The Targets Sample Clauses

The Targets. The Targets are three Swedish limited liability companies with corporate identification number 556722-5775, 556727-9707 and 559034-2183, registered with the Swedish Companies Registration Office since 1 February 2007, 11 April 2007 and since 9 November 2015 respectively. The current registered address of the Targets is c/o Pareto Business Management AB, P.O. 7415, SE-103 91 Stockholm. The object of the Targets is to directly or indirectly own and manage real estate and conduct business related thereto. The Targets’ only shareholder prior to the acquisition of the Targets by the Company, through the Subsidiaries, was the Vendor. The Targets and the Subsidiaries (except for Bråviken Logistik Nyköping AB) are the borrowers under the Debt Facility.

The Targets. The Targets consist of the following Swedish limited companies Fastighets AB Ridskolan, corporate identification number 556751-1869, registered with the Swedish Companies Registration Office on 8 September 2014, Vårdboende i Västerparken AB, corporate identification number 556975-1661, registered with the Swedish Companies Registration Office on 2 September 2014, Midroc Kävlinge Förskola AB, corporate identification number 556973-3446, registered with the Swedish Companies Registration Office on 15 July 2014, Projektbolag Del Y AB, corporate identification number 556874-4899, registered with the Swedish Companies Registration Office on 4 January 2012 and NewCo, which was registered with the Swedish Companies Registration Office prior to Closing. The objects of the Targets are to directly or indirectly own and manage properties and to conduct business related thereto. The Targets’ only shareholders prior to the acquisition of the Targets, by the Company or a Subsidiary, were the Midroc Vendors and the Stenbocken Vendor respectively. On each relevant Closing date, the Targets will be the sole legal and registered owners of the Properties (other than the property Helsingborg Ridskolan 3 which is held by site leasehold).

The Targets. Given the relatively modest size of the UK nuclear stockpile, the first principle of UK planning was to make every weapon count. This chapter describes British targeting policies, accommodating Plan A (the NATO coordinated war plan) and Plan B, a National list of countervalue targets – Soviet cities (the maximum threat from limited means). It is argued that there was little difference between Plan A and Plan B, in terms of the consequences of an attack, as many priority military targets were located within the greater boundaries of the major cities. The evolution of targeting policy is discussed, with its eventual concentration on the very largest Soviet cities. The chapter also considers the measures taken to maximise the destructive potential of each weapon in relation to the allocated target (in itself an explanation of the V-Force emphasis on accurate weapon delivery). British nuclear targeting policy was astute and pragmatic. V-Force crews trained to attack Plan A (NATO/SIOP) and Plan B (National) targets. Plan A targets were primarily “counterforce”, such as airfields, ports, missile sites and command and control centres. Plan B “countervalue” targets in the National Plan focussed on the biggest cities, presenting the maximum threat from UK nuclear forces acting alone. In the public arena, Plan B was often discounted as so unlikely as to be hardly worthy of discussion. Yet it remains, to this day, the ultimate foundation of UK military and political power. Inevitably, given Britain’s limited nuclear assets, Plan B targets were punitive: the major centres of population. At the same time, Plan A military targets were often near or within major urban areas and, consequently, as ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2012) has pointed out: “… there was little difference between these and the countervalue (city) targets that were the focus of the National Retaliatory War Plan.”1 Each V-Force crew had at least two Plan A NATO targets, a Plan B National target and a priority QRA target. ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ was Wing Targeting Officer for Waddington’s 24 Vulcans: “There was one QRA target (ALN 100 series), two Plan A (ALN 200 series), one Plan B (ALN 400 series) and one Plan B follow on target (ALN 411 plus).”2 Targets changed annually (Plan A on July 1 and Plan B on January 1), so presenting each crew with fresh 1 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Losing an empire and finding a role, 234. 2 ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Vulcan Nav/Radar, Wing Targeting Officer; email: 2/4/20. challenges. This cycle allowed for Intellig...

The Targets. The Credit Parties shall have provided to the Administrative Agent and the Lenders all documents, certificates, instruments and other items necessary for the Targets to comply with Sections 6.09 and 6.10 hereof effectively immediately after the Closing, including, without limitation, the joinders referred to in Sections 4.01(iii) and (iv) hereof.

The Targets. Our most ambitious target is by 2014/15 to increase the proportion of state school entrants to 55% as a significant step towards our longer term target of 67%, which represents a more than 10% increase of the top of our current target range (60%) and is around the upper HESA benchmarks over the past six years. As an early measure of our progression towards achieving this target we will aim to increase the proportion of applications from state school students to 67% by 2014/15. This will provide a good indication as to the success of our outreach work in promoting The Courtauld as a viable option to this audience. Our performance under NS-SEC has been volatile in recent years and latterly well below HESA benchmarks. It is here that we want to make the most conspicuous difference by ensuring consistent participation rates around the level of recent HESA benchmarks (16%) by 2016/17. Performance against the LPN benchmarks has generally been weaker, though the statistics are again volatile, partly because of the low absolute numbers involved (the recent HESA benchmarks have equated in our terms to just 2-3 students). We are setting a target of 5% in 2012/13 (in line with the average HESA benchmark) rising to 9% in 2016/17. This is a challenging target but one that we are confident we can reach as a result of our plans for financial support, outreach and use of contextual data in the recruitment process. We will continue to make every effort to improve access for disabled students. Whilst we are already consistently achieving our benchmark of c4%, we have set a target of increasing this to 6% by 2015/16, the equivalent of adding one additional disabled student. We have relied to an extent on HESA benchmarks in deciding these targets, but we believe that they are appropriately ambitious in our case. For us these targets are demanding, yet we believe that they are achievable given the extra investment that the new fee regime will allow, as well as the increasing dividends from our existing outreach activities.

The Targets. The Government of South Australia has agreed to meet three national targets to reduce homelessness. The national targets are: 1. By 2013, 7 per cent reduction in the number of South Australian’s experiencing homelessness (from 7,962 in 2006 to 7, 405 - a reduction of 557). 2. By 2013, one third reduction in the number of Aboriginal South Australians experiencing homelessness (from 858 in 2006 to 572 – a reduction of 286. 3. By 2013, 25 per cent reduction in the number of South Australian’s who are sleeping rough (from 848 to 636 – a reduction of 211.

The Targets. To the best of the Directors’ knowledge, information and belief having made all reasonable enquiries, each of the Vendor and the Targets is independent of and not connected with the Group and its connected persons (as defined in the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited).