Xxxxx v Sample Clauses
Xxxxx v. Canada, although the claimant (“SDMI”) did not own shares in the enterprise in question, the tribunal held that it was a protected “investor” and that the local Canadian enterprise was its “investment,” based on SDMI’s executive president’s “control” of managerial decisions of the Canadian enterprise.147 This finding was upheld on review by the Federal Court of Canada, which noted that SDMI’s “control” was “not based on the legal ownership of shares, but on the 142 Rejoinder, ¶¶ 39-46; Canadian Statement on Implementation of the NAFTA, Canada Gazette, Part I, Jan. 1, 1994, CL-47, p. 147. 143 Rejoinder, ¶¶ 47-64. 144 See Procedural Order No. 5, tribunal’s question 1(ii). 145 Rejoinder, ¶¶ 175-184. 146 Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States II, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award (Apr. 30, 2004), 147 S.D. Xxxxx, Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (Nov. 13, 2000), CL-30, ¶¶ 227-231. fact that [its executive president] controlled every decision, every investment, every move by [the local enterprise]” and that this fell within the “ordinary meaning of the word ‘controlled’.”148 88. NAFTA Article 1139 is instructive on this point. As the Tribunal notes, Article 1139 defines “investment of an investor” as an “investment owned or controlled directly or indirectly by an investor.”149 Article 1117 uses the almost identical phrase, “owns or controls directly or indirectly.” There is no reason to ascribe a different meaning to the same terms in the same treaty, and indeed, this would be contrary to a good faith interpretation of Article 1117 read in context as mandated by the VCLT. It would be incongruous and manifestly unreasonable to accept that an investor can “control” an enterprise for purposes of Article 1139 without share ownership but require share ownership for the same investor to “control” the same enterprise for purposes of Article 1117. In any event, Xxxxxxxxx remain entitled to claim damages to Operadora Pesa as the “investment” under Article 1139 over which they exercise “control.”150 These arguments dispose of Mexico’s hyper-technical objection.
Xxxxx v. Proskauer Rose LLP, No. 2011-77793 (Tex., Xxxxxx Cnty. [281st Dist.]) (dismissed without prejudice as non-suited on March 12, 2014)
Xxxxx v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 734. sustainable development would come into play which will ensure that imitative steps are and can be taken to preserve the ecological balance…”.623
Xxxxx v. ORNL Federal Credit Union class action. Be sure to include your name, the last four digits of your account number(s) or former account number(s), address, telephone number, and email address. Your exclusion or opt out request must be postmarked by
Xxxxx v. AGA Medical Corporation, Civil Action No. 04-CV-12565 NG (pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts); and
Xxxxx v. City of New York, No. 11 Civ. 4568, 2012 WL 1701356, at *1 (2d Cir. May 16, 2012) (citing Xxxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxx, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2008)). 27 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). 28 Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx, 594 F.3d 150, 161 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal,
Xxxxx v. Cash 4 Titles, 2012 WL 5290155 at
Xxxxx v. The Procter & Xxxxxx Co. (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2012) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection toothpaste,
Xxxxx v. State, 530 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1988) (city police officer lacked authority to seize vehicle on private property outside city limits); Xxxxxxx v. State, 143 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 148 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1962). Cf. Art. VIII, s. 2(c), Fla. Const., providing
Xxxxx v. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx-Xxxxxxx & Xxxx, Inc., Xxxxxx x. U.S. Postal Serv., Xxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx Enters., Inc., Xxxxxxx v. Town of Manlius, Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxx, Xxxxx x. City of Boston, Statutes Rules Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)............................................................................ 1 Other Authority EEOC Compliance Manual, No. 915-003, 3 Xxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxx X. Xxxxxx,