Sentences with phrase «year limitation period at»

The court is also able to extend the basic three - year limitation period at their discretion if the legal time limit period has expired.

Not exact matches

In the event of an ownership change, utilization of our pre-change NOLs would be subject to annual limitation under Section 382 determined by multiplying the value of our stock at the time of the ownership change by the applicable long - term tax - exempt rate, increased in the five - year period following such ownership change by «recognized built - in gains» under certain circumstances.

Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied by forward - looking statements based on a number of factors, including, without limitation: (1) risks related to the consummation of the Merger, including the risks that (a) the Merger may not be consummated within the anticipated time period, or at all, (b) the parties may fail to obtain shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement, (c) the parties may fail to secure the termination or expiration of any waiting period applicable under the HSR Act, (d) other conditions to the consummation of the Merger under the Merger Agreement may not be satisfied, (e) all or part of Arby's financing may not become available, and (f) the significant limitations on remedies contained in the Merger Agreement may limit or entirely prevent BWW from specifically enforcing Arby's obligations under the Merger Agreement or recovering damages for any breach by Arby's; (2) the effects that any termination of the Merger Agreement may have on BWW or its business, including the risks that (a) BWW's stock price may decline significantly if the Merger is not completed, (b) the Merger Agreement may be terminated in circumstances requiring BWW to pay Arby's a termination fee of $ 74 million, or (c) the circumstances of the termination, including the possible imposition of a 12 - month tail period during which the termination fee could be payable upon certain subsequent transactions, may have a chilling effect on alternatives to the Merger; (3) the effects that the announcement or pendency of the Merger may have on BWW and its business, including the risks that as a result (a) BWW's business, operating results or stock price may suffer, (b) BWW's current plans and operations may be disrupted, (c) BWW's ability to retain or recruit key employees may be adversely affected, (d) BWW's business relationships (including, customers, franchisees and suppliers) may be adversely affected, or (e) BWW's management's or employees» attention may be diverted from other important matters; (4) the effect of limitations that the Merger Agreement places on BWW's ability to operate its business, return capital to shareholders or engage in alternative transactions; (5) the nature, cost and outcome of pending and future litigation and other legal proceedings, including any such proceedings related to the Merger and instituted against BWW and others; (6) the risk that the Merger and related transactions may involve unexpected costs, liabilities or delays; (7) other economic, business, competitive, legal, regulatory, and / or tax factors; and (8) other factors described under the heading «Risk Factors» in Part I, Item 1A of BWW's Annual Report on Form 10 - K for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, as updated or supplemented by subsequent reports that BWW has filed or files with the SEC.

Louisiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Ohio have longer limitation periods at 10 years.

You're looking at two years limitations period and then essentially you can move on and not worry about these debts.

In general, an ownership change occurs when, as of any testing date, the aggregate of the increase in percentage points is more than 50 percentage points of the total amount of a corporation's stock owned by «5 - percent stockholders,» within the meaning of the NOLs limitations, whose percentage ownership of the stock has increased as of such date over the lowest percentage of the stock owned by each such «5 - percent stockholder» at any time during the three - year period preceding such date.

Paper J notes that the anthropogenic effect on sea level rise in one region of the world (the Pacific Ocean) over one period of time (1993 - 2013) is too small to detect at a statistically significant level due to factors such as: a) small sample size (only 20 years), b) the effect of control variables (such as the IPO), c) limitations of satellite altimetry measurement, the technique being used to measure sea level in paper H. Paper K offers a contrasting account of paper J, noting that part of the Pacific sea level rise is anthropogenic.

Dwyidag argued that limitation period had expired, at the latest, in March 2008, two years after the final purchase agreement of March 2006, and five months before Garford issued its claim.

Before the reforms, a similar 2 - year limitation period applied to all claims at the CICB.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, joined by MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, agreed only with that part of the plurality opinion relating to the limitation of federal interest in the facilities to 20 years, concluding that a reversion of a facility at the end of that period to a parochial school would be unconstitutional as a gift of taxpayers» funds.

The question for the Court was therefore: when did the two - year limitation period begin to run, on the date of loss or at some later date?

Lawyers for Day pointed out that if the 407 is entitled to rely on the limitation period of 15 years set forth in the Transponder Lease Agreement and not commence a claim for 15 years, Day would be liable to pay the 407 ETR $ 289,444.45 on a principal balance of $ 9,808, given the interest would be accumulating at the compounded rate of 26.82 per cent.

LAWPRO has learned that at least one large disability insurer is amending and simplifying its policy wording to provide for a one - year limitation period computed:

It may in certain circumstances extend the normal two - year limitation period where an injured person did not know the full extent of their injury at the time of the accident.

The burden is on the claimant to demonstrate that the limitation period did not start to run until at least two years before the action was brought.

The applicable limitation period in this case is two years, established by s. 3 (2)(a) of the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, the statute that was in force atlimitation period in this case is two years, established by s. 3 (2)(a) of the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, the statute that was in force atLimitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, the statute that was in force at the time.

In Ontario, there is a basic 2 year limitation period, subject to certain limited exceptions that were not at play in this case.

In any such case, if the person entitled to bring the action was at the time the personal injury, death, or property damage occurred under the age of 18 years, under legal disability, or imprisoned on criminal charges and the claim is not against the Illinois Department of Corrections or any past or present employee, the limitation period does not begin to run until the person reaches the age of 18, the disability is removed, or the person ceases to be imprisoned.

Accordingly, it was found that the primary six - year limitation period in tort began to run at that point, and had expired before the claim was issued in March 2015.

Based on the factums submitted to the SCC, the appellant (Yugraneft) is arguing that international arbitral awards should be considered, at least for enforcement purposes, equivalent to foreign judgments, and, as such, should benefit from the 10 - year limitation period under s. 11 of the Alberta Limitations Act.

The loan is amortized over a much longer time period such as 15 or 30 years (i.e., payments are set so that the entire loan would be paid off after 15 or 30 years of equal monthly payments) at a fixed or limited interest rate, and after 5 years, the loan automatically converts to a variable interest rate loan or limitations on the amount by which an already variable interest rate loan can vary are lifted.

Courts have authority to consider new evidence of actual innocence without regard to the statutory one - year limitation period for newly discovered evidence, and that the standard for granting a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence should not be a strict «outcome - determinative» test, at least where the state relied at trial upon facts that turned out to be false.

At that time, few would have predicted that the most troublesome and litigated section in Part XXIII.1 would be the section (s. 138.14) that created a seemingly simple three year limitation period after a public company's alleged misrepresentation was released within which to advance claims.

Please note that you have a two - year limitation period after the accident to commence a lawsuit against the at - fault driver for compensation for injuries.

Pursuant to section 24 (1) of the Limitation Act 1980, the limitation period to commence a claim to enforce a foreign judgment at common law is six years from the date of the foreign judgment sought to be recognised andLimitation Act 1980, the limitation period to commence a claim to enforce a foreign judgment at common law is six years from the date of the foreign judgment sought to be recognised andlimitation period to commence a claim to enforce a foreign judgment at common law is six years from the date of the foreign judgment sought to be recognised and enforced.

At issue is whether and to what extent a laches defense may bar a claim for damages in patent infringement brought within the Patent Act's six - year statutory limitations period, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in «Petrella v. Metro - Goldwyn - Mayer,» 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014)(the so - called «Raging Bull» case, so named because the lawsuit involved copyright issues surrounding the script for the 1980 Martin Scorsese film).

The statutory claim is also subject to a three - year limitation period, found at s. 138.14 (1) of the OSA.

The High Court decision follows hard on the heals of the House of Lords» decision [2008] UKHL 6; [2008] 2 WLR 311, [2008] 2 All ER 1, of 30 January 2008, where the law lords effectively changed the law, (reversing a previous House of Lords» ruling in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, 1993] 1 All ER 322, which held that claims arising from intentional assaults were governed by s 2 of LA 1980), and held that an intentional assault fell within LA 1980, s 11, and was therefore subject to a three - year limitation period, which could be extended by reference to knowledge (s 14), or at the court's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the court.

The general limitation period for many types of injury cases was set at 2 years from the date of loss or denial (this is general and you should not rely on it without speaking with a lawyer).

The general limitation period for many types of injury cases was set at 2 years from the date of loss or denial (t...

A significant suggestion is that the limitation period for personal injury claims be reduced to one year (at the moment the limitation period is two years).

The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment motion decision and argued that a six - year limitation period was applicable notwithstanding that they had conceded at the motion that the applicable limitation period was two years.

Response: We established the retention period at six years because this is the statute of limitations for the civil monetary penalties.

We require covered entities to retain any documentation required under this rule for at least six years (the statute of limitations period for the civil penalties) from the date of the creation of the documentation, or the date when the document was last in effect, which ever is later.