A., a Florida professional corporation (“Xxxxxx”), XxXxxxxx Consulting Engineering, DPC, a New York design professional corporation f/k/a XxXxxxxx Consulting Engineers, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“XxXxxxxx”), NV5, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“NV5”), Xxxxxxxx Consultants, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“Xxxxxxxx”), Bizzi & Partners Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“B&PD”), 0000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida not- for-profit corporation (the “87 Park Association”), 8701 Xxxxxxx Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“8701 Xxxxxxx”), Terra Group, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“TG”), Terra World Investments, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“TWI”), Florida Civil, Inc., a Florida corporation (“Florida Civil”), Xxxxx’s Backhoe Service, Inc., a Florida corporation (“Chuck’s Backhoe”), ASAP Installations LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“ASAP Installations”), X. Xxxxx & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation (“HVA”), Xxxxx Xxx Landscape Architecture LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Xxxxx Xxx”), Concrete Protection and Restoration, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“CP&R”), Concrete Protection and Restoration, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“CP&R LLC”), Xxxxxxxx Engineering, Inc., a Florida corporation (“Xxxxxxxx”), Xxxxxx Pools, Inc., a Florida corporation (“SPI”), Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx, PE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Xxxxxx XX”), CDPW, Inc., a Florida corporation (“CDPW”), Xxxxxxx Roof Maintenance, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“CRM”), R.E.E. Consulting, LLC, a Florida limited liability company d/b/a X. Xxxxxxx & Associates (“Xxxxxxx”), Western Waterproofing Company of America, a Missouri corporation d/b/a Western Specialty Contractors of America (“Western Waterproofing”), Western Holding Group...
