Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 145 / Monday, July 30, 2007 / Notices 41507 

Dated: July 23, 2007. 

Gloria D. Car, 

Designated Federal Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–14676 Filed 7–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 07–05] 

K.E.I. Enterprise dba KEI Logix v. 

Greenwest Activewear, Inc.; Greenwest 

Activewear, Inc. v. K.E.I. Enterprise 

dba KEI Logix and Great White Fleet, 

Ltd.; Notice of Filing of CrossComplaint 

Notice is given that a cross-complaint 

has been filed with the Federal 

Maritime Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

by Greenwest Activewear, Inc. (‘‘CrossComplainant’’) against K.E.I. Enterprise 

dba KEI Logix (‘‘KEI Logix’’) and Great 

White Fleet, Ltd. (‘‘Great White’’) 

(collectively, ‘‘Cross-Respondents’’) in 

this proceeding noticed at 72 FR 32,666. 

Cross-Complainant alleges that CrossRespondents violated the Shipping Act 

of 1984 by failing to establish, observe 

and enforce just and reasonable 

practices in connection with its 

shipments of fabric to Guatemala. 46 

U.S.C. 41102(c). Cross-Complainant is 

demanding that Cross-Respondents pay 

its claim of $152,152.90 for loss of cargo 

plus attorneys fees. In the alternative, 

Cross-Complainant asks that its request 

for damages be offset ‘‘by the amount of 

freight charges claimed by KEI Logix 

less the amount of KEI Logix invoice 

relative to the lost shipment * * * and 

the difference paid to them.’’

Cross-Complainant asserts that it 

booked the transport of fabric in August 

2006 with KEI Logix from Port 

Hueneme, California, to Villanueva, 

Guatemala. KEI Logix and Great White 

issued separate bills of lading as 

through bills to the aforementioned 

ports in California and Guatemala. Great 

White issued its bill of lading depicting 

KEI Logix as the shipper. CrossComplainant alleges that the cargo was 

stolen while in transit by an inland 

carrier in Guatemala booked by Great 

White. In September 2006, CrossComplainant filed its claim of 

$152,152.90 for the stolen cargo with 

KEI Logix, who then presented the 

claim to Great White for disposition. 

Cross-Complainant contends that 

Great White wrongfully denied the 

claim by evoking force majeure 

pursuant to an inland bill of lading that 

Cross-Complainant believes was never 

produced. Moreover, Cross-Complainant 

asserts that Great White failed to prove 

that the goods were released in 

Guatemala with the customary escort 

and security practices required of all 

carriers for that particular area. 

Cross-Complainant alleges that it 

negotiated the disposition of its claim 

directly with KEI Logix and continued 

to do business with the company. CrossComplainant contends that in May 

2007, KEI Logix not only breached the 

agreement reached by the parties for the 

disposition of the claim, but also 

refused to deliver three containers in 

transit unless Cross-Complainant 

immediately paid the full amount of its 

outstanding invoices. CrossComplainant alleges that KEI Logix did 

this to recoup the money that it owed 

to Cross-Complainant in their 

agreement. Accordingly, to mitigate its 

prospective damages attributable to KEI 

Logix’s breach, Cross-Complainant 

asserts that it had no alternative but to 

tender three checks totaling $101,019.08 

for the release of its containers, then to 

place a stop-payment order on them. 

Cross-Complainant claims that it offered 

to reissue the checks and to pay $2,500 

in attorneys fees, but KEI Logix declined 

the offer. 

Cross-Complainant requests that the 

Commission require Cross-Respondents 

to pay reparations of $152,152.90 for the 

stolen cargo plus attorneys fees, and to 

mitigate damages relative to freight 

charges. Additionally, CrossComplainant requests that any hearings 

be conducted in either Washington, DC 

at the Federal Maritime Commission or 

in Los Angeles, California. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–3692 Filed 7–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank 

Holding Companies 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank 

holding company. The factors that are 

considered in acting on the notices are 

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the office of the Board of Governors. 

Interested persons may express their 

views in writing to the Reserve Bank 

indicated for that notice or to the offices 

of the Board of Governors. Comments 

must be received not later than August 

14, 2007. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 

(David Tatum, Vice President) 1000 

Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 

30309: 

1. The John Charles Simpson, Jr., 

Trust; the Angela Katherine Simpson 

Trust (the Trusts); Simeon A. Thibeaux, 

Jr., as trustee of the Trusts, all of 

Alexandria, Louisiana; and John C. 

Simpson, New Orleans, Louisiana; to 

retain control of the outstanding shares 

of Red River Bancshares, Inc., and 

thereby retain control of Red River 

Bank, both of Alexandria, Louisiana. 

In addition, the Trusts, Simeon 

Thibeaux, Jr., and John Simpson also 

have applied to collectively acquire 

additional voting shares of Red River 

Bancshares, Inc., and Red River Bank. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, July 25, 2007. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E7–14656 Filed 7–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 

The companies listed in this notice 

have applied to the Board for approval, 

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) 

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 

225), and all other applicable statutes 

and regulations to become a bank 

holding company and/or to acquire the 

assets or the ownership of, control of, or 

the power to vote shares of a bank or 

bank holding company and all of the 

banks and nonbanking companies 

owned by the bank holding company, 

including the companies listed below. 

The applications listed below, as well 

as other related filings required by the 

Board, are available for immediate 

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 

indicated. The application also will be 

available for inspection at the offices of 

the Board of Governors. Interested 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Additional information on all bank 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES