alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
 THIS OFFER
 FROM:
     TREVOR MICHAEL  OF THE FIRST PART;
 TO:
     GORDON COOPER  OF THE SECOND PART.
  1.
     PURCHASE
AND SALE 1.1
     Agreement
to Purchase  2.
     PURCHASE
PRICE 2.1
     Price  3.
     REPRESENTATIONS
AND  WARRANTIES 3.1
     Vendor
Representations  and Warranties


3.1.1
     the
Purchased Shares are owned by the Vendor with good title thereto, free and clear of all charges, liens,
pledges or other encumbrances and rights of others; 3.1.2
     subject
to the articles and any unanimous shareholders agreement of the Corporation (and each of the parties
agree and acknowledge that there exists no shareholders agreement with respect to the Corporation or its
Shareholders as at the date hereof), the Vendor has full right, power and authority to sell, transfer and
deliver the Purchased Shares to the Purchaser; 3.1.3
     the
Vendor is not a non-resident of Canada for the purposes of section 116 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the
Act) and the sale of the Purchased Shares by the Vendor is not a disposition of taxable Canadian
property by a non-resident person within the meaning of section 116 of the Act. 3.2
     Purchasers
Representations and Warranties Investment Canada
Act
 3.3
     Survival  3.4
     Covenants 3.4.1
     The
parties hereto covenant and agree to take all corporate actions necessary to consent to the transfer of the
Purchased Shares from the Vendor to the Purchaser. 3.5
     Power
of Attorney


4.
     GENERAL 4.1
     Further
Assurances  4.2
     Non-Waiver  4.3
     Cumulative
Remedies  4.4
     Continuing
Covenants  4.5
     No
Other Agreement


4.6
     Choice
of Law  4.7
     Time  4.8
     Enurement  4.9
     Interpretation 4.9.1
In construing this document, the words Vendor and Purchaser and all
personal pronouns shall be read as the number and gender of the party or parties referred to herein require
and all necessary grammatical changes, as the context requires, shall be deemed to be made. 4.9.2
The insertion of headings in this agreement is for convenience of reference only and shall not
affect the construction or interpretation of this agreement. 4.9.3
Every provision of this agreement is intended to be severable. In the event that any term or
provision hereof is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality shall not affect the
validity of the remainder of this agreement. 4.9.4
Offer and acceptance of this agreement may be performed by facsimile transmission, and if so
transmitted, such facsimile copy shall be deemed to be an original. 4.10
     Counterparts


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF
 SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
     )in the presence of:
     )))))/s/ D N Cooper
     )
     /s/ Gordon CooperWitness
     )
     Gordon Cooper)))/s/ Trevor Michael
     )
     /s/ Trevor MichaelWitness
     )
     Trevor Michael
1 Gift cards offered by retailers (such as stores and restaurants) fall under the

Federal Trade Commission’s jurisdiction, while those offered by depository institutions do not. 

The Office of Comptroller of the Currency has issued a guidance on disclosures and marketing

issues for gift cards issued by national banks. See OCC Bulletin 2006-34 (Aug. 14, 2006). 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 14, 2007

George and Jane Young

State of Washington

Re: In the Matter of Kmart Corporation, Kmart Services Corporation, and

Kmart Promotions, LLC, corporations

FTC File No. 062 3088 

Dear Mr. and Ms. Young:

Thank you for the comments you submitted regarding the above-referenced matter. Your

comments were placed on the public record pursuant to Section 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 2.34, and were given serious consideration by the Commission.

The Commission anticipates that this proposed consent order will send a strong message

that retailers1

 must adequately disclose these material conditions when selling gift cards. Indeed,

over the last few years, the Commission staff has observed that many retailers have already

changed their marketing practices. While many retailers eliminated expiration dates or fees

altogether, staff has found generally that disclosures by retailers still imposing fees have

improved. After considering all of the factors that must be weighed in evaluating any settlement,

including the specific facts, consumer injury, and the need to ensure that the remedies deter

similar behavior by other retailers, the Commission concluded that the strong injunctive

provisions and mandatory refund provision provide a positive result for consumers and an

appropriate resolution of this case.

After considering your comments, the Commission has determined that the public

interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without

modification. Respondents will be required to comply with the Order’s injunctive and

reimbursement provisions, and will be subject to potentially large civil penalties if they violate

the Order.
Page 2

Please remember that you may access the Commission’s Consumer Hotline at (202)

326-3569 for updated information about how to receive a refund if your Kmart gift card was

charged dormancy fees. 

Thank you again for your comments. The Commission is aided in its analysis by hearing

from a variety of sources in its work, and it appreciates your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Harbour and Leibowitz concurring in

part and dissenting in part.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of income and the
notes to the consolidated financial statements on pages 2 thru 10 of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             203
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1501
<ALLOWANCES>                                        37
<INVENTORY>                                       1534
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3300
<PP&E>                                            5708
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4723
<BONDS>                                           3072
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        351
<COMMON>                                           779
<OTHER-SE>                                        1694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12124
<SALES>                                           3791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3791
<CGS>                                             2947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    10
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    11
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    222
<INCOME-TAX>                                        83
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                129
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       129
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.20






Exhibit 10.20
Summary of the Registrant's Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers




	
			
	Name and Title
	 
	Base Salary for 2012 - Effective April 1, 2014

	F. Thomson Leighton
Chief Executive Officer
	 
	$1

	James Benson
Chief Financial Officer
	 
	$425,000

	Robert Blumofe
Executive Vice President - Platform
	 
	$400,000

	Melanie Haratunian
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
	 
	$415,000

	Robert Hughes
President - Worldwide Operations 
	 
	$515,000

	Rick McConnell
President - Products and Development
	 
	$515,000
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3777]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5690-2]


Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection 
Restrictions; Petition for Exemption--Class I Hazardous Waste 
Injection--Diamond Shamrock Refining Company, L.P. (Diamond)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final decision on petition.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that an exemption to the land disposal 
restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act has been granted to Diamond, for 
the Class I injection wells located at Sun Ray, Texas. As required by 
40 CFR part 148, the company has adequately demonstrated to the 
satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency by petition and 
supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, 
there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection 
zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision 
allows Diamond, to inject specific restricted hazardous wastes 
identified in the exemption, into the Class I hazardous waste injection 
wells at the Sun Ray, Texas facility, for as long as the basis for 
granting an approval of this exemption remains valid, under provisions 
of 40 CFR 148.24. As required by 40 CFR 124.10, a public notice was 
issued December 2, 1996. The public comment period ended on January 21, 
1997. No comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency 
action and there is no administrative appeal.

DATES: This action is effective as of February 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and all pertinent information 
relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, Source 
Water Protection Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry D. Wright, Chief, Source Water 
Protection Branch, EPA--Region 6, telephone (214) 665-7150.
William B. Hathaway,
Director, Water Quality Protection Division (6WQ).
[FR Doc. 97-3777 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3740]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services 
(CHAMPUS) Demonstration Project in Support of Operation Joint Endeavor

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of a CHAMPUS demonstration project to be continued in 
support of Operation Joint Endeavor.

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

SUMMARY: On February 9, 1996, 61 FR 4963, DoD published a Notice of a 
CHAMPUS demonstration project to be implemented in support of members 
of the Select Reserve called to active duty under Executive Order 12982 
in support of Operation Joint Endeavor. This notice extends the 
demonstration for the duration of operations under Executive Order 
12982.
    We believe that the elimination of normally imposed CHAMPUS 
deductibles for this special group of beneficiaries has eased the 
potential financial hardship caused by unexpected increases in out-of-
pocket health care costs, avoided disruption of continuity and access 
to care, and minimized beneficiary dissatisfaction in transition from 
reserve to active status. In light of continued operations, it is our 
intent to continue the demonstration and accomplish a program 
evaluation following termination of the Executive Order 12982.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1996.

POINT OF CONTACT: Major Kathleen Larkin, Senior Health Policy Analyst, 
OADS(HA)(HSF Policy), (703) 697-8975.

    Dated: February 11, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-3740 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            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 O'Charley's Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 12, 2003 (the "Report"), I, A. Chad Fitzhugh, Chief
Financial Officer 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 results of
                operations of the Company.



/s/ A. Chad Fitzhugh
-------------------------------
A. Chad Fitzhugh
Chief Financial Officer
March 12, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 68289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34086]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 97-2685]


Commission Will Not Enforce Restrictions on Lottery 
Advertisements With Respect to Stations Licensed in New Jersey

Released: December 23, 1997.
    The Commission has received numerous inquiries concerning the 
December 16, 1997, decision of the United States District Court for the 
District of New Jersey in Players International, Inc., et al. v. United 
States and FCC, Civil Action No. 96-4911. In the interest of clarifying 
the FCC's enforcement position in light of this ruling, the Officer of 
General Counsel and the Mass Media Bureau are issuing this Public 
Notice.
    In the Players  decision, the court declared that the restrictions 
on the broadcast of lottery information contained in Title 18 United 
States Code, Section 1304, and Section 73.1211 of the Commission's 
Rules, ``unconstitutionally infringe upon plaintiffs' First Amendment 
rights.'' The district court has not issued an injunction against the 
enforcement of the restrictions.
    After consultation with the Department of Justice, the Commission 
has decided, consistent with its response to a similar case in the 
Ninth Circuit, Valley Broadcasting v. United States, 107 F.3d 1328 (9th 
Cir. 1997), that it will not enforce the ban on the broadcast of 
lottery information against stations licensed to communities in New 
Jersey. This policy of non-enforcement applies to any such broadcasts 
which air from December 16, 1997, the date of the district court's 
decision, unless and until such time as that decision is overturned or 
otherwise altered or stayed.
    We caution broadcasters that they should ensure that the broadcast 
of information regarding lotteries is not prohibited or otherwise 
restricted by New Jersey state law.
    For further information, contact Catherine Withers, Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 418-1430.

Federal Communications Commission.
Renee Licht,
Deputy Chief, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-34086 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

LIBBEY INC, a corporation,
Docket No. 9301
and

NEWELL RUBBERMAD, INC., a corporation.

NN eee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Matthew R. VanderGoot, hereby certify that on May 29, 2002 a copy of Libbey
Inc.’s Notice of Appearance and Libbey Inc.’s Answer to the Federal Trade

Commission’s Complaint was served via hand delivery on the following:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 104
Washington, D.C. 20580

Richard Liebeskind, Assistant Director
Mergers II Division, Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission

601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

William S. D’Amico
Chadbourne and Parke

1200 New Hampshire Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Lhe ne,

Matthew R. VanderGoot
Exhibit 10.32


 


(PNC BANK LETTERHEAD)


 


 


January 28, 2014


 


 


Middlesex Water Company


1500 Ronson Road


Iselin, New Jersey 08830-3020


 


Attn: A. Bruce O’Connor, V.P. & CFO


 


		Re:	Renewal of Expiration Date for $20,000,000.00 Committed Line of Credit



 


Dear Bruce:


 


We are pleased to inform you that your committed
line of credit has been renewed. The Expiration Date, as set forth in that certain Letter Agreement dated August 27, 2001 (the
“Agreement”), and in the Amended and Restated committed Line of Credit Note dated January 29, 2010 executed
and delivered pursuant to that Agreement (the “Note”), has been extended from January 29, 2014 to January 29, 2015,
effective on January 30, 2014. All other terms and conditions of the Note and the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


It has been a pleasure working with you and
I look forward to a continued successful relationship. Thank you again for your business.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


	PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/Virginia G. Alling	 
	 	Virginia G. Alling	 
	 	Vice President
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board
of Directors and Shareholders

Cascade Microtech, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-121964, 333-145353, 333-157058 and 333-161297), and Form S-3 (No. 333-145349) of Cascade Microtech,
Inc. of our reports dated March 1, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Cascade Microtech, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear
in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Cascade Microtech, Inc.



|                
|----------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP    
|Portland, Oregon
|March 1, 2010
#### Charles LUTTRELL v. STATE.

2 Div. 211.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 18, 1978.

William T. Faile of Morris & Fade, Selma, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Breland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

*1022JOSEPH J. MULLINS, Retired Circuit Judge.

The grand jury of Dallas County returned an indictment against the appellant, Charles Luttrelll, charging that he did unlawfully sell, furnish, or give away Heroin, a controlled substance. The appellant entered a plea of not guilty. A jury found appellant guilty as charged. The trial court duly sentenced the appellant to 15 years in the penitentiary, and he appeals to this Court.

This appeal was submitted on briefs. At all proceedings in the trial court the appellant was represented by counsel of his choice and is so represented in this Court.

Appellant asserts in his brief three reasons why his conviction should be reversed; first, the court’s refusing appellant’s written charge no. 2; second, granting state’s challenge of a venireman; third, comments made by the trial judge on the evidence in respect to heroin being an addictive drug.

Appellant’s refused written charge no. 2 was substantially and fairly covered by the court’s oral charge. We hold that the trial court did not err in refusing appellant’s written charge no. 2. *Code Of Alabama 1975,*Title 12-16-13.

We have searched the record and do not find an objection to the action of the trial court in sustaining state’s challenge to venireman, Mr. Ramsey, nor do we find an objection in the record to comments made by the trial judge on the evidence in respect to heroin being an addictive drug. We hold that without an objection to the above ruling and remarks of the trial judge there is nothing presented to this Court for us to review. *Knight v. State,*273 Ala. 480, 142 So.2d 899; *Welch v. State,*278 Ala. 177, 176 So.2d 872; *Hurley v. State,*Ala.Cr.App., 341 So.2d 494, *certiorari denied,*Ala., 341 So.2d 497; *Gulley v. State,*Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 1362; *Hassell v. State,*Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 1357.

We have searched the record for any errors prejudicial to the defendant and have found none.

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by the Honorable JOSEPH J. MULLINS, a retired Circuit Judge, serving as a Judge of this Court under the provisions of Section 6.10 of the new Judicial Article (Constitutional Amendment No. 328, Act # 1051, 1973); his opinion is hereby adopted as that of the Court.

The judgment below is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7294-7295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3903]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[Dept. Circ. 570, 1996 Rev., Supp. No. 7]


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds; Excelsior Insurance 
Co.

    A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal Bonds 
is hereby issued to the following company under sections 9304 to 9308, 
Title 31, of the United States Code. Federal bond-approving officers 
should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 
1996 Revision, on page 34290 to reflect this addition:

Excelsior Insurance Company. Business Address: 62 Maple Avenue, Keene, 
NH 03432. Phone: (603) 352-3221. Underwriting Limitation b/: 
$2,349,000. Surety Licenses c/: CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, IN, KY, ME, MD, NH, 
NJ, NY, NC, PA, VA. Incorporated in: New Hampshire.

    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as

[[Page 7295]]

the companies remain qualified (31 CFR, part 223), A list of qualified 
companies is published annually as of July 1 in Treasury Department 
Circular 570, with details as to underwriting limitations, areas in 
which licensed to transact surety business and other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet 
(http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.htm1) or through our computerized public 
bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at (202) 874-6887. A hard copy 
may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), 
Subscription Service Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When 
ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-
000-00499-7.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 
6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20782, telephone (202) 874-6905.

    Dated: February 4, 1997.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 97-3903 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M