Transactions Review Methodology
Transactions Review Methodology Sample Clauses
Related to Transactions Review Methodology
Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.
Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.
Asset Representations Review (a) Upon the occurrence of a Delinquency Trigger with respect to any Collection Period, the Servicer will promptly send to TMCC, the Administrator, the Indenture Trustee and each Noteholder (and to each applicable Clearing Agency for distribution to Note Owners in accordance with the rules of such Clearing Agency) a notice describing (i) the occurrence of the Delinquency Trigger, and including reasonably detailed calculations thereof, and (ii) the rights of the Noteholders and Note Owners regarding an Asset Representations Review (including a description of the method by which Noteholders and Note Owners may contact the Indenture Trustee in order to request a Noteholder vote in respect of an Asset Representations Review). (b) If the Indenture Trustee notifies the Servicer pursuant to Section 12.02 of the Indenture that sufficient Noteholders have voted within the required time to initiate an Asset Representations Review of all ARR Receivables by the Asset Representations Reviewer pursuant to the Asset Representations Review Agreement, then the Servicer shall: (i) promptly notify the Asset Representations Reviewer and the Indenture Trustee of the number of ARR Receivables; (ii) within sixty (60) days after receipt by the Servicer of such notice from the Indenture Trustee, render reasonable assistance, including granting access to copies of any underlying documents and Receivable Files and all other relevant documents, to the Asset Representations Reviewer to facilitate the performance of a review of all ARR Receivables, pursuant to Section 3.2(a) of the Asset Representations Review Agreement, in order to verify compliance with the representations and warranties made to the Issuer by the Seller and the Servicer; and (iii) provide such other reasonable assistance to the Asset Representations Reviewer as it requests in order to facilitate its Asset Representations Review of the ARR Receivables pursuant to the Asset Representations Review Agreement. The Servicer may redact any materials provided to the Asset Representations Reviewer in order to remove any personally identifiable customer information. Except for the measure described in the immediately preceding sentence, the Servicer will use commercially reasonable efforts not to change the meaning of such materials or their usefulness to the Asset Representations Reviewer in connection with its review pursuant to Section 3.2(a) of the Asset Representations Review Agreement.
ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.
Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.
AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by ALAMEDA CTC will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT and subconsultants’ contracts, including cost proposals and ICRs, may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT Audit, an Incurred Cost Audit, an ICR Audit, or a certified public accountant (“CPA”) ICR Audit Workpaper Review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR Audit Workpaper Review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s workpapers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by ALAMEDA CTC to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the contract by this reference if directed by ALAMEDA CTC at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state, or local governments have access to CPA workpapers, will be considered a breach of contract terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.
Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.
Asset Representations Reviewer The Asset Representations Reviewer shall have been appointed and shall have entered into the Asset Representations Review Agreement.
Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.
