alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Osborne & Thurlow, Plaintiff, *v.*Hirsch & Co., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 30, 1958.

*226*Raymond J. McGrover*for plaintiff.

*Guggenheimer d Untermyer*for defendant.

Aron Steuer, J.

This motion pursuant to section 1451 of the Civil Practice Act, to stay the action until arbitration has been had, raises two questions.

Both parties were member firms of the New York Stock Exchange. The constitution of the exchange provides for arbitration of disputes between member firms and there is no claim that an agreement to arbitrate in this form is not binding. However plaintiff asserts that it is not bound because it is no longer a member firm. According to the complaint the acts giving rise to the claim took place in September, 1957. On the last day of that month, plaintiff, a partnership dissolved. The partners became members of other member firms. Obviously the acts of which it complains occurred while it was still a member. If it persists as an entity for the purpose of suing beyond the date of its dissolution it also persists as a member subject to the constitution of the exchange. This ground for resisting arbitration is not well taken.

The precise wording of the arbitration provision is: “ Sec. 1. Any controversy between parties who are * * * member firms * * * shall at the instance of any such party, and any controversy between a non-member and a member * * * arising out of the business of such member * * * or the dissolution of a member firm * * * shall, at the instance of such non-member be submitted for arbitration ’ ’.

It is to be noted that a distinction is made between what is arbitrable between members and what is arbitrable between a member and a nonmember. In the latter case it is any controversy arising out of the business or dissolution of the member. In the-former it is any controversy.

The claim here is that a “ representative ” of defendant wrote a letter concerning the financial condition of the plaintiff and that this letter was libelous. A “ controversy” is any difference which can be the subject of a suit at law or equity (see *227U. S. Const., art. Ill, § 2: “ The judicial Power shall extend * * * to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States ” etc.). While we do not usually associate a claim for libel with arbitration there is no restriction on an agreement to do so. That being the case it would appear that this agreement was sufficiently broad to include it. It is a usual expression where an agreement to arbitrate is found not to include the matter in suit that it does not include " all controversies ”. (See *Matter of Eagar Constr. Corp*v. *Ward Foundation Corp.,*255 App. Div. 291, 293.) If the agreement does include all controversies the determination must be otherwise.

The motion is granted.
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 110

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 27 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct appropriate programs and activities to acknowledge the status of the county of Fond

du Lac, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’,

and for other purposes.

Whereas the International Aerobatic Club, which was founded

on February 6, 1970, held its first championships in

August 1970 in the county of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin;

Whereas in 1992 the International Aerobatic Club had 5,342

members throughout the world, representatives of which

gathered in Fond du Lac to compete in the 23d Annual

Aerobatic Championships during the period of August

9–14, 1992;
2

•HJ 110 RFS

Whereas in 1992 the Experimental Aircraft Association and

the Board of Directors of the International Aerobatic

Club named Fond du Lac as the ‘‘World Capital of

Aerobatics’’;

Whereas participants and spectators drawn to the aerobatic

championships in Fond du Lac stimulate the economic

well-being of the community and provide a spectator

event of international significance; and

Whereas Congress declares that the county of Fond du Lac,

Wisconsin, is the ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Adminis4 tration may conduct appropriate programs and activities

5 at the Fond du Lac County Airport to acknowledge the

6 status of the county of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the

7 ‘‘World Capital of Aerobatics’’, and that the airport may

8 display signs notifying the public of such status.

Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.14


 


FIRST ADDENDUM TO THE CONSULTANCY
AGREEMENT


 


This First Addendum to the Consultancy Agreement (the “Addendum”)
is entered by and between:


 


P.V. NanoCell Ltd., with head
office located at 8 Ha' Masger St., Migdal Ha’Emek 23100, P.O. Box 236, Israel ("PV"); and


 


Dolev Bar-Guy Consulting and Management
Ltd., with head office located at 7 Bialik Street, Zichron Ya'akov, Israel. A company fully owned by Dr. Fernando de la Vega
(the “Company”).


 


	 	WHEREAS	the above parties have executed that certain Consultancy Agreement, effective as of September 9, 2009 (the “Consultancy Agreement”); and


 


	 	WHEREAS	the parties wish to amend certain provisions of the Consultancy Agreement as further detailed herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree
as follows:


 


	 	1.	The preamble hereto constitutes an integral and binding part of this Addendum. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Addendum shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. All other sections of the Agreement, if not amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect.


 


	 	2.	The parties agree to amend and restate Section 4 to the Consultancy Agreement effective retroactive to August 1st 2011 to read as follows:


 


	 	4.	Period of the Agreement


 


	 	4.1	This Agreement is made for an undefined term. Each party may, at any time, terminate this Agreement by a 30 days prior written notice to the other party.
	 	 	 
	 	4.2	Each party may terminate this Agreement if the other
    party commits a breach of the Agreement and does not cure such breach within 14 days after receipt of a written notice from
    the injured part.
	 	 	 
	 	4.3	Except as provided in Paragraph
    4 above or by law, termination of this Agreement is without liability of PV for any claims or payments beyond those earned
    or accrued in the course of the engagement hereunder; and the Company hereby waives any and all such claims towards PV, its
    Affiliates and any other third party.



 







	 	3.	This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together
will constitute one and the same instrument.


 






    	 



    	 	 	 



    

 


And in Witness,
the parties sign this Agreement on this 9th day of April 2013.


 


	/S/ Dolev
    Bar-Guy	 	/S/
    Dr. Fernando de le Vega
	
        Dolev Bar-Guy Consulting
and Management Ltd.
	 	P.V.
    NanoCell Ltd.


 


I, the undersigned, hereby confirm that I have read this
Addendum, that its content is acceptable to me and that I will act in accordance with its terms.


 


	/S/ Dr. Fernando de le Vega	 
	Dr. Fernando
de la Vega
# Official Journal C 82/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 82 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6017 March 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 82

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6017 March 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 82/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8380 — CPPIB/Apax/GL) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 82/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8120 — Hapag-Lloyd/United Arab Shipping Company) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 82/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8199 — Bunge/European Oilseed Processing Facilities) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 82/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8380 — CPPIB/Apax/GL) (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 82/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8120 — Hapag-Lloyd/United Arab Shipping Company) (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 82/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8199 — Bunge/European Oilseed Processing Facilities) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 82/04 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 82/04

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 82/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8305 — Rockwell Collins/B/E Aerospace) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2017/C 82/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8293 — 3i/APG/ATP/EISER Infrastructure Portfolio) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 82/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8305 — Rockwell Collins/B/E Aerospace) (
  1
  )

1

4

2017/C 82/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8293 — 3i/APG/ATP/EISER Infrastructure Portfolio) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Ex parte Robert T. SPEARS.

No. 25075.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 14, 1951.

For original opinion, see 235' S.W.2d 917.

Rufus N. McKnight, Dallas, for relator.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the. State.

MORRISON, judge.'

The two opinions heretofore rendered in this cause failed to set forth the facts fully. This we now 'do for guidance of the bench, the bar and penitentiary authorities and especially since the effect of this holding is to overrule one or more decisions of this Court.

Relator Spears was on June 4, 1943, in Cause. No.' 1093 in the District,'Court of' Gray County, Texas, convicted of the offense of felony theft and sentenced to a term of from two to ten years in the State Penitentiary. No appeal was perfected, and relator began serving this sentence. On July 4, 1945, relator .was released from the Texas Prison System on a six-months reprieve to Gray County by virtue of Executive Proclamation No. 37-9660. When relator did not return to the Texas Prison System at the expiration of this six-months period, he became a fugitive.

Apparently during the term of said reprieve relator was arrested by the Federal authorities in the State of Oklahoma because on January 25, 1946, just twenty-one days after the reprieve expired, he was convicted in the Federal District Court for the Western District of that state for a Federal offense and sentenced to five years in the Federal Penal System. No mention was made of the existing Gray County sentence by the Federal Court in pronouncing sentence. No appeal was perfected from this sentence, and relator began service thereunder.

On June 14,1949, relator, having served his Federal sentence, was released to the authorities of. the Texas Prison System where he is now incarcerated. He brings this writ of habeas corpus claiming credit on the Gray 'County, sentence for the time spent in the Federal Prison System.

Relator contends that the opinion of this Court on motion for rehearing not only overruled the holding in the Baird case, Ex parte Baird, Tex.Cr.App., 225 S.W.2d 845, which was expressly done by said opinion, but also the holdings of this Court in Ex parte Newton, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 53, 284 S.W. 953. If that opinion can be construed’ as supporting the doctrine in the Baird case,.it is also’overruled.

Relator’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000941914
<NAME>                        SMITHWAY MOTOR XPRESS CORP
 
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
<CURRENCY>                    US Dollars

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                Apr-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Jun-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                        447
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 13806
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              17521
<PP&E>                        64565
<DEPRECIATION>                20892
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                62944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         12469
<BONDS>                       17082
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      50
<OTHER-SE>                    26630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  62944
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              57522
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 52460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            773
<INCOME-PRETAX>               4289
<INCOME-TAX>                  1802
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           2487
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  2487
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .50
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          23,500
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                17,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    114,632
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          17,556
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            17,595
<LOANS>                                        286,055<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 479,687
<DEPOSITS>                                     371,198
<SHORT-TERM>                                    42,422
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,365
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 479,687
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 19,747
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,994
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,549
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                26,290
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,345
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,296
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,994
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      375
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,915
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,915
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,310
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.78
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,914
<LOANS-PAST>                                       555
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   165
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,882
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      900
<RECOVERIES>                                       231
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,588
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,588
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Net of allowance for loan losses of $5,588.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### BURKS v. STATE.

No. 22402.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 24, 1943.

Steel & Edwards, of Texarkana, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Receiving and concealing stolen property is the offense; the punishment, two years in the state penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|North Dakota Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|North Dakota Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 3      | 1      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 1      | 1     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | NA     | 1      | NA     | 1     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
**Exhibit 10.7**

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation 

1134 Market Street 

Wheeling, WV 26003 

Attention: Paul J. Mooney, Executive Vice President & 

Chief Financial Officer 

Re:Convertible Promissory Note - Amendment 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Senior Subordinated Unsecured Convertible Promissory Note, dated March 16, 2007, made by Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation (“Borrower”) payable to BouchardGroup, LLC (the “Holder”) in the principal amount of US $3,000,000, (the “Note”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Note. 

In accordance with Section 15 of the Note and intending to be legally bound, the Holder and Borrower hereby agree to amend the Note as follows:

(1) The definition of “Applicable Conversion Price” is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

     “Applicable Conversion Price” means $24.51 (subject to adjustment as provided inSection 5(d)(iii)). 

(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Note, the Holder and the Borrower hereby agree that the Holdershall have the right to opt out of any automatic conversion of the Note as set forth in Section 5(a) and 5(b)(ii) of the Note. 

TheHolder and the Borrower hereby acknowledge and agree that this letter agreement constitutes a valid amendment of the Note pursuant to Section 15 thereof. Except to the extent necessary to implement the changes set forth above, the Note shallremain unmodified and in full force and effect. This letter agreement shall constitute an allonge to the Note and shall be affixed thereto so as to become a part thereof. 

**[Signatures appear on the following page]**

If you have any questions about the matters covered in this letter, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours, 

 
Bouchard Group, LLC
/s/ James P. Bouchard

James P. Bouchard

Dated: 6/7/07

 

Acknowledged and agreed:

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation

By:         /s/ Paul J.Mooney                

Name: Paul J. Mooney

Title:   Executive Vice President and Chief