Public Benefit Clause Samples

Public Benefit. It is ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by it under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and California Code of Regulations tit. 11,

Public Benefit. It is Raghuvir’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as

Public Benefit. It is the Parties’ belief that the terms of this Settlement Agreement confer a significant benefit to the general public as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and California Administrative Code title 11, section 3201. As such, it is the intent of the Parties that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging that the Covered Product is somehow in violation of Proposition 65, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public, so long as HONG SAR is in material compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.

Public Benefit. It is ▇▇▇▇’▇’ understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇’▇ under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇’▇ that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Macy’s failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DINP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Macy’s is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Public Benefit. It is ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇'s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by Vitauthority under this Settlement Agreement confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ that to the extent any other private party serves a notice and/or initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Vitauthority's alleged failure to provide a warning concerning actual or alleged exposure to lead prior to use of the Covered Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Covered Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Vitauthority is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Public Benefit. The Parties acknowledge that their contributions to the Project are meant to accrue to the public benefit.

Public Benefit. It is ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of Lamartek that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Lamartek failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Lamartek is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Public Benefit. It is Deluxity’s understanding that the commitments it has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by Deluxity under this Settlement Agreement, would confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of Deluxity that to the extent any other private party initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Deluxity failure to provide a warning concerning exposure to DEHP prior to use of the Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Deluxity is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Public Benefit. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the commitments Clean Simple Eats has agreed to herein, and actions to be taken by Clean Simple Eats under this Settlement Agreement confer a significant benefit to the general public, as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 and Cal. Admin. Code tit. 11, § 3201. As such, it is the intent of Clean Simple Eats that to the extent any other private party serves a notice and/or initiates an action alleging a violation of Proposition 65 with respect to Clean Simple Eats's alleged failure to provide a warning concerning actual or alleged exposure to lead prior to use of the Covered Products it has manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale in California, or will manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in California, such private party action would not confer a significant benefit on the general public as to those Covered Products addressed in this Settlement Agreement, provided that Clean Simple Eats is in material compliance with this Settlement Agreement.