alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT B 

Additional Interested Parties or Their Affiliates Which Paul Hastings Represents 

or Has Represented in the Past in Matters Unrelated to the Title III Cases6

Additional Interested Parties Relationship to 

Debtors 

Clients & Their Affiliates 

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP Professionals Current client. 

Rothschild Inc. Professionals Current client. Entities related to 

parent are also current clients. 

Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P.7 Parties Filing Notice of 

Appearance 

Current client. Related entities are 

also current clients. 

Bank of America Merrill 

Lynch 

Parties Filing Notice of 

Appearance 

Current client. Parent and related 

entities are also current clients. 

Kobre & Kim, LLP Parties Filing Notice of 

Appearance 

Not a client. Related entity is a 

former client. 

 

6

 In the Third Supplemental Declaration, Paul Hastings disclosed that certain individuals—Paul Konsig, Manley, 

Arthur Samodovitz, and Robert Stern—have each submitted correspondence to the Court in connection with 

their holdings of COFINA Bonds, and that while Paul Hastings does not believe it has any connections to these 

individuals, the email correspondence does not provide sufficient identifying information to allow Paul Hastings 

to definitively determine whether it has any connections to these individuals. Since submitting the Third 

Supplemental Declaration, Paul Hastings has determined that an individual named Paul Konsig is the President 

and CEO of a current client, and that an individual named Robert Stern is the general counsel at a current client. 

However, Paul Hastings has no basis to believe that these are the same individuals that submitted email 

correspondence to the Court. 

7

 We have updated the description of Paul Hastings’ connections with Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P., which were 

previously disclosed on the First Supplemental Declaration, in light of new engagements since the filing of the 

Third Supplemental Declaration. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4134-2 Filed:11/01/18 Entered:11/01/18 11:34:40 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 1 of 1
23502354 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

__________________________________________ 

In re: ) 

 ) PROMESA 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND ) Title III 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, ) 

 ) 

 as representative of ) No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

 ) 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, ) 

 ) 

 Debtor. ) 

In re: ) 

 ) PROMESA 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND ) Title III 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, ) 

 ) 

 as representative of ) No. 17 BK 3567-LTS 

 ) 

PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS & ) 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ) 

 ) 

 Debtor. ) 

PEAJE INVESTMENTS LLC, ) 

 ) Adv. Proc. No. 17-151-LTS 

 Plaintiff, ) in 17 BK 3567-LTS 

 ) 

 -against- ) Adv. Proc. No. 17-152-LTS 

 ) in 17 BK 3283-LTS 

PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS & ) 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

INFORMATIVE MOTION OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PEAJE 

INVESTMENTS LLC IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S JUNE 1, 2017 ORDER 

The undersigned, counsel to Peaje Investments LLC (“Plaintiff”), the Plaintiff in the 

above-captioned adversary proceedings, hereby submits this Informative Motion in response to 

the Court’s Order entered on June 1, 2017 in Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS [Dkt. No. 29] (the 

“Order”). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:252 Filed:06/02/17 Entered:06/02/17 15:48:45 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2 

Pursuant to the Order, the undersigned counsel hereby informs the Court that Allan S. 

Brilliant and G. Eric Brunstad, Jr. intend to present argument on behalf of Plaintiff at the June 

5th hearing and intend to appear in the New York courtroom. Ricardo R. Lozada of Monserrate 

Simonet & Gierbolini, LLC will appear in the San Juan courtroom. To the extent applicable in 

this matter, the undersigned counsel hereby requests leave from Rule 5071-1(b) of the Local 

Bankruptcy Rules for the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico to allow more than 

one attorney to present argument on behalf of Plaintiff. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 2nd day of June, 2017. 

MONSERRATE SIMONET & 

GIERBOLINI, LLC 

/s/ Dora L. Monserrate Peñagarícano

Dora L. Monserrate Peñagarícano 

USDC-PR No. 212612 

101 San Patricio Avenue 

Maramar Plaza, Suite 1120 

Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 

Phone: (787) 620-5300 

Fax: (787) 620-5305 

DECHERT LLP 

Allan S. Brilliant (pro hac vice pending)

Robert J. Jossen (pro hac vice pending) 

Andrew C. Harmeyer (pro hac vice pending)

1095 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

 -andG. Eric Brunstad, Jr. (pro hac vice pending) 

90 State House Square 

Hartford, Connecticut 06103 

Attorneys for Peaje Investments LLC 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:252 Filed:06/02/17 Entered:06/02/17 15:48:45 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000798954
<NAME>                        Enex Oil & Gas Income Program II-9, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         13286
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  20014
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34252
<PP&E>                                         1520546
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1169082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 385716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          87872
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     297844
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   385716
<SALES>                                        50250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               50250
<CGS>                                          15621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  28746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6662
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   14842
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 234,445
<CASH>                                          34,636
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              34,116
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           4,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 368,381
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                130,630
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             31,854
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 29,850
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   368,381
<PREMIUMS>                                      85,273
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              6,408
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               2,596
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  17,833
<BENEFITS>                                      64,116
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     24,047
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            11,073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,874
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,139
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,735
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
§ 27.1503 Airspeed limitations: general. ( a ) An operating speed range must be established.
( b ) When airspeed limitations are a function of weight, weight distribution, altitude, rotor speed, power, or other factors, airspeed limitations corresponding with the critical combinations of these factors must be established.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Yuxi Zhang, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered March 21, 2013, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of unlicensed general vending, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered March 21, 2013, reversed, on the law, the accusatory instrument is dismissed and fine, if paid, remitted. </p><p>Even viewing the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument under the standard required of a misdemeanor complaint (<a href="../2014/2014_04038.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Dumay</i>, 23 NY3d 518</a> [2014]), it was jurisdictionally defective. The factual allegations, namely, that defendant was holding and displaying "a flyer" depicting handbags and watches, speaking to passersby on the street while pointing to items in the flyer, and that when approached, defendant stated "handbag," were insufficient to support the unlicensed general vending charge (<i>see</i> Administrative Code of City of NY ยง 20-453; <a href="../2014/2014_02103.htm" target="_blank"><i>cf. People v Kasse</i>, 22 NY3d 1142</a> [2014]).</p><p>The overall purposes of the unlicensed general vending law are to: keep the public streets free of congestion for the convenience and safety of its citizens; maintain the tax base and economic viability of the City; and prevent the sale of stolen, defective or counterfeit merchandise (<i>see Mastrovincenzo v City of New York</i>, 435 F3d 78, 99 [2nd Cir 2006]). Particularly given the specific factual allegation that the alleged merchandise was displayed only on a flyer, as well as the absence of any allegations that defendant possessed any items of merchandise, quoted any price, or exchanged goods for currency, the accusatory instrument failed to establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant was engaging in the conduct required for acting as a general vendor (<i>se</i>e <a href="../2012/2012_02804.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Abdurraheem</i>, 94 AD3d 569</a> [2012], <i>lv denied </i>19 NY3d 970 [2012]; <a href="../2016/2016_50538.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Lawson</i>, 51 Misc 3d 134</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50538[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; <a href="../2016/2016_50896.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also People v Soumare</i>, 51 Misc 3d 153</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50896[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; <a href="../2016/2016_50642.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Xiangmei Zhang</i>, 51 Misc 3d 141</a>[A]; 2016 NY Slip Op 50642[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2016], <i>lv denied ___ </i>NY3d ___ [2016]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 21, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2529

___________________________

Tyson R. Walker

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Leann K. Bertsch; Colby Braun; Shaun Fode; Jean Sullivan; Nick Friez

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck

____________

Submitted: December 20, 2018

Filed: December 21, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
North Dakota inmate Tyson R. Walker appeals the district court’s dismissal

1

without prejudice of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

After careful de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.

1999) (per curiam) (standard of review), we find no basis for reversal. We conclude

that Walker did not state a due process claimregarding the prison’s grievance system,

as the grievance process does not give rise to a liberty interest requiring due process

protection, see Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam);

he did not allege that any specific defendant was responsible for his placement in a

special administrative unit, see Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999);

and he did not state a claim regarding the deprivation of his property during that

placement, as prison officials may limit personal property in administrative

segregation, see Hosna v. Groose, 80 F.3d 298, 305 (8th Cir. 1996). Further, the

district court did not err in denying leave to amend, because Walker’s proposed qui

tam actions under the False Claims Act (FCA) against defendant Bertsch would be

futile; specifically, the FCA does not subject state agencies to qui tam liability, and

Walker did not allege that Bertsch took any actions outside the scope of her duties. 

See Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787-88 (2000);

U.S. ex rel. Gaudineer & Comito, L.L.P. v. Iowa, 269 F.3d 932, 937 (8th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Charles S. Miller, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

District of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-
EXHIBIT B 

Segal Engagement Letter

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 1 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 2 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 3 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 4 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 5 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 6 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 7 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 8 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 9 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 10 of 11
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3537-2 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 15:58:50 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 11 of 11
§ 29.903 Engines. ( a ) *Engine type certification.* Each engine must have an approved type certificate. Reciprocating engines for use in helicopters must be qualified in accordance with § 33.49(d) of this chapter or be otherwise approved for the intended usage.
( b ) *Category A; engine isolation.* For each category A rotorcraft, the powerplants must be arranged and isolated from each other to allow operation, in at least one configuration, so that the failure or malfunction of any engine, or the failure of any system that can affect any engine, will not— ( 1 ) Prevent the continued safe operation of the remaining engines; or
( 2 ) Require immediate action, other than normal pilot action with primary flight controls, by any crewmember to maintain safe operation.
( c ) *Category A; control of engine rotation.* For each Category A rotorcraft, there must be a means for stopping the rotation of any engine individually in flight, except that, for turbine engine installations, the means for stopping the engine need be provided only where necessary for safety. In addition— ( 1 ) Each component of the engine stopping system that is located on the engine side of the firewall, and that might be exposed to fire, must be at least fire resistant; or
( 2 ) Duplicate means must be available for stopping the engine and the controls must be where all are not likely to be damaged at the same time in case of fire.
( d ) *Turbine engine installation.* For turbine engine installations— ( 1 ) Design precautions must be taken to minimize the hazards to the rotorcraft in the event of an engine rotor failure; and
( 2 ) The powerplant systems associated with engine control devices, systems, and instrumentation must be designed to give reasonable assurance that those engine operating limitations that adversely affect engine rotor structural integrity will not be exceeded in service.
( e ) *Restart capability.* ( 1 ) A means to restart any engine in flight must be provided.
( 2 ) Except for the in-flight shutdown of all engines, engine restart capability must be demonstrated throughout a flight envelope for the rotorcraft.
( 3 ) Following the in-flight shutdown of all engines, in-flight engine restart capability must be provided.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, and 603, 72 Stat. 752, 775, 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, and 1423; sec. 6(c), 49 U.S.C. 1655(c))
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-12, 41 FR 55472, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 29-26, 53 FR 34215, Sept. 2, 1988; Amdt. 29-31, 55 FR 38967, Sept. 21, 1990; 55 FR 41309, Oct. 10, 1990; Amdt. 29-36, 60 FR 55776, Nov. 2, 1995]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4166 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4166

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to secure medical opinions 
for veterans with service-connected disabilities who die from COVID-19 
  to determine whether their service-connected disabilities were the 
   principal or contributory cases of death, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 2, 2020

Ms. Sinema (for herself and Mr. Tillis) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to secure medical opinions 
for veterans with service-connected disabilities who die from COVID-19 
  to determine whether their service-connected disabilities were the 
   principal or contributory cases of death, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Survivors Benefits during 
COVID-19 Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAL OPINIONS FOR CERTAIN VETERANS WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED 
              DISABILITIES WHO DIE OF COVID-19.

    In any case in which a veteran with a service-connected disability 
dies from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), or complications caused 
by such disease, and the death certificate of the veteran does not 
clearly identify the service-connected disability as the principal or 
contributory cause of death, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
secure a medical opinion to determine if the service-connected 
disability was the principal or contributory cause of death.
                                 <all>
```