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

Exhibit 10.42

Evergy, Inc.


Summary of
Non-Employee Director Compensation




															
				New
Amount

	Cash - Retainer (Paid Quarterly)		
	Annual Retainer	$100,000 		
	Non-Executive Chair Retainer	$55,000 		
	Lead Director Retainer	$25,000 		
	Audit Committee Chair Retainer	$20,000 		
	Compensation and Leadership Development Committee Chair Retainer	$20,000 		
	Nominating, Governance, and Corporate Responsibility Committee Chair Retainer	$15,000 		
	Finance Committee Chair Retainer	$15,000 		
	Nuclear and Power Supply Committee Chair Retainer	$15,000 		
	Power Delivery and Safety Committee Chair Retainer	$15,000 		
			
	Cash - Committee Member Retainers and Meeting Fees	None	
			
	Evergy, Inc. Common Stock (Paid Annually)		
	Annual Equity Compensation	$130,000 		
	Non-Executive Chair	$55,000 		
			
	All members of the Board of Directors are entitled to be reimbursed for expenses, as set forth in Evergy, Inc.’s corporate governance guidelines.   Evergy, Inc. also provides liability insurance to its directors under its directors and officers insurance policies.
No. 59457.

protests 222760-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Elwin Handkerchief Mfg. Co. and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of Los Angeles et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  
 To the
Board of Directors and Shareholders
 ProtoKinetix,
Incorporated
 
 
 We have
audited the accompanying balance sheet of ProtoKinetix, Incorporated
(a development stage company) ("the Company") as of December 31, 2007,
and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and
cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, and for the
period from December 23, 1999 (date of inception) to December 31,
2007.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audits.
 
 We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  The
Company has determined that it is not required to have, nor were we engaged to
perform, an audit of its internal control over financial
reporting.  Our audits included consideration of internal control over
financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting.  Accordingly, we express no such opinion.  An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.
 
 In our
opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of ProtoKinetix, Incorporated (a
development stage company) as of December 31, 2007, and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006,
and for the period from December 23, 1999 (date of inception) through
December 31, 2007, in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States.
 
 The
accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will
continue as a going concern.  As discussed in Note 1 to the
financial statements, the Company has experienced recurring losses from
operations since inception, has a working capital deficit, and has a deficit
accumulated during the development stage.  These conditions raise
substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern.  Management's plans regarding these matters are also
described in Note 1.  The financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
 
 
 /S/
PETERSON SULLIVAN PLLC
  April 10,
2008
 Seattle,
Washington
No. 48413.

#### Protests 930620-G, etc., of Allen-Diaz, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**          I, Scott D. Dorfman, Chief Executive Officer of Innotrac Corporation (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: August 14, 2006         /s/ Scott D. Dorfman Scott D. Dorfman
H. Res. 99 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 14, 2017. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 428) to 

survey the gradient boundary along the Red River in the 

States of Oklahoma and Texas, and for other purposes. All 

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2 Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

42) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of 

Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants. All points of order against consideration of 
2 

•HRES 99 EH 

the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 

the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 

be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
January 21, 2010

Ms. Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator

Air and Radiation Management Administration

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Blvd, Suite 1880

Baltimore, MD  21230‐1720

Re: Comments on proposed revisions to COMAR 26.11.19.10‐1

Dear Ms. Rabin:

The Flexographic Technical Association (FTA) thanks you for the opportunity to review and comment on

the proposed amendments to COMAR 26.11.19.10‐1 Volatile Organic Compounds Released by Specific

Industries (Flexible Packaging Industry) released by the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE).

We appreciate your willingness to work with the printing industry in developing these amendments

regarding the application of reasonably available control technology (RACT) in the flexible package

printing industry.

The FTA represents the flexographic printing industry which includes flexible package printers (primarily

SIC 2759 and various NAICS 323112 codes) in Maryland.  Although not as large as printing associations

representing other print processes, FTA has a number of flexographic printers in Maryland.

Overall, FTA supports the MDE in its use of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 2006

Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing EPA 453/R‐06‐003 as the basis for

developing RACT requirements for the flexible package printing industry in your state.  The proposed

changes to COMAR 26.11.19.10‐1 correspond to the federal standard, but the action is not more

restrictive or stringent. 

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Doreen M. Monteleone, Ph.D.

Director EHS, Membership & Special Projects
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of RTG Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ending August 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Linda Perry, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Linda PerryLinda
      Perry
                    Chief
      Executive Officer
                    December
      3, 2009
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 2 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 3 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 4 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 5 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 6 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 7 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 8 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 9 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 10 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 11 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 12 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 13 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 14 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 15 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 16 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 17 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 18 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 19 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 20 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 21 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 22 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 23 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 24 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 25 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 26 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 27 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 28 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 29 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 30 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 31 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 32 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 33 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 34 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 35 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 36 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 37 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 38 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 39 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 40 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 41 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 42 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 43 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 44 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 45 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 46 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 47 of 48
Case 2:04-cv-02841-SD Document 310 Filed 01/13/11 Page 48 of 48
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

TESSEL : 02-3865

FILIPPO : 02-3871

JONES, et al. : 02-3909

HOLMAN, et al. : 02-3918

LAMB : 02-3947

JONES : 02-3956

LARSON : 02-3981

DRENTLAW : 02-4142

DURHAM : 02-4160

SIEGEL, et al. : 02-4178

NELSON, et al. : 02-4202

FOSTER, et al. : 02-4222

SIMINUK, et al. : 02-4251

NITZKO, et al. : 02-4270

MICHALIK, et al. : 02-4888

:

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

Case 2:02-cv-04142-PBT Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Petrese B. Tucker, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04142-PBT Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 2 of 2
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Alternet Systems, Inc.
  (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
  each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
  hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                  
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
      of the Company.

|Dated: January 22, 2007 | By: | /s/
      Patrick Fitzsimmons
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|                        |     | Patrick Fitzsimmons          
|                        |     | President and Director       

---
uhs-ex101_8.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

December 2, 2020

 

Steve Filton 

Executive Vice President & CFO

UHS of Delaware, Inc.

367 South Gulph Road 

King of Prussia, PA 19406 

 

 

Dear Steve:

 

The Board of Trustees of Universal Health Realty Income Trust, at today’s meeting, authorized the renewal of the current Advisory Agreement between Universal Health Realty Income Trust and UHS of Delaware, Inc. (“Agreement”) upon the same terms and conditions. 

 

This letter constitutes Universal Health Realty Income Trust’s offer to renew the Agreement, through December 31, 2021, upon the same terms and conditions.  Please acknowledge UHS of Delaware’s acceptance of this offer by signing in the space provided below and returning one copy of this letter to me.  Thank you.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

By:  /s/ Cheryl K.  Ramagano

Cheryl K. Ramagano

Vice President and Treasurer

 

Agreed and Accepted:

 

UHS OF DELAWARE, INC.

 

 

By:  /s/ Steve Filton

Steve Filton

Executive Vice President and CFO

 

 

CC:Charles Boyle
No. 61758.

#### We Moderns, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 312801-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of headboards similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61224, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 19 07

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ja m es A. W id tfe ld t ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt v. Jam es Daug he rty, Reve nu e Offi cer; Int ern al Rev enue Serv ic e; U.S. Treas ury

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof Ne br as ka- Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Decem

be r 11 , 20 14 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 16 , 20 14 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. Ja m es W id tfe ld t ap pe al s th e di st ric t co urt’s witho ut -p reju di ce di sm is sa l of hi s 1 pr o se ci vi l act io n fo r fai lure to pr os ecu te . Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e The Hon or ab le Jo se ph F. Bat ai ll on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ctof Ne br as ka .di st ric t cou rt di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in di sm is si ng th e act io n with ou t preju di ce,

be cau se W id tfe ld t fai le d to es tabl is h th at he ha d pr op erl y effe ctua te d se rv ic e ag ai ns t de fen da nt s withi n 12 0 da y s aft er f i l i n g h i s co m

pl ai nt . See Fed . R. Ci v. P. 4( m); Bu ll oc k v. Uni te d St at es , 16 0 F.3 d 44 1, 44 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (p er cu ria m) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 -
# C_2016068EN.01003201.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/32

---

Action brought on 9 December 2015 — BASF v OHIM — Evonik Industries (DINCH)

(Case T-721/15)

(2016/C 068/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Evonik Industries AG (Marl, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DINCH’ — Community trade mark No 2 563 856

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 2080/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the contested decision to the effect that the appeal of the other party before the Board of Appeal be dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision to the effect that the appeal of the other party before the Board of Appeal be dismissed;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2017213EN.01001201.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stralsund — Germany) — HanseYachts AG v Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA

(Case C-29/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 27 - Lis pendens - Court first seised - Point 1 of Article 30 - Concept of ‘document instituting the proceedings’ or ‘equivalent document’ - Application for proceedings to preserve or establish, prior to any legal proceedings, evidence of facts on which a subsequent action could be based))

(2017/C 213/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Stralsund

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HanseYachts AG

Applicant:

Defendants: Port D’Hiver Yachting SARL, Société Maritime Côte D’Azur, Compagnie Generali IARD SA

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1) and point 1 of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning, in cases of lis pendens, that the date on which a procedure for a measure of inquiry prior to any legal proceedings was commenced cannot constitute the date on which, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 30 of that regulation, a court called upon to rule on a substantive application which was brought in the same Member State following the result of that measure was ‘deemed to be seised’.

---

(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Duska Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James S. Kuo, M.D., President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|/s/ JAMES S. KUO        | 
|James S. Kuo, M.D.      | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 



March 17, 2008