The Dispute. 15.2.1 An FCM and or the Union who has a difference or dispute with the Company, or a dispute with respect to the interpretation of the Collective Agreement shall first discuss the matter with their supervisor with a view to achieving prompt settlement thereof. This discussion will occur as soon as reasonably possible and the process shall use the following steps:
The Dispute. In this Agreement, “
The Dispute. The opération of scheduled air services between Belgium and Ireland is governed by the bilatéral air transport agreement concluded in 1955 between the countries (3). The two governments mutually exchanged third, fourth and fifth freedom traffic rights in passengers, mail and cargo for their res pective designated national air carriers (4). s a b e n a Belgian World Airlines, cular period (usually a week) as a resuit of the payload (total number of seats and, or cargo space) of the aircraft (aircraft capacity) flown on the route and the number of flights (frequency) during that period. In order to operate economically a certain percentage of aircraft capacity must be sold. This percentage called a «reasonable load factor» is generally assumed to be around 60%. The unsold capacity below this percentage can be defined as «overcapacity». In other words overcapacity can be eut through adjusting the aircraft type or number of flights without the carrier losing actual traffic, see Xxxxx, B., The Law o f International A ir Transport, Xxx- xxx, Xxxxxxx at 411-412 (1962); Xxxxxx, J., Droit du transport aérien international, Bruxelles, Bruylant at 97 et seq. (1980); X’Xxxxxx, X ., An Introduction to Airline Economies, New York, London, Praeger Publishers at 41 (1978); Xxxxxxxxxxx, X ., Public International Air Trans portation Law in a New era, Deventer, Kluwer at 31 (1976). As the present dispute deals only with scheduled international air services, the capacity régulation of non-scheduled internatio nal air services will be left out of the further discussion. On the distinction between scheduled and non-scheduled air services, see Matte, N., Traité de droit aérien-aéronautique, Paris, Xxxxxx at 148 et seq. (1980); Merckx, A., New Trends in the International Bilatéral Régulation o f A ir Transport. 17 E.T.L. at 138 (1982).
The Dispute. On November 20, 2008, Sxxxxxx initiated an action against Metabolic, Oxxx, Bxxxxx and Qxxxxxxx by filing a Complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cxxxx County, Nevada, Case No. A576251, entitled "Dx. Xxxxx X. Summers, individually and in his derivative capacity as a shareholder of Metabolic Research Inc., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff vs. Metabolic Research, Inc., a Nevada corporation; T. X. Xxxx, an individual; Rxxxxx Xxxxxx, an individual; K. X. Xxxxxxxx, an individual; Does I-X, inclusive; Rxx Entities I-X, inclusive, Defendants" asserting certain claims as set forth in the Complaint. Defendants in turn filed various counterclaims against Sxxxxxx (the "Lawsuit").
The Dispute. A dispute has now arisen between the Parties regarding their respective duties and obligations under the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Note, including the payment of certain amounts by Radyne to Spar under the Note and certain claims by Radyne against Spar for certain offsets and credits resulting from various alleged duties owed under and breaches of the Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Dispute"). More specifically, Spar contends that Radyne owes Spar approximately $3,893,368 under the Note, that Radyne has failed to timely pay such amounts when due, and that, as a result, Radyne is in default under the terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Note. Radyne disputes that such amounts are currently due and owing. Radyne contends that it is entitled to a number of indemnity obligations and offsets against any amounts otherwise due and owing pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement and Note as a result of various breaches of the representations, warranties, and indemnities provided by Spar in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, including various matters set forth, in part, in Radyne's letter of July 6, 1999 to Spar, its letter of June 23, 1999 to Spar regarding various patent infringement and other claims by Xxxxxx Electronics Corporation, and in various other correspondence. Spar disputes such matters.
The Dispute. This Agreement is entered into with reference to a dispute between the Parties arising out of a certain investment by Pxxxxxxx in Royale Energy in the amount of one million two hundred eighty thousand dollars and no cents ($1,280,000.00) that Pxxxxxxx transferred to Royale Energy on or about July 26, 2016 (the “Dispute”).
The Dispute involves an appeal against a determination by the Tax Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal (or, for appeals lodged before 1 April 2009, a determination by the General or Special Commissioners or the VAT and Duties Tribunal) unless the Warrantor has obtained the opinion of Tax counsel of at least five years’ standing that there is a reasonable prospect that the appeal will succeed, the Buyer, the Company or the relevant Subsidiary shall have the conduct of the Dispute absolutely (without prejudice to its rights under this Tax Covenant) and shall be entitled to take such action as is reasonable in the circumstances to settle the Tax Claim.
The Dispute. Xxxxx has asserted that he has potential claims against the Company arising out of an Employment Agreement between the Company and Xxxxx made May 27, 2015 (the “Dispute”). Xxxxx is represented by Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of Xxxxxx, St. Laurent & Xxxxxxxx, LLP, in the Dispute.
The Dispute. If the arbitrator finds that the Executive was terminated in violation of law or this Agreement, the parties agree that the arbitrator acting hereunder shall be empowered to provide the Executive with any remedy available should the matter have been tried in a court, including equitable and/or legal remedies, compensatory damages and back pay. The arbitrator's fees and expenses and all administrative fees and expenses associated with the filing of the arbitration (the "Fees") shall be borne by the non-prevailing party.
The Dispute. A dispute has arisen between the Parties relating to their respective rights and obligations arising out of various business transactions including, without limitation, Simo’s service as Chief Executive Officer of Orange 21, the purchase of goods by No Fear from Spy Optic, and the purchase of goods by MX No Fear Europe from Spy Italy.
