ŔÖĚěĚĂappĎÂÔŘ

CLAIMANTS� DECISION TO INVEST IN MEXICO Clause Examples

CLAIMANTSâ€� DECISION TO INVEST IN MEXICO.ĚýBeginning in or around 2004 and prior to Claimantsâ€� investment in Mexico, Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxx, a successful businessman in the United States with experience on Wall Street and investment banking, was introduced to an investor and casino owner in Mexico—Xx. Xxx Xxxxx—who had operated gaming facilities in the United States. He had obtained a gaming authorization to operate gaming facilities with skill gaming machines in Mexico under a validly-issued SEGOB Resolution issued to a Mexican company called Juegos de Entretenimiento y Video de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V. (Monterrey) that operated skill machines throughout Mexico. Monterrey’s Resolution allowed for the installation and operation in Mexican territory of certain kinds of skill gaming machines. In addition, pursuant to Monterrey’s Resolution, Monterrey’s gaming activities were permitted because they were outside the scope of the Mexican gambling laws. Accordingly, these machines did not require a permit from SEGOB. SEGOB had inspected the machines beforehand to certify that they were skill machines and therefore not subject to its jurisdiction. Xx. Xxxxx suggested that Claimant Xxxxxx Xxxx, a person with sophisticated business experience and acumen, put together a group of investors to develop, own, and operate multiple gaming facilities that ran skill machines in Mexico under Monterrey’s valid Resolution. By this time, Xx. Xxxxx and his investment group already owned and operated two skill machine gaming facilities in Monterrey, Mexico, one called Bella Vista opened in October 2002 and another called Las Palmas opened October 15,
View Source
CLAIMANTSâ€� DECISION TO INVEST IN MEXICO.ĚýIn 2004, Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxx, a successful American businessman with experience on Wall Street and investment banking, met an experienced gaming entrepreneur—Xx. Xxx Xxxxx—who had operated video poker facilities in the United States and owned video gaming centers in Mexico.5 Xx. Xxxxx and his investment group owned and operated a successful facility in Monterrey, Mexico, where patrons played on machines hosting games of “skillâ€� (as opposed to games of chance), and was in the process of opening another gaming center. Xx. Xxxxx suggested that Xx. Xxxx put together a group of investors to develop, own, and operate multiple gaming facilities in Mexico.6
View Source

Related to CLAIMANTS� DECISION TO INVEST IN MEXICO

  • COURT'S DECISION 33.01 In the event of any articles or portions of this Agreement being held improper or invalid by any Court of Law or Labour Relations Board, such decision shall not invalidate any other portions of this Agreement than those directly specified by such decision to be invalid, improper or otherwise unenforceable.

  • Right of Indemnitee to Indemnification Upon Application; Procedure Upon Application Any indemnification claim under this Agreement, other than pursuant to Section 7 hereof, shall be made no later than 30 days after receipt by the Corporation of the written request of Indemnitee, accompanied by substantiating documentation, unless a determination is made within said 30-day period that Indemnitee has not met the relevant standards for indemnification set forth in Section 3 hereof by (a) the Board of Directors by a majority vote of a quorum consisting of directors who are not or were not parties to such Proceeding, (b) a committee of the Board of Directors designated by majority vote of the Board of Directors, even though less than a quorum, (c) if there are no such directors, or if such directors so direct, independent legal counsel in a written opinion or (d) the stockholders. The right to indemnification or advances as provided by this Agreement shall be enforceable by Indemnitee in any court of competent jurisdiction. The burden of proving that indemnification is not appropriate shall be on the Corporation. Neither the failure of the Corporation (including its Board of Directors, any committee thereof, independent legal counsel or its stockholders) to have made a determination prior to the commencement of such action that indemnification is proper in the circumstances because Indemnitee has met the applicable standards of conduct, nor an actual determination by the Corporation (including its Board of Directors, any committee thereof, independent legal counsel or its stockholders) that Indemnitee has not met such applicable standard of conduct, shall be a defense to the action or create a presumption that Indemnitee has not met the applicable standard of conduct.

  • Indemnitee Rights on Unfavorable Determination; Binding Effect If any Reviewing Party determines that Indemnitee substantively is not entitled to be indemnified hereunder in whole or in part under applicable law, Indemnitee shall have the right to commence litigation seeking an initial determination by the court or challenging any such determination by such Reviewing Party or any aspect thereof, including the legal or factual bases therefor, and, subject to the provisions of Section 15, the Company hereby consents to service of process and to appear in any such proceeding. Absent such litigation, any determination by any Reviewing Party shall be conclusive and binding on the Company and Indemnitee.

  • Trustee’s Good Faith Action, Expert Advice, No Bond or Surety The exercise by the Trustees of their powers hereunder shall be binding upon everyone interested in or dealing with the Trust. A Trustee shall be liable to the Trust and to any Shareholder solely for his or her own willful misfeasance, bad faith, gross negligence or reckless disregard of the duties involved in the conduct of the office of Trustee, and shall not be liable for errors of judgment or mistakes of fact or law. The Trustees may take advice of counsel or other experts with respect to the meaning and operation of this Declaration of Trust, and shall be under no liability for any act or omission in accordance with such advice nor for failing to follow such advice. The Trustees shall not be required to give any bond as such, nor any surety if a bond is required.

  • GOVERNING LAW; DISPUTES SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION All disputes arising under this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without regard to principles of conflict of laws. The parties to this agreement will submit all disputes arising under this agreement to arbitration in Boston, Massachusetts before a single arbitrator of the American Arbitration Association (“AAAâ€�). The arbitrator shall be selected by application of the rules of the AAA, or by mutual agreement of the parties, except that such arbitrator shall be an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. No party to this agreement will challenge the jurisdiction or venue provisions as provided in this section. No party to this agreement will challenge the jurisdiction or venue provisions as provided in this section. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the party from obtaining an injunction.