Latest news with #RightofFirstRefusal
Business Upturn
a day ago
- Business
- Business Upturn
GAIL to acquire 49% stake in Leafiniti Bioenergy for new compressed bio gas projects
GAIL (India) Limited has entered into a significant agreement to acquire a 49% stake in Leafiniti Bioenergy Private Limited (LBPL), marking a strategic move to expand its presence in the renewable energy sector. The agreement, signed on August 11, 2025, is subject to the completion of certain conditions precedent and approval from the Department of Investment and Public Asset Management (DIPAM). Currently, LBPL is a wholly owned subsidiary of TruAlt Bioenergy Limited (TBL), and once the transaction is complete, TBL and GAIL will hold 51% and 49% stakes respectively. This partnership aims to develop new Compressed Bio Gas (CBG) projects through LBPL, supporting India's growing focus on clean and sustainable energy. As part of the agreement, the board of LBPL will consist of four directors, equally nominated by GAIL and TBL. The chairmanship of the board will rotate every three years between the two shareholders, with GAIL nominating the first chairman. Leadership roles will include a CEO nominated by LBPL and a CFO nominated by GAIL. The agreement grants GAIL the right to participate in any fresh share issuances proportional to its shareholding, along with affirmative voting rights on any changes to the company's share capital structure. Additionally, GAIL has been accorded protective rights such as the Right of First Refusal and Tag Along rights in case TBL decides to sell its equity to a third party. A lock-in period of five years from the closing date, or three years from the commissioning of six CBG projects, whichever is earlier, ensures stability for this partnership. This transaction is not related to any promoter or promoter group companies and has been conducted at arm's length, maintaining transparency and strong corporate governance. The deal underscores GAIL's commitment to diversifying its energy portfolio and investing in sustainable fuel alternatives. By joining hands with LBPL, GAIL aims to contribute to India's renewable energy goals through innovative bioenergy solutions. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aman Shukla is a post-graduate in mass communication . A media enthusiast who has a strong hold on communication ,content writing and copy writing. Aman is currently working as journalist at
Business Wire
21-07-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
F&F Engages Goldman Sachs as Strategic Financial Advisor for Potential TaylorMade Acquisition
SEOUL, South Korea--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- F&F Co., Ltd. (KRX: 383220), a globally esteemed fashion and lifestyle company led by CEO Chang Soo Kim, announced today that it has engaged Goldman Sachs, a leading global investment bank, as its exclusive financial advisor to steer a potential acquisition of TaylorMade, a preeminent golf brand. This strategic move addresses a sales process launched by a Korean private equity firm Centroid Investment Partners ('Centroid'). F&F reiterated its steadfast commitment to realizing the strategic objectives of its 2021 investment in TaylorMade. The company stated, 'We are methodically preparing to exercise our Right of First Refusal (ROFR), should circumstances warrant, to ensure alignment with our original investment thesis,' adding, 'Our engagement with Goldman Sachs equips us to execute a disciplined and impactful strategy to successfully acquire TaylorMade.' F&F clarified that it has not consented to Centroid's current efforts to sell TaylorMade, viewing the process as a significant breach of its contractual consent rights. 'Independent of our acquisition plans, we are fully prepared to deploy all available legal and contractual measures to hold Centroid accountable for its violations,' the company asserted. F&F is actively assessing a comprehensive array of strategic pathways while strengthening its stance to safeguard its investment interests in TaylorMade through robust enforcement of its contractual rights, including potential legal action.
Epoch Times
08-05-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
I Voted to Eliminate ROFR, and That Was Unwise
Commentary With a new administration, the United States is at the dawn of a second era of energy dominance. Descendants of Pennsylvanians who discovered oil in Titusville now employ sophisticated directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing to produce low cost and environmentally friendly natural gas. The nation is blessed by robust U.S. natural gas production and emerging clean energy and battery storage technologies. The electric industry is prepared to deliver affordable and reliable energy to Americans in an uncertain world. But the U.S. power grid must be expanded and maintained to bring electricity to homes and businesses. The U.S. electric grid is a wonder of the world—700,000 miles of interconnected transmission lines that deliver electricity throughout North America. However, these electric transmission lines are aging and in need of both replacement and expansion. New electric transmission is urgently needed to provide electric service 24/7 in bitter cold and intense heat. In electricity parlance, the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) means the local electric company has the first crack at building certain new regional power lines regulators believe necessary for reliability and affordability. I believe the ROFR is essential to construct and maintain the power grid Americans deserve. From 2006 to 2011, I was a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency responsible for regulating U.S. interstate transmission of electricity. In FERC Order 1000 I joined my fellow Commissioners to eliminate the Federal ROFR for new regional transmission lines. My rationale then was a belief in states' rights. Fourteen years later, I admit elimination of the ROFR was unwise. My change in view is informed not just by the recent dismal record of interstate transmission construction in this country. As a former four-term Arizona state senator and elected state utility commissioner, I am acutely aware that state and local governments grant permits to utilities to build transmission lines. In my experience, Americans accept the need for a robust power grid. But having served as an elected official who voted for construction of gas and power lines through peoples' backyards, even where everyone agreed these projects were necessary to keep the lights on, such cases were controversial. Consider the beneficial role played by local as opposed to out-of-state companies. Distribution utilities have built and operated electric transmission facilities for more than 100 years. Why is local important? These companies understand the grid they manage 24/7 every day. They are not only held accountable to the individuals and families they serve, but they are also regulated by state governments zealous about reliability and cost containment. Related Stories 4/21/2025 4/28/2025 Some argue competitive procurement for transmission is better than the ROFR. Perhaps in a perfect world that may be so. Yet even proponents of so-called competitively bid transmission construction acknowledge the tedious process involves undue delay when compared to the local utility. This argument also ignores the fact that utilities competitively bid their work to keep consumer costs low. Competition for labor and materials at the back end of ROFR projects drives costs down. The interminable delays at the front end of the 'competitive' process make their benefits illusory. While competition is the basis of a free market economy, the transmission system in every corner of the U.S. is a regulated monopoly. This is due, in part, to the fact that deployment of new transmission is an immediate societal imperative. When electric affordability and reliability are threatened, competition as an abstract principle is meaningless. Antitrust lawyers in Washington can deal in theory; electrical engineers in the Heartland must keep their customers' lights on. The hard reality is Americans cannot and will not accept unreliable electric service, much less power blackouts. States can and should enact ROFR laws to allow skilled, local U.S. workers to bring new transmission into service to deliver U.S. customers reliable and affordable electricity. From Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
USA Today
12-03-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
Ravens extend exclusive rights tender to free agent DB Ar'Darius Washington
Ravens extend exclusive rights tender to free agent DB Ar'Darius Washington Restricted free agent safety Ar'Darius Washington received a Right of First Refusal tender from the Ravens. The Ravens took steps to retain defensive back Ar'Darius Washington, extending the exclusive rights tender to the free agent. With the low tender, the Ravens would receive no compensation for Washington if another team signs him to an offer sheet and Baltimore declines to match. Washington saw action in 12 games last season and played a significant role in the Baltimore secondary, performing like one of the NFL's best after a dismal showing in the first seven to eight weeks. The tender is for a one-year contract worth $3.263 million. According to Over The Cap, a second-round tender would have cost $5.346 million. Washington finished with a career-high 64 tackles, two interceptions, one sack, one forced fumble, and five tackles for loss in 10 starts.
USA Today
18-02-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
Who are Jaguars' 2025 restricted free agents?
We know who the Jacksonville Jaguars big name unrestricted free agents are this offseason, but who are their restricted free agents and what's the difference between the two? The Jaguars' restricted free agents this offseason are linebacker Joe Giles-Harris, wide receiver Tim Jones, and offensive tackle Cole Van Lanen, according to Over the Cap (OTC). As we all know, unrestricted free agents are able to negotiate freely with other teams and can sign wherever they please. But when it comes to restricted free agents, that isn't quite the case. A restricted free agent (RFA) is a player with three accrued years of NFL experience. The RFA's current team has the option of placing one of three tenders on that player: a first round tender, a second round tender, or a right of first refusal tender. If no tender is placed on an RFA, they then become an unrestricted free agent. However, if one of those tenders is placed on the RFA, they can then negotiate with other teams, but there is a caveat. If the tendered RFA receives an offer from another organization, the current team has the opportunity to match the contract. If they do, then the RFA returns to the original team. But if they don't whatever tender was placed on the RFA, the original team will get as compensation from the new team. For example, if another team is willing to sign away a player with a first round tender, the new team would have to give the original team a first round draft pick in return. If the RFA receives a tender but does not get an offer from another team, they will then re-sign with the original team and receive a one-year contract at a predetermined amount set by the NFLPA based on which tender was utilized. Now, when it comes to Van Lanen, Giles-Harris, and Jones, I would guess that we aren't going to see any of them receive a tender. The reason for that is because the projected contract costs for each tender is more than what each player would like receive on the open market. The first-round tender this offseason, per OTC, is $7.27 million. A second-round tender is worth $5.21 million and the Right of First Refusal tender is $3.18 million. With that said, I would anticipate that the Jaguars do want to bring each player back on their 90-man roster. To varying degrees, all three players did have roles on this Jaguars team last season. Giles-Harris and Jones were special teams contributors while Van Lanen played nearly 300 offensive snaps.
