First - chaired the successful defense of a chemical trading company sued
for the alleged deficiencies in the shipment of benzene in an international arbitration proceeding
Not exact matches
Lactose - free dairy products were presented as the best (and sometimes, only) choice
for individuals with lactose intolerance in order to «prevent nutrient
deficiencies» and confer
alleged benefits of dairy, such as weight loss and reduced risk of heart disease and diabetes (these claims were not referenced).
After all, people in third world countries (who eat plant - based diets out of necessity) as well as people in developed countries (who favor them
for alleged health benefits or because of vegetarianism beliefs), often develop serious phytate - induced mineral
deficiencies.
The same things they have done
for years — including offering special training to women to account
for the
alleged skill
deficiencies that keep them from moving up in their firms.
As reported in the written decision of the Law Society Hearing Panel (which decision is under appeal by the applicant), the applicant threatened to sue the other board members
for defamation after he was removed as President of the condo corporation and a notice of his removal was posted; circulated a letter (under a false name) on some floors within the building that falsely stated that some of the board members had previously gone bankrupt, had criminal convictions and were accepting bribes and free meals from the developer of the condominium to settle
deficiencies with the developer; made a derogatory remark about some of the residents based on their ethnicity; threatened to report some of the directors to US / Canada border officials, falsely
alleging that they were drug smugglers; threatened both the corporation's property manager and security services firm that their contracts with the condo corporation would be in jeopardy if they did not provide a character letter to the applicant.
It is not appropriate to draw the judge's attention to the
alleged deficiency by way of an application
for permission to appeal.
The basis
for the procedural review is limited to
alleged procedural
deficiencies or other irregularities the appellant believes constitute a deprivation of due process (e.g., fraud, coercion, bias, prejudice, evident partiality, etc.).
The decision of the Hearing Panel will be final, except that either party may file a request
for procedural review of the decision to the NAR Board of Directors based only on
alleged procedural
deficiencies or other irregularities the party believes constitutes a deprivation of due process.