Sentences with phrase «equity law requires»

Not exact matches

Deutsche Bank and / or its affiliate (s) owns one percent or more of any class of common equity securities of this company calculated under computational methods required by US law.

The Company's issuance of shares of common stock, including the additional shares that will be authorized if the proposal is adopted, may dilute the equity ownership position of current holders of common stock and may be made without stockholder approval, unless otherwise required by applicable laws or NYSE regulations.

Furthermore, the rules governing companies listed on the NYSE and incorporated under Delaware law require us to submit certain matters to a vote of shareholders for approval, such as mergers, large share issuances or similar transactions, and the approval of equity - based compensation plans.

The pay equity policy, pushed by Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz, is intended to make sure that companies receiving tax breaks through the Erie County IDA are complying with existing laws requiring that men and women receive equal pay for similar work.

They also claim that the city's Department of Education doesn't hold the charter chain accountable and fails to abide by state education law requiring equity in capital spending at co-located district and charter schools.

25.6.3 in any matter that involves any of the foregoing claims, for resolution or decision of any question of fact or law required to resolve such claim, including, but not limited to, questions required to decide or rule with respect to the infringement, misappropriation, validity, enforceability or ownership of any copyright, patent, trade secret, trademark, service mark or trade dress or with respect to any remedy or relief at law or in equity for any such infringement or misappropriation or for any violation of such Sections 1201 and / or 1202.

The new initiative, called «Excellent Educators for All,» aims to bring states into compliance with a teacher equity mandate in the No Child Left Behind Act, the George W. Bush - era law that requires states to reward and punish schools based on standardized test scores.

Leadership for Educational Equity may share your Personally Identifiable Information with various government authorities in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process; to establish or exercise our legal rights or to protect our property; to defend against legal claims; or as otherwise required by law.

* Assure a stronger focus on equity by (a) asking states not just about the amount of funding in education, but also about the fairness of its distribution to high - and low - poverty and high - and low - minority districts and schools, and (b) asking states to document their efforts (required under federal law) to address gaps in teacher quality between high - and low - poverty and high - and low - minority schools.

However, the law requires districts to include certain practices, such as relying on multiple objective measures in placement decisions, using student performance data to ensure equity and efficacy, and ensuring the consistency of placement policies between elementary and high school districts.

At issue in the case is whether the State's public education finance system meets the adequacy and equity standards required by the Connecticut Constitution (PROPOSED STATEMENT OF FACTS, Plaintiffs» Preliminary Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, January 5.

In a 1992 decision, the Supreme Court allowed a more expansive reading of the law, a decision that has been interpreted as requiring districts to eliminate racial disparities in discipline and to seek equity in academic achievement.

State and local permits «The provision of credit assistance under this chapter with respect to a project shall not» (1) relieve any recipient of the assistance of any obligation to obtain any required State or local permit or approval with respect to the project;» (2) limit the right of any unit of State or local government to approve or regulate any rate of return on private equity invested in the project; or» (3) otherwise supersede any State or local law (including any regulation) applicable to the construction or operation of the project.»

Texas law requires a minimum 12 calendar day waiting period from the time the written application and the Texas Home Equity Loan Disclosures are received to the day you can close.

Citizens Equity First Credit Union («CEFCU») and its wholly - owned subsidiary, CEFCU Financial Services ®, Inc., are committed to keeping personal financial information about you, your accounts, and your transactions confidential as required by federal and state laws.

This would be a common scenario (federal law requires investors to have at least 50 % of their margin equity when opening a transaction).

As a safeguard, a 12 - day cooling - off period is required by Texas law before Home Equity Loans or HELOCs may be closed.

As a safeguard, a 12 - day cooling off period is required by Texas law before Home Equity Loans may be closed.

Home equity line of credit products are tied to your home, so by law, they are required to have a cap on how high the interest rate can climb over the term of the line of credit.

If you have less than 20 % down or equity, make sure they include PMI in the APR (as required by law).

Federal Truth in Lending Act — This law requires lenders to inform a borrower about the terms of a loan, including a home equity loan, at the time a borrower is given an application.

Lenders have also purchased this insurance to cover mortgages on homes worth more than $ 1 - million (by law you're required to put down more than 20 % on homes valued at $ 1 - million or more) or for mortgages where the buyer's equity is greater than 20 %.

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

In the absence of a court adjudicating what equity requires of nations in setting their national climate change commitments, a possibility but far from a guarantee under existing international and national law (for an explanation of some of the litigation issues, Buiti, 2011), the best hope for encouraging nations to improve the ambition of their national emissions reductions commitments on the basis of equity and justice is the creation of a mechanism under the UNFCCC that requires nations to explain their how they quantitatively took equity into account in establishing their INDCs and why their INDC is consistent with the nation's ethical obligations to people who are most vulnerable to climate change and the above principles of international law.

How do we handle the difference if equity demands disparate treatment and the law may require identical treatment?

As well, law firms are required to have employment equity policies and report their statistics on gender, visible minorities, aboriginals, disabled people, and others to the NSBS if they want to work for the provincial government.

In some law firms, nonequity partnership is a required interim step to full equity partnership.

They include: (1) regulatory law and enforcement work, because industries from banking to private equity funds to large oil companies will likely be targets of the new administration, while health insurance companies will be subject to heightened regulation; (2) litigation, because a Democratic administration will probably push back tort reform measures, giving rise to more lawsuits; (3) «green» law, i.e., representing companies that deal in green technology, whose growth will be stimulated by likely tax incentives as well as a cap and trade system; and (4) real estate, because the bailout legislation will most likely require banks availing themselves of the benefits to begin issuing mortgages again.

For those who haven't been following it, Vancouver - based equity partner John Michael McCormick sued Faskens under B.C. human rights law because the partnership agreement required him to retire at 65, which is common among law firms.

In particular we think that these types of cases — which all involve informal arrangements which lawyers (and judges) must slot in to pre-existing conceptual categories (or create new ones, recall for example, Justice Denning's judgment in Errington v Errington, [1952] 1 KB 290)-- require a more careful analysis of the legal relationships between the parties in both law and equity.

Among the prevailing themes is the idea that remaking law firms will require greater reverence and respect for law firm personnel who aren't equity or income partner lawyers.

To the contrary, those about to embark upon that journey confront: (1) the daunting cost of law school; (2) an average of $ 120K debt for attending; (3) a job market where, nationally, close to half of all graduates do not have Bar - required employment nine months after graduation; (4) a widespread market perception that law school graduates — even those from elite schools — lack «practice ready» skills; (5) cut - backs in hiring newly minted lawyers — even among many stalwart law firms; (6) an erosion of mentorship due in part to pressure on senior lawyers to «produce» more (7) the unlikelihood of making (equity) partner; (8) instability of law firms; (9) global competition; (10) technology companies creating products that replace services; and (11) a blizzard of negative press trumpeting the glum prospects for the profession; and (12) alternative career choices — finance, accounting, technology, etc. — that portend greener pastures and do not require the same time and financial commitment to prepare for entry.

PMI is required of borrowers, but under certain state laws, it can be canceled if your home's equity has appreciated and you owe less than the 80 % of its value in your mortgage loan.

But to what extent could good faith require regard for considerations beyond «hard law», such as justice and equity?

Most state laws require a home's equity to be determined by appraisal as part of the divorce process.

But Kaiser Health News said the court's decision did not override state «contraceptive equity» laws that require most employers whose health insurance covers prescription drugs to also cover contraceptives as part of that package.

It is on this basis, that I would argue that policy making processes based on consultation alone do not satisfy the principles of equality, equity and effective participation required under international law.

Policy making processes based on consultation alone do not satisfy the principles of equality, equity and effective participation required under international law.

Policy making processes that are based on consultation alone do not satisfy the principles of equality, equity and effective participation required under international law.

I am not sure if it is law in the state of Texas, however your larger banks (i.e. Chase, BBVACompass, etc) will require that you have Homestead Exemption on the property in which the Home Equity Line of Credit is secured by.

If WA law allowed a condo developer to collect 10 to 15 - percent of the purchase price and then pledge those deposits to the construction lender, more lenders would be willing to fund condo developments and more developers would be able to raise the balance of the equity required to build.

When your loan balance declines to 78 percent — your equity is 22 percent — your loan servicer is required by federal law to terminate premium payments.