Case 1 definition

Case 1. ' (negotiations) means any case where negotiations take place between the parties with a view to the formation of a business relationship between them;

Case 1 means any case where the parties form or resolve to form a business relationship between them.

Case 1 means circumstances where a PRA-authorised person is the UK parent institution required by Chapter 2 of Title 2 of Part 1 of the capital requirements regulation to comply with requirements of the regulation on a consolidated basis, other than circumstances falling within Case 3;

Examples of Case 1 in a sentence

• The cost or credit to the Owner from a change in the Work shall be determined in one or more of the following ways: Case 1.

• Case 1- The index goes up• An investor sells the Nifty Option described above before expiry:Suppose the Nifty index moves up to 3600 in the spot market and the premium has moved to Rs 200 and there are 15 days more left for the expiry.

• Case 1- The index goes up• An investor sells the Nifty Option described above before expiry:Suppose the Nifty 50 Index moves up to 3600 in the spot market and the premium has moved to Rs 200 and there are 15 days more left for the expiry.

• In two further organizations (Case 1 and 3), additional participants (e.g. general manager, waste coordinator, finance manager) were recruited following recommendation from their colleagues.

• Case 1- The index goes upo An investor sells the Nifty Option described above before expiry:Suppose the Nifty index moves up to 3600 in the spot market and the premium has moved to Rs 200 and there are 15 days more left for the expiry.

More Definitions of Case 1

Case 1. The sender Pl was corrupted by A (before delivering lockl);

Case 1. Case 2", "Case 3", "Case 4", "Case 5", "Case 6", "Case 7" and "Line of Credit Fee", by substituting the following definitions in lieu thereof and by adding the terms "Motor Sports Division", "Motor Sports Division Report", "Second Amendment", and "Second Amendment Closing Date", and the following definitions thereof, each in the appropriate alphabetical order:

Case 1 the test session has a matching session S S

Case 1. If the value vl returned by RC[⟨id, l⟩] is valid, then output the value. • Case 2: If the value vl returned by RC[⟨id, l⟩] is not valid, the parties will go back to the elect-ID phase to execute MVBAunder[⟨id, k + 1⟩], until a valid value will be decided. Now, we prove that the honest parties would terminate in expected constant time, except with negligible probability. Due to the quality properties of the MVBA, the probability that ⟨l, lockl⟩ was proposed by the adversary is at most 1/2 for each MVBAunder instance with different identifi- cation ⟨id, k⟩. In addition, due to the recast-ability of APDB, whenever MVBAunder[⟨id, k⟩]’s output Σ ⟨l, lockl⟩ was not proposed by the adversary, a valid value can be collectively recovered by all honest parties due to RC[⟨id, l⟩]. So the probability that an externally valid vl is recover after invoking each MVBAunder[⟨id, k⟩] is at least p = 1/2. Let the event Ek represent that the protocol does not terminate when MVBAunder[ id, k ] has been invoked for k times, so the probability of the event Ek, Pr[Ek] (1 p)k. It is clear to see Pr[Ek] (1 p)k 0 when k , so the protocol eventually halts. Moreover, let K to be the random variable that the protocol just terminates when k = K, so E[K] ≤ ∞K=1 K(1−p)K−1p = 1/p = 2, indicating the protocol is expected to terminate after sequentially invoking MVBAunder[⟨id, k⟩] twice.

Case 1. We assume that no critical Conf/Deny query occurred, and therefore no incon- sistency in the way B responded to Conf/Deny queries could have occurred. In this case, with probability at least η/(µ1ρ), E’s output would have been (XI∗, m∗, σ∗) = (XJ , mj, σj). In addition, E would not have made a USign query on XJ , mj, and would not have made a Corrupt query on XJ , so B would have not have aborted during the simulation. In this case, B solves the CDH problem if β = 0 and (XI∗, m∗, σ∗) = (XJ , mj, σj), which occurs with probability at least η/(2µ1ρ) and in time τ .

Case 1. A capital increase before July 31, 2003 (a) If on July 31, 2003, at the latest, the Company reports a definitive cash increase in the Company's capital to the benefit of one or several Third Parties (as defined below in Article 5.1.2 (b)) of a minimum amount of (Euro)1,000,000, including the issue premium (hereafter, the "Minimum Amount"), (hereafter, the "Transaction"), then: P = p(1-d) Where:

Case 1 means that K > KL,1 while ”case 2” means that K ≤ KL,1.