Views of FIRM/NCC Sample Clauses

Views of FIRM/NCC. FIRM/NCC submitted that ATCO must meet a higher standard with respect to the Renewal MSA simply because it is an affiliate transaction. FIRM/NCC generally continued to support the positions brought forth by Calgary and did not consider that ATCO met the onus of proof in demonstrating that customers were not disadvantaged by certain of the terms and conditions of the Renewal MSA. FIRM/NCC suggested that customers were entitled to be concerned with the Renewal MSA due to the overlapping Boards of Directors15 in the ATCO group of companies, the fact that the companies have one CEO16 and a single shareholder, and that to date the only ATCO I-Tek customers were within the ATCO Group.17
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Views of FIRM/NCC. FIRM/NCC took issue with ATCO’s position that there were no substantial changes to the new MSA32 and that the changes were made “to provide clarity to the contract, conform the agreement to changes in the IT business or to reflect the changing nature of our operating environment.”33 FIRM/NCC submitted that several of the changes to the Original MSA appeared to be material and had the potential to alter the thrust of the Original MSA. FIRM/NCC submitted that the Board should resist concentrating only on the changes, but rather view the Renewal MSA in its entirety, given the time that has passed since the Affiliate Transactions Proceeding and the changes in the IT business and operating environment since then. FIRM/NCC submitted that there was a shift during the course of the oral testimony of the ATCO panel, from an assertion that the provisions of the Renewal MSA were typical, to an assertion that this was merely a “practical approach” and not a “legalistic approach”. FIRM/NCC argued that although this appeared to lend credibility to Xx. Xxxxxxxx’ evidence, XXXX dismissed her “legalistic approach” in favour of their “practical approach”. FIRM/NCC submitted that this practical approach did not meet the onus of proof set out by the Board in the Code of Conduct decision.
Sample 1
Views of FIRM/NCC. ‌ FIRM/NCC submitted that ATCO revised the clause dealing with termination. The old Clause
Sample 1
Views of FIRM/NCC. FIRM/NCC referred to Exhibits 103 and 104, the comparisons of the Renewal MSA and the Original MSA, and submitted the first substantive change was in the new paragraph 13.5 whereby exclusive title to and all ownership of all IP shall rest solely with ATCO I-Tek. FIRM/NCC submitted that Clause 10.8 of the Original MSA, which was deleted, stated that: Ownership in and to any new developments, deliverables and/or know-how arising out of or other wise created in the course of the Services, including any IP rights therein, shall belong to the Client in respect of those developments, Deliverables, and/or know-how that were funded substantially by Client. FIRM/NCC suggested ATCO tried to minimize the import of the changes and the value of the IP rights when it asserted that the purchase of new commercially available software would address those concerns. However, ATCO provided no evidence as to the costs that might be incurred in transitioning from ATCO I-Tek to a new outsourcer. FIRM/NCC suggested this was one of the major concerns addressed by the Calgary evidence, and was clearly a substantive change that went well beyond providing clarity to the contract. FIRM/NCC referred to the new Clause 13.7, which provided that all assets not expressly designated in the Renewal MSA as belonging to the client would belong to ATCO I-Tek. FIRM/NCC argued that a default clause such as that could only mitigate in ATCO I-Tek’s favour. FIRM/NCC noted ATCO’s view that ATCO I-Tek had an obligation to provide the ATCO Utilities access to the intellectual property during a transition period and for as long as the ATCO 54 Transcript, page 493 55 Transcript, page 492 56 Transcript, page 496 Utilities required such systems.57 FIRM/NCC also noted that Clause 15.6 provided for a 20% surcharge to be applied to the charges otherwise applicable to all services during periods of temporary extension.58 FIRM/NCC suggested a new outsourcer would not impose this surcharge. FIRM/NCC agreed with Xx. Xxxxxxxx when she stated: Does it make sense for some of these provisions to be there and does it protect the utility for them not to be there…and if the utility thinks these terms are already there, even if we can’t find them, let’s make it clear and put them in.59 FIRM/NCC suggested that if ATCO thought IP ownership was irrelevant, why were they objecting to including it in favor of the utilities? Such a position only raised further concern over ATCO’s motives for wanting to exclude the protection d...
Sample 1
Views of FIRM/NCC. FIRM/NCC submitted that some form of gainsharing might be appropriate to elicit cost savings and as a reasonable alternative to the annual benchmarking exercise at a cost of $750,000 to $1,000,000, and accordingly, gainsharing warranted further exploration. FIRM/NCC agreed with Xx. Xxxxxxxx, that agreements with gainsharing could be benchmarked against other such agreements.71 Otherwise, it may be necessary to make adjustments to the ATCO I-Tek charges to 66 Transcript, page 487‌ 68 ATCO Utilities Argument, pages 4 and 5 69 Transcript, page 488 70 Transcript, page 487 71 Transcript, page 488 compensate for the lack of gainsharing provisions. However, FIRM/NCC suggested ATCO should be directed to bring forward a gainsharing proposal with its next benchmarking study to determine whether the interval between benchmarking studies could be extended and to place them on a more equal footing with their benchmarked counterparts, in order to mitigate the controversies with benchmarking methodologies as discussed in Exhibit 504 and as raised by Xx. Xxxxxxxx.
Sample 1
Views of FIRM/NCC. FIRM/NCC noted that Xx. Xxxxxxxx considered that ATCO I-Tek’s prices could not be compared to anything available in the industry from independent arm’s length outsourcers.126 In response to questions from Board counsel, Xx. Xxxxxxxx outlined a process whereby he considered benchmarking could be successful in analyzing the component parts of the services, “if someone provides open access to I-Tek’s books.”127 Under that process, the Board would hire an independent consultant to establish terms of reference, select the benchmarking consultant and participate in the benchmarking exercise with the benchmarking consultant, all leading to a compliance filing.128 Xx. Xxxxxxxx said that the reason for an independent consultant was the issue of independence and transparency.129 FIRM/NCC disagreed with ATCO’s proposal whereby ATCO would retain and instruct the benchmarking consultant, following which the benchmarking study would be submitted for a compliance filing. 130 FIRM/NCC submitted that interveners have not had access to the inner workings or assumptions inherent in such a process and were left to wonder about the transparency of such a process. FIRM/NCC argued that so long as ATCO denied access to ATCO I-Tek’s cost and price structure, interveners’ understanding and perspective would always 122 Exhibit 109 - ATCO Letter of March 7, 2003; Transcript, pages 365 and 541 123 Transcript, page 528 to page 529; page 336; page 442 124 Transcript, page 527 125 See for example Decision 2001-110‌ 127 Transcript, page 423 128 Transcript, page 425 129 Transcript, page 427 130 Transcript, pages 550 to 551 remain anecdotal. Further, FIRM/NCC asserted that the process of benchmarking should be considered very carefully, for the following reasons: • the matter at hand involved a $250 million contract between affiliated companies; • one of the parties to the contract was unregulated; • as acknowledged by XXXX, there was still controversy as to the best way to benchmark IT services, which methodology worked best , what the result should look like, and who was best qualified to conduct a fair and objective benchmark study;131 • as acknowledged by XXXX, many benchmarking studies were executed incorrectly resulting in misleading results;132 • as acknowledged by XXXX, a benchmarking study could be an invaluable tool if applied appropriately;133 and • the only assurance that ATCO could provide respecting the accuracy of the benchmarker’s study was that a benchmarker would not want ...
Sample 1
Views of FIRM/NCC. FIRM/NCC noted that ATCO has chosen to utilize a structure of affiliated companies to provide its IT support services. Yet, while FIRM/NCC acknowledged that ATCO was now entitled to do so, it was important that the benchmarking process be clarified by the Board and procedures implemented in order to safeguard customers and ensure the accuracy and validity of any benchmarking study. 137 Transcript, page 391 to page 392 138 Transcript, page 528 139 Exhibit 303 - Calgary letter dated March 28, 2003 140 Transcript, page 529 to page 530‌
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Views of FIRM/NCC

  • Indemnification of Company, Directors and Officers and Selling Shareholders Each Underwriter severally agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Company, its directors, each of its officers who signed the Registration Statement, and each person, if any, who controls the Company within the meaning of Section 15 of the 1933 Act or Section 20 of the 1934 Act, and each Selling Shareholder and each person, if any, who controls any Selling Shareholder within the meaning of Section 15 of the 1933 Act or Section 20 of the 1934 Act against any and all loss, liability, claim, damage and expense described in the indemnity contained in subsection (a) of this Section, as incurred, but only with respect to untrue statements or omissions, or alleged untrue statements or omissions, made in the Registration Statement (or any amendment thereto), including the Rule 430A Information, the General Disclosure Package or the Prospectus (or any amendment or supplement thereto) in reliance upon and in conformity with the Underwriter Information.

  • Non-Solicitation of Customers and Employees The Executive agrees that during the Term and for a period of two (2) years following the Termination of the Executive’s Employment, the Executive shall not, directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, (i) solicit in any manner, seek to obtain or service, or accept the business of any Customer for any product or service of the type offered by the Employer or competitive with the Company’s Business, (ii) solicit in any manner, seek to obtain or service, or accept the business of any Prospective Customer for any product or service of the type offered by the Employer or otherwise competitive with the Company’s Business, (iii) request or advise any Customer, Prospective Customer, or supplier of the Employer to terminate, reduce, limit, or change its business or relationship with the Employer, or (iv) induce, request, or attempt to influence any employee of the Employer to terminate his employment with the Employer.

  • Expenses of the Selling Shareholders The Selling Shareholders, jointly and severally, will pay all expenses incident to the performance of their respective obligations under, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by, this Agreement, including (i) any stamp and other duties and stock and other transfer taxes, if any, payable upon the sale of the Securities to the Underwriters and their transfer between the Underwriters pursuant to an agreement between such Underwriters, and (ii) the fees and disbursements of their respective counsel and other advisors.

  • Notice to the Corporation and the Warrant Agent (a) Unless herein otherwise expressly provided, any notice to be given hereunder to the Corporation or the Warrant Agent shall be deemed to be validly given if delivered, sent by registered letter, postage prepaid or if emailed: (i) If to the Corporation: Columbia Care Inc. 000 Xxxxx Xxxxxx, 00xx Xxxxx Xxx Xxxx, XX 00000 XXX Attention: Xxxx-Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Chief Risk Officer Email: xxxxxxx@xxx-xxxx.xxx (ii) If to the Warrant Agent: Odyssey Trust Company 323 – 000 Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx X0X 0X0 Attention: Corporate Trust Email: xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx and any such notice delivered in accordance with the foregoing shall be deemed to have been received and given on the date of delivery or, if mailed, on the fifth Business Day following the date of mailing such notice or, if transmitted by electronic means, on the next Business Day following the date of transmission. (b) The Corporation or the Warrant Agent, as the case may be, may, from time to time, notify the other in the manner provided in Section 10.1(a) of a change of address which, from the effective date of such notice and until changed by like notice, shall be the address of the Corporation or the Warrant Agent, as the case may be, for all purposes of this Indenture. (c) If, by reason of a strike, lockout or other work stoppage, actual or threatened, involving postal employees, any notice to be given to the Warrant Agent or to the Corporation hereunder could reasonably be considered unlikely to reach its destination, such notice shall be valid and effective only if it is delivered to the named officer of the party to which it is addressed, as provided in Section 10.1(a), or given by email or other means of prepaid, transmitted and recorded communication.

  • Certain Agreements of the Company and the Selling Stockholders The Company agrees with the several Underwriters and the Selling Stockholders that:

  • LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF THE TRUSTEES, OFFICERS, AND SHAREHOLDERS A copy of the Agreement and Declaration of Trust of the Fund is on file with the Secretary of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and notice is hereby given that this instrument is executed on behalf of the Trustees of the Fund as Trustees and not individually and that the obligations of or arising out of this instrument are not binding upon any of the Trustees, officers or shareholders individually but are binding only upon the assets and property of the respective Fund.

  • Shareholder Agreement The Shareholder Agreement shall have been duly executed and delivered by the Company.

  • Experts, Advisers and Agents The Trustee may: (a) employ or retain and act and rely on the opinion or advice of or information obtained from any solicitor, auditor, valuer, engineer, surveyor, appraiser or other expert, whether obtained by the Trustee or by the Corporation, or otherwise, and shall not be liable for acting, or refusing to act, in good faith on any such opinion or advice and may pay proper and reasonable compensation for all such legal and other advice or assistance as aforesaid; and (b) employ such agents and other assistants as it may reasonably require for the proper discharge of its duties hereunder, and may pay reasonable remuneration for all services performed for it (and shall be entitled to receive reasonable remuneration for all services performed by it) in the discharge of the trusts hereof and compensation for all disbursements, costs and expenses made or incurred by it in the discharge of its duties hereunder and in the management of the trusts hereof and any solicitors employed or consulted by the Trustee may, but need not be, solicitors for the Corporation.

  • Indemnification of the Company and the Selling Stockholders The Underwriter agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Company, its directors, its officers who signed the Registration Statement and each person, if any, who controls the Company within the meaning of Section 15 of the Securities Act or Section 20 of the Exchange Act and each of the Selling Stockholders to the same extent as the indemnity set forth in paragraph (a) above, but only with respect to any losses, claims, damages or liabilities that arise out of, or are based upon, any untrue statement or omission or alleged untrue statement or omission made in reliance upon and in conformity with any information relating to the Underwriter furnished to the Company in writing by the Underwriter expressly for use in the Registration Statement, the Prospectus (or any amendment or supplement thereto), any Issuer Free Writing Prospectus or any Pricing Disclosure Package, it being understood and agreed upon that the only such information furnished by the Underwriter consists of the following information in the Prospectus furnished on behalf of the Underwriter: the concession figure appearing in the sixth paragraph and the information concerning short selling and purchasing contained in the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs under the caption “Underwriting” (collectively, the “Underwriter Information”).

  • Non-Solicitation of Customers and Suppliers Each Subject Party agrees that, during the Restricted Period, such Subject Party will not, without the prior written consent of Parent (which may be withheld in its sole discretion), individually or on behalf of any other Person (other than, if applicable, a Covered Party in the performance of such Subject Party’s duties on behalf of the Covered Parties), directly or indirectly: (i) solicit, induce, encourage or otherwise cause (or attempt to do any of the foregoing) any Covered Customer (as defined below) to (A) cease being, or not become, a client or customer of any Covered Party with respect to the Business or (B) reduce the amount of business of such Covered Customer with any Covered Party, or otherwise alter such business relationship in a manner adverse to any Covered Party, in either case, with respect to or relating to the Business; (ii) interfere with or disrupt (or attempt to interfere with or disrupt) the contractual relationship between any Covered Party and any Covered Customer; (iii) divert any business with any Covered Customer relating to the Business from a Covered Party; (iv) solicit for business, provide services to, engage in or do business with, any Covered Customer for products or services that are part of the Business; or (v) interfere with or disrupt (or attempt to interfere with or disrupt), any Person that was a vendor, supplier, distributor, agent or other service provider of a Covered Party at the time of such interference or disruption, for a purpose competitive with a Covered Party as it relates to the Business. For purposes of this Agreement, a “Covered Customer” shall mean any Person who is or was an actual customer or client (or prospective customer or client with whom a Covered Party actively marketed or made or taken specific action to make a proposal) of a Covered Party, (A) if the relevant time of determination is before the Termination Date, as of such date of determination or during the one (1) year period preceding such date and, (B) if the relevant time of determination is after the Termination Date, as of the Termination Date or during the one (1) year period preceding the Termination Date.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!