alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 14,329.

#### ULRICH v. The SUNBEAM.

[1 N. Y. Law J. 141.]

District Court. D. New Jersey.

April 16, 1878.

Negligence — Towage-Cake and Skill — Limiting Liability.

In cases of towage, the tug boat is not an insurer or common carrier, and hence is not liable for the want of the exercise of the highest possible degree of care and skill. But she must use reasonable carefulness and ordinary skill, and cannot bargain to be exempted from all the risks of the service.

Libel in rem. filed to recover damages for negligence aud carelessness in towing the canal boat Van Olinda. from Newark to Pas-saic on the Passaic river. The two defences were: (1) That the masier of the canal boat assumed all risks in the tolvage; (2) that the unskillfulness of said master caused the accident.

NIXON. District Judge.

As the testimony of the respondents is uncontradicted that the service of towage was undertaken by the Sunbeam with the understanding and agreement between the parties that the same should be at the risk of the canal boat, it becomes important to inquire how far such an understanding and agreement relieves the tug from responsibility. It is the settled doctrine in cases of towage that the tug boat is not an insurer or common carrier; and hence that she is not liable tor the want of the exercise of the highest possible degree of care and skill. But she is bound to bring to the performance ot the duty which she undertakes reasonable carefulness and ordinary skill, and she cannot relieve herself from the consequences of a lack of these by a bargain with the other party that she shall be exempted from the risks of service. Such a bargain doubtless means something; but it is contrary to public policy to so construe a contract of that nature that the tower is allowed to go clear of all liability when it is shown that he has relaxed his faithfulness and duty in performing the service. Ashmore v. Pennsylvania Steam Towing & Transportation Co., 4 Dutch. [28 N. J. Law] 192. The true rule was announced by the supreme court in the case of New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants’ Bank, 6 How. [47 U. S.] 384. where the court, considering a special agreement of a like nature, say that its proper effect was to change the burden of proof, and to throw upon the libelants the duty of showing that the loss was occasioned by the want of due care or by gross negligence.

Have the libelants in the present case satisfactorily proved gross negligence or want of due care on the part of the respondents? The undertaking was to tow the canal beat from Newark to Passaic. The offer implied a guaranty of skill on the part of the master of the tug in performance of the service: such a knowledge of the channel as would enable him to make the trip with safety; and the adoption of such methods of attaching the boat to the tug that the former would not be unnecessarily exposed to the hazards of navigating a river which has long been considered somewhat dangerous from the rocks in the bed of the stream.

The facts commented upon and the conclusion reached that the master of the tug exhibited both negligence and want of skill in the towage. Decree for libelants.
Exhibit 10.1

AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is made effective as of the 1stday of April 2006 by and between__________________________ (the Executive) and Global Imaging Systems, Inc. (the Company).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Executive has previously been granted options to purchase shares of the Companys common stock (the Stock Options); and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the Board) authorized the Company to accelerate the vesting of all Executives Stock Options previously unvested and outstanding as of March 31,
2006; and

WHEREAS, the Board has determined it is the Companys best interest to require Executive to agree to certain restrictions
on the sale of any shares of the Companys common stock acquired by Executive by exercising any of Executives Stock Options that were subject to accelerated vesting; and

WHEREAS, Executive has agreed to such restrictions.

NOW, THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Executive agrees
Executive will not sell any shares of the Companys common stock acquired by Executive by exercising any of Executives Stock Options that were subject to accelerated vesting until the earlier of: (i) the date on which such Stock
Options would have vested in the absence of accelerated vesting or (ii) the death, disability or retirement of the Executive or (iii) the voluntary or involuntary termination of the employment relationship between the Executive and the
Company.

2. For purposes of this Agreement, the term Company shall be construed to include Global Imaging Systems, Inc. and all
its subsidiaries and related entities.

3. This Agreement supercedes all prior understandings between the Executive and the Company on the
subject matter of this Agreement.

4. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.

5. This Agreement may only be modified or amended by a written agreement executed by the Executive and the Company.



---

6. Executive acknowledges Executive has been given an opportunity to review this Agreement, fully
understands the implications of executing this Agreement, has agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and has knowingly and voluntarily executed this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement effective as of the day and year first above written.





|                             |  |  |  |           |  |      |  | 
|---------------------------- |  |  |  | --------- |  | ---- |  | 
|Global Imaging Systems, Inc. |  |  |  | Executive
|                             |  |  | 
|By:                          |  |  |  |           |  |     
|                             |  |  |  |          
|Name:                        |  |  |  |           |  | Name |  | 
|                             |  |  |  |          
|Title:                       |  |  |  |           |  |      |  |
ROLLING THUNDER EXPLORATION LTD.

RESERVES COMMITTEE CHAIR

POSITION DESCRIPTION





Appointment



1.

The Chair of the Reserves Committee will be appointed, serve and be removed at the pleasure of the Board.





Duties of the Reserves Committee Chair



2.

In addition to fulfilling his or her duties as an individual director, the duties of the Reserves Committee Chair are to:



(a)

serve as the Reserves Committees role model for responsible, ethical and effective decision making;



(b)

lead the Reserves Committee in discharging all duties set out in the Reserves Committee Mandate and as are delegated to the authority of the Reserves Committee by the Board;



(c)

take reasonable steps to ensure that the Reserves Committee members execute their duties pursuant to their Mandate;



(d)

manage the affairs of the Reserves Committee to ensure that the Reserves Committee is organized properly and functions effectively;



(e)

preside at, and together with the Reserves Committee members and advisors, as appropriate, call, schedule and prepare the agenda for each meeting of the Reserves Committee;



(f)

coordinate with management, reserves evaluators, reserves engineers, reserves auditors and all other advisors engaged by the Reserves Committee to ensure that:



(i)

documents are delivered to members in sufficient time in advance of Reserves Committee meetings for a thorough review;



(ii)

matters are properly presented for the Reserves Committees consideration at meetings;



(iii)

members have an appropriate opportunity to discuss issues at each meeting;



(iv)

members have an appropriate opportunity to question management, employees, reserves evaluators, reserves engineers, reserves auditors and all other advisors engaged by the Reserves Committee regarding reserves issues and all other matters of importance to the Reserves Committee; and



(v)

members work constructively towards their recommendations to the Board;



(g)

communicate with each member of the Reserves Committee to ensure that:



(i)

each member has the opportunity to be heard and participate in decision making; and



(ii)

each member is accountable to the Reserves Committee;



(h)

arrange for the preparation, accuracy and distribution of all minutes of the Reserves Committee to its members;



(i)

ensure that the Reserves Committee, following each meeting:



(i)

reports to the Board regarding its activities, findings and recommendations; and



(ii)

makes Committee information available to any director upon request; and



(j)

assist in maintaining effective working relationships between Committee members, reserves evaluators, reserves engineers, reserves auditors, all advisors engaged by the Reserves Committee, the Board, the CEO, executive officers and management.







APPROVED BY THE BOARD ●, 2006
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 20, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-754

Lower Tribunal No. 13-19277

________________

Eda A. Perez-Rios,

Appellant,

vs.

The Graham Companies,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Marin,

Judge.

Lindsey M. Tenberg (Lighthouse Point), for appellant.

The Chartwell Law Offices, LLP, and Mitchell L. Lundeen, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, SALTER and LOGUE, JJ.

LOGUE, J.
In this slip-and-fall case, Eda A. Perez-Rios, the plaintiff below, appeals a

final summary judgment entered in favor of The Graham Companies. At her

deposition, Ms. Perez-Rios indicated that, on the morning of a clear day, she

tripped on a four-inch high step leading from the pavement to a building owned by

The Graham Companies. The step was plainly visible. The pavement above and

below the step was constructed of red brick. In contrast, the step was constructed

of white stone. Photographs of the area where she fell, which she authenticated,

indicated no particular defect. There was no evidence of a foreign object on the

step, uneven wear and tear, inadequate lighting, or wet or slippery conditions.

When directly asked, Ms. Perez-Rios could not identify any defects in the step. No

contradictory evidence, such as an expert’s report, was submitted into the record

which might have created a disputed issue of fact regarding any defect in the step

which could be resolved only by a jury or judge sitting as a fact-finder.

Under these circumstances, the trial court properly entered summary

judgment against Ms. Perez-Rios. “Summary judgment is designed to test the

sufficiency of the evidence to determine if there is sufficient evidence at issue to

justify a trial or formal hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings.” Fla. Bar v.

Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1200 (Fla. 2006). “A party should not be put to the

expense of going through a trial, where the only possible result will be a directed

verdict.” Martin Petroleum Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 769 So. 2d 1105, 1108

2
(Fla. 4th DCA 2000). See also Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So. 2d 319,

320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will

perceive that which would be obvious to him [or her] upon the ordinary use of his

own sense[s], and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an

obvious danger.”) (citation omitted); Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v.

Ferguson, 556 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Some conditions are

simply so open and obvious, so common and so ordinarily innocuous, that they can

be held as a matter of law to not constitute a hidden dangerous condition.”).

Affirmed.

3
Exhibit 23.1  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-170169 and Form S-8 No. 333-142074) of TAL International Group, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated February 18, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of TAL International Group, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of TAL International Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.   /s/   Ernst & Young LLPNew   York, New YorkFebruary 18,   2011
I	am	seeking	exemption	from	21.25	of	Title	14.	

The	UA	system,	which	will	be	used,	is	A	DJI	Phantom	2,	Vision	Plus	and	Phantom	3.	

The	Special	purpose	of	this	proposed	exemption	is	for	Aerial	surveying	and

Patrolling.

The	Patrolling	will	be	mainly	for	Tower	Installation	Inspections	for	the	Maintenance	

and	Surveying	of	Safety	regulations.	This	application	will	allow	safe	inspections	of	

Tower	Installation	and	allow	for	a	safer	method	of	maintenance	and	surveying,	

which	is usually	provided	by	a	crew	of	climbers.	Under	this	proposed	inspection	

method	this	will	allow	for	less	climbs,	which	in	tern	cuts	down	on	risk	of	injury.	

Tower	crews	will	only	have	to	climb	a	Tower	when	there	is	a	direct	need	for	

maintenance.	

Other	applications	include	Commercial	Real	Estate	Photography.	This	will	be	used	

primarily	for	the	advertising	purposes	of	the	agencies.	Which	would	fall	under	the	

section	of	Aerial	Surveying.	

I	am	seeking	relief	from	these	guidelines	because	I	feel	that	my	services	are	useful	to	

potential	clients.	With	Tower	Installation	Surveying,	it	will	provide	a	safer	

alternative	to	the	current	working	model	of	maintenance	and	create	safer	working	

conditions	for	tower	crews.
**CERTIFICATION**




GE
      Commercial Mortgage Corporation


Trust,
      Series 2005-C3 (the “ Trust ”)




I,
      Daniel
      J. Smith, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing
      distribution date reports filed in respect of periods included in the year
      covered by this annual report, of the Trust;




2.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does 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 as of the last day of the period
      covered by this annual report;




3.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, the servicing information required to be provided to the trustee
      by the servicer and the special servicer under the pooling and servicing
      agreement is included in these reports;




4.  I
      am
      responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and the
      special servicer under the pooling and servicing agreement and based upon my
      knowledge and the annual compliance review required under the pooling and
      servicing agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer and
      special servicer have fulfilled their obligations under the pooling and
      servicing agreement; and




5.  The
      reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s or
      special servicer’s compliance with the minimum servicing standards, based upon
      the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a
      review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
      Bankers or similar standard as set forth in the pooling and servicing agreement,
      that is included in these reports.




In
      giving
      the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
      to me
      by the following unaffiliated parties: Midland Loan Services, Inc., as Servicer,
      Midland Loan Services, Inc., as Special Servicer, LaSalle Bank National
      Association, as Trustee, ABN AMRO Bank N.V., as Fiscal Agent and the other
      servicers of mortgage loans included in the Trust.




Date:
      March 29, 2006




By:
      /s/ Daniel J. Smith


Title:
      President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 55074.

#### Chong Kee Jan & Co. v. United States,

protest 82173-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protest was dismissed.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEAFJl'JGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter ofClear Day Aviation, Inc. Docket No. FAA-2015-2349 Case No. 2013EA390075 Judge J.E. Sullivan
AGENCY'S WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT
The Agency, under 14 CFR Section 13.215 andpursuant to a settlement agreement, withdraws its Complaint inthis matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter J. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement



### By 

# "'21rd1&: Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel EnforcementDivision, Northeast Team 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 T: 718-553-3258 F: 718-995-5699 E: Zachary.Bennan@FAA.GOV Dated: March 11, 2016CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that on this day copies ofthe foregoing Agency's Withdrawal ofComplaint were sent first class mail and fax as follows: Judge J. E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative Law Judge Offtce ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 FAX: 202-366-7536 Mr. H. Bruce Brandon Respondent's Counsel 3439 South Aviation Drive Burlington, NC 27215 T: 336-358-6300 F: 336-286-7050 I hereby certify that on this day copies ofthe foregoing Agency's Withdrawal ofComplaint were sent first class mail as follows: Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000

Date: Ljs Hooks Paralegal Specialist Federal Aviation Administration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434
2
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000406

31-DEC-2019

08:00 AM
No. 58839.

protest 236163-K (New York).

#### Freedman & Slater, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hair of the vicuna in the grease, not scoured, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Document

        



Exhibit 10.58


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
MASTER MANUFACTURING SERVICES AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT


This Amendment No. 2 to Master Manufacturing Services and Supply Agreement (“Amendment No. 2”) is made effective and entered into on January 29, 2021 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) by and between Siegfried Evionnaz SA, with principal offices located at Route du Simplon 1, 36, 1902 Evionnaz, Switzerland (together with its Affiliates and subsidiaries “Vendor”); and Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., with its offices at 245 First Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 02142 (“Keryx”).


WHEREAS, Vendor and Keryx entered into a Master Manufacturing Services and Supply Agreement dated December 20, 2017 (“Agreement”) under which Vendor manufactures Product for purchase by Keryx; and


WHEREAS, on December 12, 2018, Keryx merged with Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. (“Akebia”) and, pursuant to such merger, Akebia assumed all of Keryx’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. Keryx continues to operate as a wholly owned subsidiary of Akebia, and Akebia is an Affiliate of Keryx; and


WHEREAS, Vendor and Keryx wish to amend the Agreement as herein provided.


NOW THEREFORE, Vendor and Keryx hereto mutually agree as follows:


1.The text of Section 16.1 of the Agreement is be deleted and is hereby replaced by the following:


16.1    The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence as of the Agreement Date and, subject to earlier termination in accordance with the provisions of this Section 16, shall end on December 31, 2021.  Unless terminated by one of the Parties on or before February 11, 2021 by providing prior written notice to the other Party, or, for any subsequent terms, with at least twelve (12) months prior written notice, this Agreement shall automatically renew for subsequent terms of one (1) year.


2.For the purpose of this Amendment No. 2, the defined terms used herein shall have the same meaning as those used in the Agreement, unless otherwise specified in this Amendment No. 2.


3.Except as provided for in this Amendment No. 2, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


4.The governing law and jurisdiction applicable to the Agreement shall apply to this Amendment No. 2.




[Signature page follows]






        



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Vendor and Keryx hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.


Signed on behalf of Siegfried Evionnaz SA    Signed on behalf of Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
                


By:    _/s/ Luca Parlanti_______            By:    /s/ Michel Dahan__________


Name:    Luca Parlanti___    ____            Name:    Michel Dahan_____________


Date:    29/01/2021____________            Date:    January 29, 2021        


Signed on behalf of Siegfried Evionnaz SA        
                


By:    /s/ Marianne Spane_____            


Name:    Marianne Spane________            


Date:    29/01/2021_____________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RICHARD B. CAREY and CAREY ’ S §

HOME CONSTRUCTION, LLC

, § No. 407, 2015

§

Plaintiffs Below, §

Appellant s

, § Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ C.A. No. S11C

- 10

- 029

THE ESTATE OF DAVID L. §

MYERS and ARLENE MYERS

, §

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellee s

. §

Submitted: January 20, 2016

Decided: January 2 8 , 2016

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VAUGHN , and SEITZ , Justices.

ORDER

This 2 8 th day of January 2016 , after careful consideration of the parties’

briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment of the Superior

Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the

Superior Court in its decision dated July 1, 2015 1

.

NOW, THEREFORE

, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice

1 Carey v. Estate of Myers, 2015 WL 4087056 (Del. Super. July 1, 2015).
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
     8-K required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2005-104
     (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 8-K 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:

            JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its officers and agents

Date:  August 29, 2006


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum


Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior Vice President & Actuary
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor