Exxonmobil claimed that its notice of non-valuation had arrived on time because the “business closure” in London was around 7:00 p.m. .m. Leaders close to the talks said the two sides were not yet close to an agreement on a price for KLM. As such, and because the court agreed that international commercial banks carrying out repo transactions would close around 7:00 p.m., .m., the “business closure” in these circumstances meant approximately 7:00 p.m. .m. However, the Court pointed out that this decision was very much based on the particular circumstances of the case. In fact, TechCrunch understands that Nokia and Microsoft have been working hard to reach an agreement, but there has still been no dice. Does closing mean when a transaction is completed? Or is it the process that led to that time, where contracts were entered into and signed, notices were given and funds were sent through the banking system? I suggest it means both – in other words, closure is an example of lexical ambiguity. The proposed alternative meanings are reminiscent of the alternative meanings of foreclosure that I discussed in this May 2007 blog post. A spot in the AdamsDrafting Blog Hall of Fame is reserved for the first person who points out to me an argument in which the direction of closing in this way was in question. This case therefore serves as a useful reminder that uncertainty and ambiguity should be avoided, as far as economically possible, by setting precise dates for the delivery of notices or the implementation of the necessary steps in contracts and, more generally, by avoiding the use of standard phrases of undetermined importance. The court ruled that if a certain time limit applied to “closed cases”, it would have been set in the GMRA. As the GMRA remained silent on this matter, the Court held that a certain degree of flexibility and “commercial sense” had to be applied to the time requirements set out in the GMRA.
The two sides have been in talks for 10 days but were apparently not close to an agreement, as the deadline is 12.01 .m. Presley`s testimony does not contradict the evidence presented by Applied Capital regarding the defendants` involvement in the conspiracy to det Applied Capital, fraud against Applied Capital, unjust enrichment, and violation of the final agreement. Under the GMRA, in the event of a party`s default, all outstanding repo transactions were accelerated and each party`s obligations with respect to the delivery of the securities were replaced by cash payment obligations based on the default market value of the securities to be delivered. The default market value shall be determined by the non-defaulting party who issued a written default valuation notice to the defaulting party prior to the time of the default valuation. According to the GMRA, this has been defined as “the transaction on the appropriate market on the fifth trading day following the day on which this default event occurs.” If no default valuation notice was issued to the defaulting party before the default valuation time, the default market value has been reset to net worth. In this context, consider the defined term effective time. It is used in merger agreements and is always defined as the time when the merger action is filed with the competent Secretary of State or at a later date specified in the merger action. (If a merger involves companies of different states, the effective time limit is defined as referring to the filing of a certificate of merger with each state.) If that`s what Effective Time means, what does Freak Closing mean? Does it refer to another time in time? Or does it simply refer to the time spent in a conference room eating Chinese to go? Given that an entity`s ability to exit or seek compensation is or should aim at the accuracy of the other`s closing observations, the importance of closing is important in the context of a merger […].