Introduction Clausole campione

Introduction. This document constitutes a base prospectus pursuant to Article 5, paragraph (4) of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 as amended from time to time (the "Prospectus Directive") and as implemented into German law by § 6 of the German Securities Prospectus Act (tÉêíé~éáÉêéêçëéÉâíÖÉëÉíò Ó "WpPG") in connection with Regulation (EC) No. 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 as amended from time to time (the "Base Prospectus" or the "Prospectus"). The subject matter of the Base Prospectus is the issuance of or the increase of issued Constant Leverage Certificates (the "Securities") which either will be publicly offered or will be placed in application of an exceptional case pursuant to § 3 paragraph 2 WpPG and at the same time admitted to trading on a regulated market. The Issuer has made an application for approval of the Base Prospectus to the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (_ìåÇÉë~åëí~äí ÑΩê cáå~åòÇáÉåëíäÉáëíìåÖë~ìÑëáÅÜí – "BaFin") as competent authority. The BaFin approved the Base Prospectus after completing a review of this document for completeness, including a review of the coherence and comprehensibility of the information provided pursuant to § 13 paragraph 1 sentence 2 WpPG. Following the date of approval of the Base Prospectus, events and changes may occur, which render the information contained in the Base Prospectus incorrect and/or incomplete. The Issuer will publish a supplement to the Base Prospectus in accordance with § 16 WpPG in case of a significant new factor or a material mistake or inaccuracy with respect to the information contained in the Base Prospectus. In order to be able to conduct a public offer and/or a listing of the Securities on a regulated market (within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004) in Italy, the Issuer has applied for the notification of the Base Prospectus into Italy pursuant to §§ 17, 18 WpPG. The Issuer reserves the right to apply for the notification of the Base Prospectus into further member states of the European Economic Area. The Base Prospectus must be read in connection with the information contained in (i) the registration document of the Issuer and the registration document of the Guarantor which are incorporated by reference into the Base Prospectus (see chapter XIII. on page 187 of the Base Prospectus), (ii) the respective final terms of the offer as drawn up in connection with the Securities (t...

Introduction. No-one should purchase the Securities without having detailed knowledge of their method of operation, the total costs involved and the related risk factors. Only those who are in no doubt about the risks and are financially able to bear the losses that may be associated with them should purchase these types of Securities. Potential investors should therefore carefully read the whole Base Prospectus, in particular the risk factors including any supplements thereto as well as the respective Final Terms, understand the terms and conditions of the issue in detail and assess the suitability of the relevant investment, in each case taking into account their own financial, tax and other circumstances. In cases of doubt potential investors should seek advice by a competent investment, legal or tax advisor.

Introduction. The company VitalAire Italia S.p.A. with registered office in Milan, Via Bisceglie, no. 66, VAT Code 02061610792 and headquarters in Xxxxxx (XX), Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxx X0, Xxx xxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, 0 (hereinafter, the "Company"), in its capacity of data controller, informs you that the personal data of the data subject (in the case of a natural person or a sole proprietorship), of your employees or persons in charge, provided for the development of the negotiations relating to the agreement to which this notice is annexed (hereinafter the "Agreement") between the Company and the counterparty of the Agreement (hereinafter, the "Supplier") and in the course of the execution of the same and of the activities related to the same (hereinafter the "Personal Data", while the individuals to whom the personal data refer are defined below the "Data Subjects"), will be processed in accordance with this notice on the processing of Personal Data and within the meaning of the Legislative Decree No. 196/2003 (the "Privacy Code") and of the European Regulation No. 679/2016 concerning the protection of the personal data (the "European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)"). The Company is the data controller in relation to the processing of the Personal Data.

Introduction. This manual has been prepared with the scope of supplying all the instructions required for the correct use of the appliance and to maintain it in optimal condition. It also contains important user safety information. The following professional roles are explained in order to define the responsibilities of each:

Introduction. These General Conditions (unless otherwise established pursuant to express written agreement signed between the parties) shall govern the parties’ obligations pursuant to any contractual agreements stipulated between the Customer (Principal of the Shipment) and the Freight Forwarder BOLLORE’ Logistics Italy Spa. The parties therefore acknowledge and accept that any single "Shipping Order" by the Principal, as well as any "Quotation" by Freight Forwarder are strictly subject to the application of these General Terms and Conditions. The Principal therefore expressly accepts that the present General Conditions find full and immediate application to all contractual relationships arising with the Freight Forwarder Bolloré Logistics Italy, as well as all actions and / or claims that could be exercised against this latter.

Introduction. A contract is a binding agreement stipulated between two or more parties, which dictates their rights and their duties, and the penalties each party has to pay in case the contract is not honoured. In the current practice of information technology, contracts are not that different from those legal agreements traditionally enforced in courts of law. Both software and services commit themselves to re- spect some (typically weak, if not “without any expressed or implied warranty”) service level agreement. In the case this is not honoured, the only thing the user can do is to take legal steps against the software vendor or service provider. Since legal disputes may require a lot of time, as well as relevant expenses, such kinds of contracts serve more as an instrument to discourage users, rather than making easier for users to demand their rights. Recent research has then addressed the problem of devising new kinds of contracts, to be exploited for specifying and automatically regulating the interaction among users and service providers. See e.g. [6, 8, 11, 13, 20], to cite a few. A contract subordinates the behaviour promised by a client (e.g. “I will pay for a service X”) to the behaviour promised by a service (e.g. “I will provide you with a service Y”), and vice versa. The crucial problems are then how to formalise the concept of contract, how to understand when a set of contracts gives rise to an agreement among the stipulating parties, and how to actually enforce this agreement in an open, and possibly unreliable, environment. In the Concurrent Constraint Programming (CCP) paradigm [23, 24], concurrent processes commu- nicate through a global constraint store. A process can add a constraint c to the store through the tell c primitive. Dually, the primitive ask c makes a process block until the constraint c is entailed by the store. Very roughly, such primitives may be used to model two basic operations on contracts: a tell c is for publishing the contract c, and an ask c′ is for waiting until one has to fulfill some duty c′. While this may suggest CCP as a good candidate for modelling contract-based interactions, some important features seem to be missing. Consider e.g. a set of parties, each offering her own contract. When some of the contracts at hand give rise to an agreement, all the involved parties accept the contract, and start interacting to accomplish it. A third party (possibly, an “electronic” court of law) may later on join these parties, so ...

Introduction. The deterioration of public finance and the increase in global competition have forced governments and public institutions to obtain “the best value for money” through the purchase of goods, works and services in the form of procurement contracts. Efficient public procurement contracts (henceforth PPCs) are thus emerging as a “core necessity for ... the public’s sector effectiveness in obtain- ing resources for social spending and/or lower taxes” (Xxxxxxx et al., 2006). These contracts have recently recorded a rapid increase both in number and in value, reaching 16% of GDP in the EU, and around 20% in the United States.1 However, PPCs have both costs and benefits: their benefits (i.e. allocative and productive efficiency) can be quickly erased by the costs (i.e. inefficiency) which often arise from contractual incompleteness and all the issues that ensue therefrom.2 In this paper we specifically address the source of inefficiency which pertains to delays in PPC execution times3 by investigating the optimal penalty design which should provide the right incentive to prevent delays. Indeed, delays in de- livery dates in PPCs may negatively affect all the actors involved, i.e. they may determine direct costs for the procurer, lower firms’ profits (i.e. firms other than the contractor) and reduce consumers’ utility. The typical illustrative example in this regard is provided by a PPC for roadway resurfacing, rehabilitation and restoration: if these activities are undertaken in heavily urbanized areas, they may cause extreme traffic congestion and severe inconvenience to the travelling public and the business community. Thus, delays in the completion of these works prolong the negative impact on users (i.e. a social cost), and also cause overruns in the planned execution costs.4 There is evidence that delays in delivery dates have been particularly large and harmful in the recent Italian experience of PPCs. The data-base compiled by the Italian Authority in charge of controlling PPCs (Autorità per la Vigi- xxxxx xxx Contratti Pubblici di Lavori, Servizi e Forniture - AVLP ) records all contracts of a value between 150,000 and 15,000,000 euros awarded by munic- 1 Note that between 1995 and 2002 PPCs in the EU underwent a 31% increase in value (Xxxxxxx, et al., 2006: Ch. 1). See also: xxxx://xxxxxx.xx.xxx/xxxx/xxxxxxxx_xxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxx_xx.xxx 2 The economic and engineering literatures give different explanations for the main issues arising in PPCs. M...

Introduction. GAM Multistock (the “Company”, “GAM Multistock”) is established as a “société d'investissement à capital variable” (SICAV) in accordance with the current version of the law of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg dated August 10, 1915 (“the 1915 Law“), and authorised as an undertaking for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS) under Part I of the law dated December 17, 2010 (“the 2010 Law”). The Company has an “umbrella structure”, which allows subfunds (“Subfunds”) to be established which correspond to different investment portfolios and which can be issued in different categories of shares. The Board of Directors of the Company is authorised to issue shares (“Shares“) without par value in various investment portfolios (“Subfunds”) relating to the Subfunds described in the section ”Investment objectives and policy”, and, as noted in the section “Description of Shares“, share categories (“Share Category”) with different characteristics may be issued for each Subfund. The price of the Shares is denominated in the same accounting currency of the Subfund or, as applicable, the currency of the Share Category in question. As described in the section “Issue of Shares / Application procedure”, a selling fee of up to 5% may be charged in addition to the Issue Price.

Introduction. 1.1 The Audit Wales report, “Rough Sleeping in Wales – Everyone’s Problem; No One’s Responsibility”, published in July 2020 looked at how public bodies can help to end people sleeping rough in Wales. The Audit Office examined how public bodies are responding to and addressing wicked issues using people sleeping rough as a tracer. They selected rough sleeping as their focus because rough sleeping is not simply a homelessness problem and cannot be treated as such. 1.2 The Audit Office have stated that too often individuals are helped off the streets and into temporary accommodation, but do not get the support needed to address the root causes of their initial homelessness and often end up back where they started. To end rough sleeping, solutions need to address both accommodation and support needs, and requires many public bodies – for example, councils, the Police, health bodies, housing associations, the National Probation Service and others – to change how they work and what they do to tackle rough sleeping. Therefore the Audit Office have concluded that as statutory multi-agency boards, Public Service Boards are well placed to coordinate and drive these changes through their well-being assessments and plans. 1.3 The report concluded that whilst the statutory responsibility for addressing rough sleeping rests with the local housing authority, it requires other services and organisations to play their part. In particular it found that: • The number of people sleeping rough is not widespread but they have complex needs and are often traumatised. • Welsh Government has prioritised action in reducing rough sleeping but until recently strategic responses were too focused on housing and often overlooked the role of partners • Operational services for people sleeping rough have not been sufficiently integrated and joined up • Money is wasted because public bodies react to rather than prevent rough sleeping • Covid19 provides public bodies with an opportunity to fundamentally change how they work together to address rough sleeping 1.4 The report has set out two broad recommendations: i. Recommendation 1: That public bodies and third sector partners should ensure they use data to plan the right future services, and to put in place effective data sharing protocols to ensure they respond effectively and safely to people sleeping rough. ii. Recommendation 2: that public bodies use the complex needs self- reflection tool to improve how they can jointly address complex...

Introduction. Starting from bitcoin’s inception in 2009 the term “cryptocurrency” has been widely adopted to describe a different type of money in relation to classic “fiat” currencies (on printed papers). Taking advantage of a distributed environment and a security mechanism enforced by cryptography bitcoin started a new age of services for economics and transactions over the internet, edging with a new payment model for money transfers that set off many banks, companies and governments. The 2016 has been a great year for blockchain-based technologies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, the innovation introduced with distributed ledgers, led more and more start-ups, companies, researchers and common people (even non-tech ones) to experiment on it, testing, employing and starting to use it as an alternate way of carrying out their own business model. However, understanding the needs and complexities beyond a distributed ledger and the new platforms built on top of it is not an easy task. To get ahead of all this and in order to grasp this tech’s momentum we first have to go back a few years into blockchain’s background and analyze its history. This chapter will be a guide throughout all the available data on this topic and will give the reader means to understand the concepts and technicalities that will arise later in the work. In the past few years blockchain technology has spread significantly, however we couldn’t talk about blockchain while leaving out its “father”: bitcoin. In a way, they each represent a side of a single coin, the first being the main backbone data structure behind bitcoin while the latter has been the main purpose of the existence of blockchain itself. In order to lay out the key concept behind this work we have to speak about BC1 and introduce some insight about cryptocurrencies too, however since they are not the main topic of this document these details will be given out progressively as we peer deeper into the arguments. The amount of information given on these other topics will be limited to the scope of the actual paragraph’s subject. One of the major premise in the analysis of the blockchain phenomenon is that it has arisen completely online in the network and in an anonymous fashion that prevented the majority of fact checking and investigations from both governments and individuals. After the breakout of this technology however a significant amount of research and tests have been done exploring 1 Blockchain both its technical and structural aspec...