Examples of DC Rules in a sentence
The DC Rules may be amended by a Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee in accordance with the DC Rules.
A Successor is determined for the purposes of the Notes if, on or following the Issue Date, ISDA publicly announces that a Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee has Resolved a Successor to a Reference Entity in accordance with the DC Rules, since the Issue Date, there has been no material change to the DC Rules in relation to the determination of Successors which in the opinion of the Calculation Agent would materially adversely affect the interests of Noteholders and/or the Issuer under the Notes.
The procedures of the Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees are set out in the DC Rules.
The Drugs Controller General (I) & Central License Approving authority vested with the powers under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 85 of D&C Rules, suspended the whole licence bearing number 12 in form 28D held by Pasteur Institute of India, Coonoor vide their letter No.X- 11026/1/06 D dated 15th January, 2008.
Any criminal behavior that would bring sanctions under the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility or the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct violates the Honor System.
It does not include the right to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater,60 utter so-called fighting words, 61 publish obscene materials, 62 or publish information about troop movements during wartime.63 So, too, for speech that constitutes harassment, which long has been forbidden in the context of employment by federal law,64 District of Columbia law, 65 and Rule 9.1 of the D.C. Rules.
The current absence in the D.C. Rules of a proscription on discrimination and harassment in the legal profession stands in stark contrast to Rule 2.3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the District of Columbia Courts which provides as follows: Rule 2.3. Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment.
However, the Committee recommends a handful of changes to the D.C. Rules as explained and set forth below.
The Committee agreed that most of the changes made to the ABA Model Rules on technology on recommendation of the Ethics 20/20 Commission were unnecessary in the District of Columbia because the specific issues were already addressed in the D.C. Rules.
The Committee concluded that the current approach to this issue under the D.C. Rules as explained in Legal Ethics Opinion 312 (Information That May Be Appropriately Provided to Check Conflicts When a Lawyer Seeks to Join a New Firm) is sufficient and that a new exception to Rule 1.6 is not advisable.