alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
rcar_ex1026.htm

EXHIBIT 10.26

 

 

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT dated January 29, 2018 (this “Amendment”) to the Loan Agreement dated February 23, 2017 (the “Loan agreement”) by and between RENOVACARE, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Borrower”) and Kalen Capital Corporation (“Creditor”). All Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Loan Agreement.

 

WHEREAS the parties deem it to be in their respective best interests to amend the Loan Agreement so as to extend the maturity date of the Loan.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of their mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:

 

1. Section 2.03 of the Loan Agreement is hereby amended by changing “February 28, 2018” to “December 31, 2019.”

 

2. Borrower will deliver an amendment to the Promissory Note dated February 23, 2017 reflecting the change in the maturity date of the Loan form “February 28, 2018” to “December 31, 2019.”

 

3. If there is any conflict between the terms, conditions and obligations of this Amendment and the Loan Agreement, this Amendment’s terms, conditions and obligations shall control. All other provisions of the Loan Agreement not specifically amended by this Amendment are preserved and remain in full force and effect.

 

4. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The exchange of copies of this Amendment or amendments thereto and of signature pages by facsimile transmission or by email transmission in portable digital format, or similar format, shall constitute effective execution and delivery of such instrument(s) as to the parties and may be used in lieu of the original Amendment or amendment for all purposes. Signatures of the parties transmitted by facsimile or by email transmission in portable digital format, or similar format, shall be deemed to be their original signatures for all purposes.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date first above written.

 


	RENOVACARE, INC.	
	  		
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	By:		
	
Name:
	Thomas Bold	
	Title:	President and Chief Executive Officer	
	 		
	
KALEN CAPITAL CORPORATION
	
	
  
		
	
By:
		
	
Name:
	
Harmel S. Rayat
	
	
Title:
	
President
#### ELLIOTT, Respondent, v. NILES et al., Apellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Ella Pearl Elliott, as executrix, etc., against William W. Niles and another, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. See, also, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1109.
#### New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant, v William Steely et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[815 NYS2d 724]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant in an underlying action entitled *Masi v Steely,*pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under case No. 04 CV 6087, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Natasi, J.), entered May 16, 2005, as denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The personal injury action underlying the instant dispute over insurance coverage arises from an incident in which the plaintiff’s insured, the defendant William Steely, physically struck the defendant Garibaldi Masi as the two trained in a gymnasium. Steely maintained that his conduct was the result of a reflex reaction that was triggered when Masi assaulted him. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the incident was an “occurrence” covered by the relevant insurance policy, specifically whether the conduct of the insured was negligent, rather than intentional *(see Seneca Ins. Co. v Naprawa,*294 AD2d 183, 184 [2002]; *Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Carpenter,*224 AD2d 894, 895 [1996]; *cf. Slayko v Security Mut. Ins. Co.,*98 NY2d 289 [2002]). Further, the Supreme Court correctly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether Steely’s notice of the altercation to the plaintiff insurer, nearly four months after the event, was untimely based on his good faith belief that no civil lawsuit would result from his conduct *(see M.J. Frenzy,*
      *968
      *LLC v Utica Natl. Ins. Group,*309 AD2d 566 [2003]). In light of the foregoing, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-096
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements
     made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
     made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

    The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., and its officers and agents

Date:  September 10, 2007


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum

Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior officer in charge of securitization
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
#### Charlotte M. Hamill, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 8, 1979, entered upon a verdict awarding plaintiff the sum of $70,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint dismissed. No competent evidence on which to predicate a finding of negligence against the city was presented and its motion for a directed verdict should have been granted. Plaintiff had the burden of showing that the city permitted an unusual and dangerous accumulation of ice and snow to remain on the sidewalk where the accident occurred. for an unreasonable period of time, and that such accumulation was the proximate cause of the accident. *(Gaffney v City of New York,*218 NY 225; *Taylor v City of Yonkers,*105 NY 202,206-210.) At the time of plaintiff’s fall on January 4, 1974 on an icy sidewalk located on Broadway between Duane and Reade Streets, less than four hours had elapsed since the cessation of a sleet and snowstorm which had begun at 1:00 p.m. on January 3. Snow removal operations had been commenced during the course of the storm. Conceding that a jury finding for negligence for failure to remove any accumulation of ice and snow within four hours after the cessation of the January 3 to 4 storm would have been “virtually impossible”, plaintiff attempted to fasten liability on the theory that she had slipped on an accumulation of ice and snow which was the residue from a snowstorm on December 16 to 17, 1973. The evidence does not support such a contention. The city’s expert, a meteorologist, testified, on the basis of data contained in the weather reports, that the ground accumulation of the December 16 to 17 storm had been completely removed by the heavy rains and unseasonably warm temperature of late December, 1973, *793that no ground accumulation existed on December 24, and that except for a trace of precipitation at 7:00 a.m. on January 3,1974, which was the precursor of the January 3 to 4 storm, no measurable frozen precipitation subsequent to December 24 and prior to the January 3 to 4 storm occurred. According to the meteorologist any dirt, footprints or ridges in the ice at the time of the accident were caused by pedestrian traffic during and immediately after the January 3 to 4 storm. The only evidence in support of plaintiff’s version of old ice and snow was the testimony of a passerby who responded to the accident. He stated “Well, I don’t know, from my own viewpoint I would say [the ice] must have been there a week or more.” Significantly, this witness did not testify to the condition of the sidewalk before the morning of the accident. This witness’ completely speculative testimony, which was the trial court’s justification for submitting the case to the jury on the theory of snow and ice from a prior snowstorm, was totally belied by the city’s uncontroverted evidence. The complaint is dismissed. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Silverman and Yesawich, JJ.
619.870 Acquisition of technical requirements.       (a) *Offering letter.* When a decision has been made by OSDBU and the contracting officer to process an acquisition through the SBA under the 8(a) program, the contracting activity shall promptly send to the applicable SBA office a letter offering the acquisition to the SBA, with an information copy to the Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Specialist. The offering letter should transmit the statement of work, purchase description, technical data package, or specifications and such other information deemed necessary by the contracting officer.          (b) The contracting officer has greater latitude in holding discussions with the business concerns being considered under an 8(a) program acquisition if under the $4 million competitive threshold for 8(a) competition than under a non-8(a) program acquisition. Informal assessments of potential 8(a) sources shall be within the parameters of 13 CFR 124.308(g). The technical evaluation must be carefully reviewed to determine if any source declared to be unacceptable is capable of being made acceptable.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 619.8—Contracting with the Small Business Administration (The 8(a) Program)
Exhibit
        31 **CERTIFICATION**
  **C-BASS
          2006-CB7 Trust**
  
 I,
          Elizabeth Folk, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Litton
          Loan
          Servicing LP, certify that:
 
 1.  I
          have
          reviewed the report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
          to be
          filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of C-BASS
          2006-CB7 Trust, (the “Exchange Act Periodic Reports”);
 
 2.  Based
          on
          my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a whole, do not
          contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
          fact
          necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
          which
          such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
          by
          this report;
 
 3.  Based
          on
          my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
          required
          to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
          included
          in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;
 
 4.  I
          am
          responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and
          based on
          my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer
          compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
          AB,
          and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the servicers
          have
          fulfilled their obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement in
          all
          material respects; and
 
 5.  All
          of
          the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
          securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
          with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
          in
          this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange
          Act Rules
          13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except
          as
          otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
          described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
          10-K.
 
 In
          giving
          the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
          to me
          by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York (custodian)
          and
          LaSalle Bank National Association (trustee).
 
 
 Date:  March
          29,
          2007
  /s/
            Elizabeth Folk
 Elizabeth
          Folk
 Senior
          Vice President and
 Chief
          Financial Officer
 Litton
          Loan Servicing LP
 (senior
            officer in charge of the servicing function)
##### 



Exhibit 4.19
 
 Purpose of Plan
     Definitions




---



##### 



nolo contendere
   2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



Administration of Plan
    5




---



##### 



Eligibility
  Option Grants
  6




---



##### 



Share Purchase Rights
  Limitations and Conditions
     7




---



##### 



Put and Call Rights
 The Participants Resale of Shares to the Company Upon the
Participants Death or Disability
  8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



The Companys Purchase of Shares and Share Options from the Participant
Upon the Participants Termination of Employment or Service
 Without Cause or for Good Reason
 Without Good Reason
 10




---



##### 



Percentage
 Repurchase Calculation Date
    
    PercentagePrior to the first anniversary of the Grant Date
    
    
    - 0 -On or after the first anniversary of the Grant Date and prior
to the second anniversary of the Grant Date
    
    
    20
    %On or after the second anniversary of the Grant Date and prior
to the third anniversary of the Grant Date
    
    
    40
    %On or after the third anniversary of the Grant Date and prior
to the fourth anniversary of the Grant Date
    
    
    60
    %On or after the fourth anniversary of the Grant Date and prior
to the fifth anniversary of the Grant Date
    
    
    80
    %On or after the fifth anniversary of the Grant Date
    
    
    100
    %
 For Cause
 Share Options
 11




---



##### 



Repurchase Period
  Pro Rata Repurchases
 12




---



##### 



Companys Right of First Refusal
 Notice of Proposed Transfer
 Exercise of Right of First Refusal
 Purchase Price
 Payment
 Holders Right to Transfer
 13




---



##### 



Exception for Certain Family Transfers
 Share Transfer Restrictions
  Bring-Along Right
  14




---



##### 



Lock-Up Period
  Expiration of Certain Provisions
  Transfers and Leaves of Absence
  Adjustments
  15




---



##### 



Merger, Consolidation, Exchange, Acquisition, Distribution, Liquidation or
Dissolution
   Amendment and Termination
  Withholding Taxes
  16




---



##### 



Registration
  Section 409A.
  Grant Agreement
  Individuals Subject to Non-Singapore Jurisdictions
  17




---



##### 



Shareholder Meeting Notice Period
  Effective and Termination Dates
  Shareholder Approval
  Information Disclosure
  18
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Eliza M. Smith, deceased.

As to whether the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 2588) providing that where the reversal or modification “ by the appellate court ” of a surrogate’s decree, admitting a will to probate is founded upon a *662question of fact, such court must make an order directing a trial of the material questions of fact by a jury, applies to appeals to this court in probate cases, *qumre.*

The provision has no application where the reversal is for errors of law only.

(Argued June 17, 1884;

decided June 24, 1884.)

This was a motion to amend the remittitur herein, and for the framing of issues to be tried by a jury.

The appeal was from a judgment of the General Term affirming a surrogate’s decree admitting the will of Eliza M. Smith to probate. This court reversed the judgment. (95 N. Y. 516.)

The court say:

“Assuming that section 2.588 of the Code applies to appeals to this court in probate cases, a point which we need not now determine, yet the section has no application to a reversal on questions of law, but only when the reversal is upon a question of fact. The reversal in this case was for errors in the admission of evidence, and not upon any question of fact.

“ The motion for the framing of issues is, therefore, denied. The case is doubtless a proper one for trial of the issues of fact by jury, but the jurisdiction to make an order for such trial, or to frame issues, does not, under the cireúmstances of the case, appertain to this court.”

*John IS. Van Etten*for motion.'

*J. Newton Fiero*opposed.

*Per Ouriami.*

Mem. for denial of motion.

All concur.

Motion denied.
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00652-MHT-WC Document 3 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 983.18 Lot.

*Lot* means any quantity of pistachios that is submitted for testing purposes under this part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          36,606
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,606
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,279,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,104,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,117,677)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,279,701
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (105,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (105,496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (105,496)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (6)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (6)
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cv-00658-TFM Document 44 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
§ 906.18 Establishment and membership. ( a ) The Texas Valley Citrus Committee, consisting of fifteen (15) members is hereby established. For each member of the committee there shall be an alternate who shall have the same qualifications as the member.
( b ) Nine members shall be producers who produce fruit in the district which they represent and are residents of the production area. Two of the producer members shall be producers who market their fruit through cooperative marketing organizations, and seven of the producer members shall be independent producers. Producer members shall not have a proprietary interest in or be employees of a handler organization: *Provided,* That members of a cooperative marketing organization shall not be considered as having a proprietary interest in a handler organization because of such membership.
( c ) Six members shall be handlers who are residents of the production area. One handler member shall represent cooperative marketing organizations; five handler members shall represent independent handlers.
Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

§ 989.35 Powers. The Committee shall have the following powers: ( a ) To administer the terms and provisions of this part;
( b ) To make rules and regulations to effectuate the terms and provisions of this part;
( c ) To recommend to the Secretary amendments to this part; and
( d ) To receive, investigate, and report to the Secretary complaints of violations of this part.
[41 FR 32412, Aug. 3, 1976, as amended at 48 FR 32975, July 20, 1983]
§ 958.50 Marketing policy. ( a ) *Preparation.* Prior to each marketing season the committee shall consider and prepare a proposed policy for the marketing of onions. In developing its marketing policy the committee shall investigate relevant supply and demand conditions for onions. In such investigations the committee shall give appropriate consideration to the following: ( 1 ) Market prices for onions, including prices by variety, grade, size, and quality, and by different packs;
( 2 ) Supply of onions by grade, size, quality, and variety in the production area and in other onion producing sections;
( 3 ) The trend and level of consumer income;
( 4 ) Establishing and maintaining orderly marketing conditions for onions;
( 5 ) Orderly marketing of onions as will be in the public interest; and
( 6 ) Other relevant factors.
( b ) *Reports.* ( 1 ) The committee shall submit a report to the Secretary setting forth the aforesaid marketing policy; and the committee shall notify producers and handlers of the contents of such report.
( 2 ) In the event it becomes advisable to shift from such marketing policy because of changed supply and demand conditions, the committee shall prepare an amended or revised marketing policy in accordance with the manner previously outlined. The committee shall submit a report thereon to the Secretary and notify producers and handlers of the contents of such report on the revised or amended marketing policy.