alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First Amendment of the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Profit Sharing and 401(K) Plan



 
Exhibit 10.11

 
FIRST
AMENDMENT 
OF THE

SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. PROFIT
SHARING AND 401(K) PLAN 
(As Amended and
Restated Effective January 1, 2001) 
 
WHEREAS, Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 
WHEREAS, the Company has
delegated authority to amend the Plan to the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Benefit Plans Committee (the “Committee”), and the Committee has determined that amendment of the Plan is necessary and desirable. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant
to the power reserved to the Company by Section 10.01 of the Plan, and by virtue of the authority delegated to the Committee, the Plan, as previosly amended, is hereby amended, in the following particulars: 
 
1. By deleting the word “and” before clause (ii) in
the last sentence of Section 4.02 of the Plan, and adding the following immediately after clause (ii) thereof, effective as of April 1, 2002: 
 
“and (iii) not include any commissions any Participant receives from Celaris Group, Inc. or any successor.” 
 
2. By adding the following paragraph (e) to Section 6.04 of
the Plan, immediately after paragraph (d) thereof, effective as of March 15, 2001: 
 
“(e) If a Participant elects to receive his or her benefits in the form of a lump sum payment and his or her vested
account balance in the Company Stock Fund is $5,000 or more, the Participant may elect to receive such balance in Company Stock.”  
 
*        *        * 
 









 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, on behalf of the Committee, the undersigned Committee member has executed this amendment this 8th day of May 2002. 
 

	 SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
 BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE

	
	 By:
	 	

	 Its:
	 	



 

-2-
EXHIBIT 10.4

                              BERWICK CAPITAL, INC.
                          8 West 36th Street, Suite 700
                            New York, New York  10018



   May 15, 1997


   United States Leather, Inc.
   1403 West Bruce Street
   Milwaukee, WI  53204

   Gentlemen:

   This letter agreement confirms our mutual understanding regarding the
   engagement of Berwick Capital, Inc. ("Berwick") to provide management
   services to United States Leather, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the
   "Company"), which services shall include, but not necessarily be limited
   to, the service of Anthony Biancanello as President and Chief Executive
   Officer of the Company on an active full-time basis.

   In connection with Mr. Biancanello's service as President and Chief
   Executive Officer, you agree to pay Berwick a fixed fee of $2,000 per work
   day, payable bi-monthly, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses (which
   shall include, but not be limited to, travel expenses and lodging expenses
   in the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area) incurred in connection with
   such service.

   Berwick shall only provide additional services upon the written request of
   a director of the Company, other than Mr. Biancanello, and Berwick will
   charge you a mutually agreeable price for such additional services at a
   rate specified in such written report.

   Our engagement will automatically expire on May 15, 1998 unless extended
   in writing for up to an additional one-year term by the mutual written
   consent of the Company and Berwick.  Our engagement may also be terminated
   by either party, at will, by written notice to the other.

   The Company hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Berwick and its
   employees from and against all debt, liabilities, obligations, losses,
   damages, judgments, awards, settlements, costs, expenses, demands, claims,
   suits, actions, costs of investigation, causes of action, proceedings, and
   assessments, to the fullest extent permitted by law, asserted against,
   resulting from, imposed upon or incurred by Berwick or its employees,
   directly or indirectly, by reason of, arising out of or resulting from any
   matter related to this agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby
   or any actions taken by Berwick or its employees pursuant to the
   engagement of Berwick provided for herein.

   If you find that the foregoing satisfactorily states our mutual
   understanding, please sign the enclosed copy of this agreement in the
   space indicated below and return it to me.

   Very truly yours,

   BERWICK CAPITAL, INC.



   By: /s/ Anthony Biancanello
        Anthony Biancanello, President



   Agreed and accepted as of the
   date indicated above.

   UNITED STATES LEATHER, INC.



   By: /s/ Kinzie L. Weimer
        Kinzie L. Weimer
        Senior Vice President and
        Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 7439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02691]

[[Page 7439]]

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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Publication of EAC Decision Regarding State Requests To Include 
Additional Proof-of-Citizenship Instructions on the National Mail Voter 
Registration Form

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) hereby causes to 
be published in the Federal Register this notice in reference to the 
Memorandum Of Decision Concerning State Requests To Include Additional 
Proof-Of-Citizenship Instructions On The National Mail Voter 
Registration Form (Docket No. Eac 2013 0004). The decision, issued 
January 17, 2014, is posted on the EAC Web site at www.eac.gov 
(shortened link: http://1.usa.gov/1mdWASw), and also on the Federal 
eRulemaking portal, www.regulations.gov, at the following link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EAC-2013-0004-0429. Arizona, 
Georgia, and Kansas had sought to modify the state-specific 
instructions on the National Mail Voter Registration Form (``Federal 
Form'') to require that, as a precondition to registering to vote in 
Federal elections in those states, applicants must provide additional 
proof of their United States citizenship beyond that currently required 
by the Federal Form. For the reasons set forth in the decision, the 
Commission denied the states' requests.

DATES: This notice is effective upon publication in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Whitener, Telephone 301-563-3919 
or 1-866-747-1471 (toll-free).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Background: The EAC's decision followed a Federal court order in a 
lawsuit brought by Kansas and Arizona challenging the EAC's earlier 
deferral of a decision on those states' requests to modify the Federal 
Form's state-specific instructions. See Kobach v. EAC, No. 5:13-cv-4095 
(D. Kan. Dec. 13, 2013). The district court directed the Commission to 
take final action on Kansas's and Arizona's requests by January 17, 
2014. Because Georgia's request presented similar issues, the EAC also 
decided to take final action on that request. Before issuing its 
decision, the EAC solicited public comment on all three states' 
requests, see 78 Fed. Reg. 77666-67 (Dec. 24, 2013), and reviewed and 
considered all comments received.

    Dated: February 4, 2014.
Alice Miller,
Chief Operating Officer and Acting Executive Director, U.S. Election 
Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-02691 Filed 2-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
June	16,	2014

Mr.	Chris	Frantz

US	EPA

109	T.W.	Alexander	Drive

Mail	Code:	#143-05

Research	Triangle	Park,	NC		27709

(submitted	via	oilandgas.whitepapers@epa.gov)

RE:	 Letter	of	Support	for	API’s	comments	on	the	EPA White	Papers	on	

Methane	and	VOC Emissions	in the	Oil	and	Natural	Gas	Sector

Dear	Mr.	Franz:

America’s	Natural	Gas	Alliance	(ANGA)	appreciates	the	opportunity	to	provide	input	

on	the	Environmental	Protection	Agency’s	(EPA)	White	Papers	on	Methane	and	

Volatile	Organic	Compound	(VOC)	Emissions	in	the	Oil	and	Natural	Gas	Sector.

Representing	North	America’s	leading	independent	natural	gas	exploration	and	

production companies,	America's	Natural	Gas	Alliance	(ANGA)	works	with	industry,	

government	and	customer stakeholders	to	promote	increased	demand	for,	and	

availability	of,	our	nation’s	abundant	natural	gas resource	for	a	cleaner	and	more	

secure	energy	future. The	collective	natural	gas	production	of	the	ANGA	member	

companies	is	approximately	eight	trillion	cubic	feet	per	year,	which	represents	one	

third	of	the	total	annual	U.S.	natural	gas	supply.		

On	April	15,	2014,	EPA	released	for	external	peer	review	five	technical	white	papers	

on	potentially	significant	sources	of	emissions	in	the	oil and	gas	sector.		As	noted	in	

the	Obama	Administration’s	Strategy	to	Reduce	Methane	Emissions,	EPA	will	use	

the	papers,	along	with	the	input	received	from	peer	reviewers	and	the	public,	to	

determine	how	best	to	pursue	additional	reductions	from	these	sources.		

Regulations	stemming	from	these	white	papers	have	the	potential	to	significantly	

impact	our	members,	and	ANGA	writes	to	support	the	comments	submitted	by	the	

American	Petroleum	Institute	(API)	on	the	five	white	paper	topics	covered.	

ANGA	provided	extensive	feedback	throughout	the	development	of	the	New	Source	

Performance	Standard	(NSPS)	Subpart	OOOO	rule,	where	each	source	addressed	by	

the	white	papers	was	considered	for	regulation	by	EPA,	who	ultimately	decided not	

to	regulate	them.		While	oil	and	gas	production	continues	to	evolve,	the	fundamental	

merits	of	requiring	additional	regulatory	control	of	these	sources	is	unchanged;	

therefore,	we	believe	that	no	additional	regulation	of	oil	and	gas	production	sources	
is	necessary	prior	to	the	full	implementation	of	the	NSPS	OOOO	rule	and	a	

subsequent	evaluation	of	emissions.	

ANGA believes that	the	current	white	papers	are	insufficient	to	inform	sound	policy	

decisions.		As	such,	we	support	API’s	recommendations	to	revise	the	white	papers	to	

correct	fundamental	flaws	or	inaccuracies; develop	a	response	to	comments	

document	that	identifies	the	changes	that	EPA	makes	to	the	revised	white	papers	

and	explains	the	Agency’s	rationale	for	those	changes; and	identify	current	and	

upcoming	emissions	studies	to	better inform	EPA’s	understanding	of	these	source	

emissions	and	await	the	results.

ANGA	appreciates	EPA’s	work	to	initiate	these	white	papers	and	the	opportunity	to	

provide	input.		If	you	have	any	questions,	please	don’t	hesitate	to	contact	me	at	

ebowman@anga.us or	202-789-2642.

Sincerely,

Erica	Bowman

Vice	President,	Research	and	Policy	Analysis
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATIA
TERMINALS GROUP N.V.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         17,493
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (804)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30,575
<PP&E>                                         233,736
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (25,254)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          21,691
<BONDS>                                        101,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       114
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,356
<SALES>                                        45,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               79,682
<CGS>                                          39,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  62,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,937
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                   493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,418)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,743)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,161)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.59)



</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ HSH NORDBANK AG, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________
2015

- 5125

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:14

- cv

- 00899

- SGB, Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
C HRIS W ILLIAM H AAF , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stoc kton LLP, Winston

- Salem, NC , argued for plaintiff

appellant. Also repre sented by C HAD D WIGHT H ANSEN ; D AVID C OVENTRY S MITH , Washington, DC.

D AVID A LAN L EVITT , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Departmen t of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by A LLISON K IDD -M ILLER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., B ENJAMIN C. M IZER ; M ARCUS H. C HONGT IM , Office of General Counsel, Bonneville Power Admi nistration, Portland, OR.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (W ALLACH , P LAGER , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 7, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the 6/30/00 Form 10-Q/A and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          7,743
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              378,787
<PP&E>                                         15,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,641,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         977,813
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      185,377
<OTHER-SE>                                    316,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,641,722
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 567,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            122,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (690,669)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (690,669)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                (690,669)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.04)


</TABLE>
259 La. 72

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Wilbur Lee ROYAL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51532.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 24, 1971.

In re: Wilbur Lee Royal applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The issues raised here were decided adversely on the direct appeal, except for the issue of credit on the sentence for pre-sentence incarceration. As to that, such credit was discretionary with trial judge under La.Code Crim.P. act 880 prior to its 1970 amendment. No abuse in such discretion is shown.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

I, Patrick Farrell, certifythat:

 

1.         I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of iParty Corp;

 

2.        Based on my knowledge,this report 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,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods 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-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)       Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)       Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)       Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.        The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)       All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)       Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  August 12, 2003 | /s/ PATRICK  FARRELL                  |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                        | Patrick  Farrell                      |
|                        | President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
#### PALMER FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. RINKER MATERIALS CORP. et al., Appellees.

No. 76-1536.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1977.

Rosin, Abel, Band, Rosin & Brown, Saro-sota, for appellant.

*1235Cagle & Whelchel, South Miami, for ap-pellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.

NATHAN, Judge.

Although several points are raised by appellant bank in this action, the sole question which merits discussion herein is whether a mortgagee can waive the priority of its mortgage over mechanic’s liens where the mortgagee induced the lien claimants to continue to furnish construction materials and labor while simultaneously refraining from filing lien claims absent fraud or active misrepresentation on the part of the mortgagee. We answer this question in the negative given the facts before us.

Appellees are subcontractors who furnished labor and materials for the construction of the Gallery Condominium. Appellant was the mortgagee on the construction loan for the project. At one time or another, the appellees were all assured by Clyde Brantley, the appellant bank’s vice president in charge of construction loans, that there were sufficient funds in the construction loan account to complete the project; that they should continue to furnish labor and materials; that there was no need to file mechanic’s liens; and, finally, that Brantley would do everything in his power to see to it that the subcontractors were paid, including the issuance of joint checks, if necessary.

The trial judge found that appellees had relied upon Brantley’s statements, which induced them to continue furnishing labor and materials without filing liens. It was therefore ruled that appellant had waived the priority of its mortgage over the mechanic’s liens which were ultimately filed by the appellees.

We do not agree with this conclusion. The trial court specifically found that Brantley’s statements were neither fraudulent nor untrue; nor had any misrepresentations been directed toward the appellees. In light of this finding, which is supported by the record, we hold that the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling that appellant waived the priority of its mortgage over appellees’ liens. Cf. *Merritt v. Unkefer,*223 So.2d 723 (Fla.1969), quashing *Unkefer v. Merritt,*207 So.2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); see also *Kimbrell v. Fink,*78 So.2d 96 (Fla.1955); *J. G. Plumbing Service, Inc. v. Coastal Mortgage Co.,*329 So.2d 393 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). See this writer’s opinion in *Gancedo Lumber Co., Inc.*v. *Flagship First National Bank of Miami Beach,*340 So.2d 486 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

As we have held that appellant has not waived the priority of its mortgage over the appellees’ claims, there is no need to consider the remaining points on appeal.

Reversed.