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 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;
Case 1 means any case where the parties form or resolve to form a business relationship between them.
Examples of Case 1 in a sentence
Case 1 — Aggregate actual flow on the JK interface (at Waldwick) or the ABC interface (at Farragut and Goethals) is higher or lower than RTMDF, but within the bandwidth.
Case 1: The unit costs for efficiency energy measures covers subcontracting costs related to the energy efficiency measures.
Case 2 – Reference Index: If a reference index is provided, funds will be invested as in Case 1, however the amount of funds invested in Elm’s asset allocation upon each rebalancing will be adjusted by an amount equal to 1 + M*(S0 / St – 1), where S0 is the chosen reference index level, St, is the reference index at the time of the rebalancing, and M is the chosen Speed Multiplier.
The cases without the SPS (Case 1) and with the SPS (Case 2) are described in Section 3.4.
The cases without the Project (Case 1) and with the Project (Case 2) are described in Section 3.4.
More Definitions of Case 1
Case 1. ABA[ id, l ] returns 1 to all. According to the recast-ability properties of APDB, the RC[ id, l ] instance will terminate and recover a same value to all. The recast value can be valid and satisfy the global Predicate, then this value will be decided as output by all parties. ⟨ ⟩ ⟨ ⟩
Case 1. The sender Pl was corrupted by A (before delivering lockl);
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 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. Σ ≤ − ≤ − → → ∞
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. This reservation agreement is subject to the condition precedent of obtaining the loan / loans referred to above. This condition precedent shall be deemed to have been fulfilled upon the submission by the requested financial institution/institutions of one or more regular loan offers corresponding to the aforementioned characteristics. In the case where the GRANTEE is refused the loan/loans specified in this clause, which he must prove by a letter from the lender/lenders, he shall notify the GRANTOR, within 8 days of that information, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. The GRANTOR shall then regain the freedom to dispose of the property subject to this agreement. If the amount of the loans is lower than the requested loan amount, the purchaser may waive this condition precedent, by writing by hand the note referred to in Article L 312-17 of the French Consumer Code. If the purchaser intends to waive this condition precedent, he must notify the seller and write by hand the note referred to in Article L 312-7 of the French Consumer Code. The GRANTOR informs the GRANTEE that his first-ranking seller’s preferential right may only be assigned to the financial institutions if the PURCHASER’s own funds are used to pay for the initial calls for funds, prior to the release of the loan/loans, and if the financial institutions agree to release, unconditionally and simply upon presentation of the calls for funds, all the funds borrowed to the SELLER. Similarly, the SELLER’s rescissory action shall only be waived as from the release in full of the purchaser’s own funds to the seller. As an essential condition of the reservation, the GRANTOR and the GRANTEE agree that: