alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Orgenesis Inc. - Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com





JOINT FILING AGREEMENT

In accordance with Rule 13d-1(k)(1) promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the undersigned hereby
confirm the agreement by and among them to the joint filing on behalf of them of
a Statement on Schedule 13D (including any and all amendments thereto) with
respect to the Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share, of Orgenesis Inc., a
Nevada corporation, and that this agreement may be included as an exhibit to
such joint filing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hereby execute this
Agreement effective as of March 27, 2015. 

 

4FORCELLS SPRL 

 

	Per: 	/s/
      François Lesage 	 
	  	Authorized Signatory 	 


 

JPP CONSULTING SPRL 

 

	Per: 	/s/
      Jean Paul Prieels 	 
	  	Authorized Signatory 	 


 

GABRIEL INVESTMENTS SPRL 

 

	Per: 	/s/ François Lesage 	 
	  	Authorized Signatory 	 


 

AUXILIASTRA SPRL 

 

	Per: 	/s/ Patrick Stragier 	 
	  	Authorized Signatory
December 18, 1940

No. 45039.

#### Protest 916879-G of Henry Pollak, Inc.

Abstract 44737. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
(Reap. Dec. 10153)

#### The Railway Express Agency, Inc., For: Wilhoites’, Incorporated, et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. P-3474, etc.

(Decided January 30, 1962)

*Barnes Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*William R. Orriolc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the Reappraisement Appeals enumerated in Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as in F. W. MYERS & Co., INC. vs. UNITED STATES, 38 C.C.R. 569, R.D. 8728, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the entered values, and that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that these cases may be submitted upon this Stipulation.

On the agreed, facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is foreign value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,- and hold that such statutory value therefor is the entered values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### ROBERT N. ERRINGTON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MANSFIELD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION IN THE COUNTY OF WARREN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued May 5, 1964

Decided May 18, 1964.

*321
      *Mr. Harold A. Price*argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Wilbur M. Bush,*attorney).

*Mr. Robert N. Frrington*argued the cause for respondent, *pro se (Mr. Robert IS. Frederick,*attorney).

*Mr. Thomas P. Cook*argued the cause for State Federation of District Boards of Education, intervening as *amicus curiae.*

Pee Ctjeiam.

After being subjected to the publication in newspapers of the plaintiff’s letters attacking the board of education, the president of the board published a letter which the plaintiff alleges to be defamatory. On November 7, 1962 the plaintiff filed a libel action against Catherine D. Harsha, *322president of the board, and when a majority of the other members of the board adopted a resolution dated November 15, 1962 stating that Mrs. Harsha was acting on behalf of the board and authorizing her legal defense by the board’s counsel, the plaintiff filed a libel action against them. On December 13, 1962 a motion wa,s adopted that they also be defended by board counsel. Answers have been filed in both libel actions and they are now awaiting trial.

On February 8, 1963 the plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writ against the board. It alleged that there was no authority for the board to expend public funds in defense of the libel suits and sought a restraint against such expenditures. The Law Division granted summary judgment for the plaintiff and the Appellate Division affirmed. *Errington v. Mansfield Tp. Bd. of*Ed., 81 *N. J. Super.*414 (1963). We granted certification. 41 *N. J.*519 (1964). The record before us is meagre and the issue presented is of public importance. It appears to us that the sound course would have been to permit the libel actions to proceed to trial and thereafter the issue could have been fairly determined below upon the basis of a full record. Counsel for the board has expressed his agreement that such course now be taken, has represented that the board received reimbursement of its expenditures to date, and has agreed that no public funds would be expended in defense of the libel suits pending ultimate determination of the issue raised in this action.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*For reversal and remandment*— Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Fraitcis, Proctor, Hall, Sci-iettifo and Haneman — 7.

*For affirmance■*— None.
#### James E. Byrne, *Respondent, v.*The New York Brick and Cement Company, *Appellant.*

Order reversed and motion denied, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J..
No. 41847.

#### Petitions 5730-R, etc., of John F. Kilroy Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

It appeared that the merchandise is seasonal goods and that it was appraised on the basis of the United States value. On reappr'aisement it was decided that appraisement should be made on the basis of foreign value but at unit values higher than those represented by the invoice and entered values. A careful consideration of the record led to the conclusion that the entry was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, to conceal or misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser. The petitions were therefore granted.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, Monica M. Weed certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc. Litigation ContingentPayment Rights Trust;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.   Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.   The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15eand 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such internal control over financialreporting to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| /s/ MONICA M. WEED |   |   |
|--------------------|--------|--------|
| Monica M. Weed     |   |
| Litigation Trustee |   |
| November 12, 2004  |   |

 

----
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Alegna, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63411

)

Under Contract No. W911S2

- 21

- P

- 1099 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Samuel S. Finnerty, Esq.

Lauren R. Brier, Esq.

PilieroMazza PLLC

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

Army Chief Trial Attorney

CPT Natalie W. McKiernan, JA

Robert B. Neill, Esq.

Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 14, 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63411

, Appeal of Alegna, Inc.

, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 14, 2023 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Before the Second Division,

July 10, 1939

No. 41808.

#### Protest 78394-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 363, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
#### EDMOND WOODHOUSE. *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. NEW JERSEY STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Messrs. Schreiber & Lancaster*and *Mr. Gerald W. Conway*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills, Mr. William J.*Brennan, *III,*and *Mr. Arthur Abba Goldberg*for the respondent.

January 29, 1968.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13051-13052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5039]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 255


Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in 
Advertising

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Extension of deadline for submission of comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') is 
extending until June 18, 2007 the deadline for filing comments on the 
Guides and on two consumer surveys commissioned by the Commission

[[Page 13052]]

concerning the interpretation of consumer endorsements.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule published January 18, 2007, must 
be received by June 18, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shira Modell, Attorney, Division of 
Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 
Commission, Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-3116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 16, 2007, the Commission 
announced that it was seeking public comment in conjunction with its 
regulatory review of the Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and 
Testimonials in Advertising (``the Guides''). See 72 FR 2214 (Jan. 18, 
2007). The Commission's Federal Register notice: (1) Solicited comment 
on the Guides and on two consumer surveys commissioned by the 
Commission concerning the interpretation of consumer endorsements; and 
(2) requested empirical evidence on several issues relating to the 
Guides. The deadline established for the submission of comments was 
March 19, 2007.
    The Electronic Retailing Association (``ERA'') has requested a 90-
day extension of the March 19 deadline. ERA states that it needs the 
additional time to review the two reports put on the public record in 
January and compile information from its members to submit for the 
record in this proceeding.
    In light of the number and importance of the issues on which it has 
requested comment, the Commission has decided to extend the filing 
deadline until June 18, 2007.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5039 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
1-900 JACKPOT, INC. (FORMERLY PULTRONEX CORPORATION)
                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Brian  Fisher,  solely for the purpose of  complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
hereby  certify  that to my  knowledge  Annual  Report  of 1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.
(formerly  Pultronex  Corporation)  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31,
2001 ("Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of 1-900 Jackpot, Inc. (formerly Pultronex Corporation).



DATE:  SEPTEMBER 15, 2005

/S/ BRIAN FISHER
------------------------
    BRIAN FISHER
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER




A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Irene A. D’Onofrio, Appellant, v James T. Boehlert, Appellant, and Spalding & Evenflo Cos., Inc., Doing Business as Spalding Sports Worldwide, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 384]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant Spalding & Evenflo Cos., Inc., doing business as Spalding Sports Worldwide (Spalding) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it because it did not manufacture, sell or distribute the bicycle plaintiff was riding when she was injured. A trademark licensor cannot be held liable for injuries caused by a defective product bearing its label where the licensor did not design, manufacture, sell, distribute or market the allegedly defective item *(see, Porter v LSB Indus.,*192 AD2d 205, 211; *Kane v Cohen Distribs.,*172 AD2d 720; *Balsam v Delma Eng’g Corp.,*139 AD2d 292, *lv dismissed and denied*73 NY2d 783). The fact that Spalding, under the licensing agreement with defendant Sears Roebuck & Co. (Sears), had the right to approve or disapprove items and materials bearing its name and the marketing plan for those items is insufficient, without evidence of actual control, for imposition of liability *(see, Porter v LSB Indus., supra; Kane v Cohen Distrihs., supra; Balsam v Delma Eng’g Corp., supra).*

The court erred, however, in granting the motions of defendant James T. Boehlert (Boehlert) and Sears for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Plaintiff raised an issue of fact in response to those motions with regard to the liability of Sears, which sold the bicycle, and Boehlert, who assembled it. Plaintiff asserted that the accident occurred when her use of the rear brakes failed to slow the bicycle, and her use of the front brakes caused her to be thrown over the handlebars. Plaintiff’s expert stated that the brakes on the bicycle were improperly assembled, causing them to malfunction. The expert stated that the improper assembly of the bicycle was caused by the unclear, confusing and inadequate assembly instructions provided to Boehlert by Sears. The conflicting opinions of Sears’ and plaintiff’s experts present questions of credibility for a jury *(see, Cavallaro v Baker,*187 AD2d 976). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
|  | Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Contact 										Us | 										Print 										Version 										Search: 										EPA 										Home > Prevention, 										Pesticides and Toxic Substances> Test 										Methods and Guidelines> Series 870 										Harmonized Test Guidelines   |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines
**Series 870 Health Effects Test Guidelines**

 The harmonized test guidelines have been developed for use in 				the testing of pesticides and toxic substances, and the development 				of test data that must be submitted to the Agency for review under 				Federal regulations. 

**PLEASE NOTE:** Some of the items mentioned in this 						page are in Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF). To 						view or print them you will need to have the Adobe Acrobat 						Reader program installed on your computer. The Reader 						can be downloaded and used with no charge. Click here 						for more 						information from EPA on PDF files.  **Public Drafts**- Guidelines in  Public 					Draft
- Master Guideline List  (13 					KB, PDF) 
- Summary of Draft Changes  (79 					KB, PDF)
**Final Guidelines**-  Final 					Guidelines
- Master Guideline List  (25 					KB, PDF)
- Summary of Final Changes  (44 					KB, PDF)
-  Revised Final Guidelines  (December 2002 and March 2003)

 

 
 
EPA Home 				| Privacy 				and Security Notice | 				Contact Us

 

  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Before the Second Division,

July 5, 1940

No. 44086.

#### Protest 30461-K of Greenberg & Josefsberg (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Borgfeldt*v. *United States*(T. D. 48585) the claim at 33¡4 percent under paragraph 412 was sustained.
No. 40228.

#### Protests 902650-G/86518, etc., of Montgomery Ward & Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of binocular cases in chief value of leather similar to those involved in Abstract 39805. The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1531 was therefore sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Project No. 12058-002, Project No. 12686-001] 

On April 27, 2006, Baker County, Oregon filed a Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document for the proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project, initiating the pre-filing activities of the Commission's Integrated Licensing Process. On May 23, 2006, Baker County filed an application for a second preliminary permit to allow for continued study of the site. The Commission issued the new preliminary permit to Baker County on January 19, 2007. 

As a result of the issuance of the new preliminary permit, the project number assigned to Baker County for the proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project has changed. The new project number is P-12686. All future filings being made in regards to the ongoing pre-filing activities of the Integrated Licensing Process for the proposed project should use P-12686-001 to identify the filing. The original project number and docket (P-12058-002), assigned to this proceeding and the proposed project is now CLOSED. 

All filings made to date, under P-12058-002 with regard to the pre-filing activities of the Commission's Integrated Licensing Process for the proposed Mason Dam Hydroelectric Project, will be cross referenced to the new project number and docket P-12686-001 and will continue to be part of the official public record. Therefore, re-filing of these documents is not necessary. 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E7-5458 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
-0164 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DONALD WAYNE PULST,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 6, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 29 2022

04/29/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0164