alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4


 





AMENDMENT OF WARRANTS


 


May 19, 2014


 


Reference is hereby made to that certain
Subscription Agreement by and between ACCBT Corp., a British Virgin Islands company ("ACCBT"), and Brainstorm
Cell Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), dated as of July 2, 2007 (as amended, the "Agreement"),
a related Registration Rights Agreement between the Company and ACCBT, any and all issued and outstanding warrants to purchase
Company common stock held by ACCBT or its affiliates as of the date hereof (the “ACCBT Warrants”) and any related
documents (all of the foregoing documents together as amended to date, the “ACCBT Documents”). Capitalized terms
not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, the Company is contemplating a
listing of its securities on Nasdaq and one or more financings, and in connection therewith ACCBT and its affiliates (the “ACCBT
Entities”) have made certain concessions to the Company under the ACCBT Documents, including the execution of lock-ups and
waivers in connection therewith, including the March 24, 2014 waiver of anti-dilution rights under the ACCBT Documents by the ACCBT
Entities; and that in connection therewith and in consideration therefor the Company has agreed to extend the exercisability of
the ACCBT Warrants;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned hereby agree as follows:


 


Expiration Date. The current expiration
date for each Warrant is hereby automatically extended until November 5, 2017, and that the ACCBT Documents are hereby amended
accordingly.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have
executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


	 	ACCBT CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Chaim Lebovits
	 	Name: Chaim Lebovits 
	 	Title: Director
	 	 
	 	ACC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Chaim Lebovits
	 	Name: Chaim Lebovits 
	 	Title: Director
	 	 
	 	BRAINSTORM CELL THERAPEUTICS INC. 
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Liat Sossover
	 	Name: Liat Sossover
	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Langland, Appellant, v. Joint County School Committee of Washburn and Burnett Counties, Respondent.

*January 12*

February *7, 1961.*

*558For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument by *Robert Zum Brunnen*of Spooner.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Warren Winton,*district attorney of Washburn county, and *Ward Winton,*assistant district attorney, and oral argument by *Ward Win-ton.*

Fairchild, J.

Mrs. Langland, plaintiff and appellant, argues that the purpose of the statutory appeal is to review *559valid orders, and that jurisdictional defects may be reviewed by certiorari.1

Sec. 40.303, Stats. 1949, authorized the county school committee to consolidate school districts, and provided for an appeal to the circuit court from an order of the committee. In a case arising under that section, this court decided that review could not be had by certiorari because the statutory appeal was the exclusive remedy for reviewing questions of jurisdiction and possible abuse of statutory power by the committee.2 The reasoning was that the legislature did not intend the appeal to permit review of the wisdom or advisability of the order, but intended a review only of the questions of jurisdiction and abuse of statutory power, precisely the scope of certiorari. Therefore, in all but “exceptional” cases, the appeal was to be the exclusive remedy.

With respect to exceptions, it was said *(Perkins v. Peacock,*263 Wis. 644), at page 658:

> “. . . there may be exceptional cases where such right of appeal would be inadequate for such purpose and certiorari might lie — for example, where statutory notice was not given and the aggrieved party did not receive actual notice until the time for appeal had expired.”

There is no allegation in Mrs. Langland’s petition of any fact suggesting that the present case would be one of the exceptions. On the contrary, the statutory notice was given. Mrs. Langland was present at the hearing and conference, *560and a certified copy of the order was sent by registered mail to the clerk of the district of which she was director.

While the action of the county school committee is now authorized by sec. 40.03, Stats. 1959, and the appeal by sub. (5) thereof, we can find no difference material to the question before us between the present statute and the 1949 statute previously considered.

The circuit court properly concluded that review could not be had by certiorari, and that the writ must be dismissed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

1

 We have held that an order of attachment made by a county school committee is invalid if, as alleged here, it represents a decision reached after and not at the conference with the boards. *Joint School Dist. v. Walworth County School Comm.*(1959), 6 Wis. (2d) 366, 94 N. W. (2d) 695.

2

*Perkins v. Peacock*(1953), 263 Wis. 644, 58 N. W. (2d) 536. See *State ex rel. Damerow v. Behrens*(1960), 11 Wis. (2d) 426, 433, 105 N. W. (2d) 866.
**
**Exhibit 31**

**SEMT 2012-5**

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification. 

I, Christopher J. Abate, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2012-5 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as awhole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information requiredto be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of RegulationAB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and 

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described insuch reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above,I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Corelogic Tax Services, LLC, Assurant, Inc., Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, Wells FargoBank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent. 

Date: April 1, 2019 

 
/s/ Christopher J. Abate
Signature

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Financial Officer 

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) 
**
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2957

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve coverage of

drugs and biologicals under part B of the medicare program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 27, 2000

Mr. ROTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve

coverage of drugs and biologicals under part B of the

medicare program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Self-Adminis5 tered Medications Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF COVERAGE OF DRUGS AND

7 BIOLOGICALS UNDER PART B OF THE MEDI8 CARE PROGRAM.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social

10 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended, in each
2

•S 2957 IS

1 of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by striking ‘‘(including

2 drugs and biologicals which cannot, as determined in ac3 cordance with regulations, be self-administered)’’ and in4 serting ‘‘(including drugs and biologicals for which the

5 usual method of administration of the form of drug or bio6 logical is not patient self-administration or, in the case

7 of injectable drugs and biologicals, for which the physician

8 determines that self-administration is not medically appro9 priate)’’.

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

11 subsection (a) shall apply to drugs and biologicals admin12 istered on or after October 1, 2000.

Æ
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3648 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the label 

of drugs intended for human use to contain a parenthetical statement 

identifying the source of any ingredient constituting or derived from 

a grain or starch-containing ingredient. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio (for himself and Mrs. LOWEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

require the label of drugs intended for human use to 

contain a parenthetical statement identifying the source 

of any ingredient constituting or derived from a grain 

or starch-containing ingredient. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gluten in Medicine 

5 Disclosure Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3648 IH

1 SEC. 2. LABELING OF SOURCE OF HUMAN DRUG INGREDI2 ENTS CONSTITUTING OR DERIVED FROM A 

3 GRAIN OR STARCH-CONTAINING INGRE4 DIENT. 

5 (a) MISBRANDING.—Section 502 of the Federal 

6 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352) is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(dd) If it is a drug— 

9 ‘‘(1) that is intended for human use; 

10 ‘‘(2) that contains an ingredient (other than a 

11 polyol) that constitutes or is derived from a grain or 

12 starch-containing ingredient; and 

13 ‘‘(3) whose label fails to include a parenthetical 

14 statement identifying the source of the ingredient so 

15 constituted or derived.’’. 

16 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Section 502(dd) of the Federal 

17 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection 

18 (a) of this section, shall apply beginning on the sooner 

19 of— 

20 (1) a date to be determined by the Secretary of 

21 Health and Human Services; and 

22 (2) the date that is 2 years after the date of the 

23 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
PURSANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  August 10, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Dale E. OberkfellName:
    Dale E. OberkfellTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2769 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2769

  To authorize funding for National Instant Criminal Background Check 
                          System improvements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2000

Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Robb, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
Schumer, and Mr. Cleland) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize funding for National Instant Criminal Background Check 
                          System improvements.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``NICS Partnership Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.

    (a) Authorization for Reimbursement to States Serving as Points of 
Contact.--There are authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2001, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and $60,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2003, to the Department of Justice to directly reimburse 
States for the reasonable costs necessary to serve as points of contact 
for access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System 
established under Public Law 103-159.
    (b) Report on Reimbursement Formula for States Serving as Points of 
Contact.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committees on the 
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 
the appropriate formula for the direct reimbursement to States of the 
reasonable costs necessary to serve as points of contact for access to 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System established under 
Public Law 103-159.
                                 <all>
```
ICRAS 1403 1845

- 0022 v 10

– Affected Public

– Private Institutions 4 /29 /201 4

The Department of Education (the Department) proposes to amend the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations issued under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), to implement the changes made by the Violence Against Women Reauthorizatio n Act of 2013 (VAWA) (Pub. L. 113

- 4), which, among other provisions, amended section 485(f) of the HEA, otherwise known as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act). These proposed regulations are a result of negotiated rulemaking and would update and clarify the current regulations. This is a revision to the current collection due to changed regulatory action that requires additional collection and reporting b y the institutions. Burden that is impacted is in proposed §668.46 (b), §668.46(c) §668.46(j), and §668.46(k). The Department is requesting continued approval of the current collection along with consideration of the following revisions 34 CFR §668.46 Institutional securit y policies and cri mes statistics. Under proposed §668.46(b) Annual security report , we have revised and expanded existing language and added new requirements for items to be reported annually

. Under proposed §668.46(c), Crime statistics, we have revised and expanded ex isting language and added new reporting requirements for items to be reported in the annual survey

. Under proposed §668.46(j), Programs to prevent dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking , we are proposing particular elements of th e required description of the institution’s programs and ongoing campaigns about prevention and awareness that must be included in the institution’s annual security report. Under proposed §668.46(k), Procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking , we would implement the statutory changes requiring an institution that participates in any title IV, HEA program, other than a foreign institution, to include a statement of po licy in its annual security

report addressing the procedures for institutional disciplinary action in cases of alleged dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
**§668.46 New Burden:** Respondents Responses Hours/Response Ho urs of Burden **Not**
**- For** 
**- Profit Institutions**  1,854 **§** 668.46 (b) Annual Security Report x 2.5 = 4,635 **§** 668.46 (c) Crime Statistics x 1.5 = 2,781 **§** 668.46 (j) Programs/Training x 4 = 7,416 **§** 668.46 (k) Procedures/Discipline x 2.75 = 5,099
**Total 19,931**
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
S1 Subsidiaries                            State/Jurisdiction of Incorporations
---------------                            ------------------------------------
<S>                                        <C>
FICS America, Inc......................    Delaware Corporation
FICS Group Holdings, Inc...............    Delaware Corporation
FICS Group N.V.........................    Belgium Corporation
Financial Integrated Contact
 Solutions SA (Proprietary) Limited....    South Africa Corporation
FRS Belgium NV/SA......................    Belgium Corporation
FRS France SARL........................    France Corporation
FRS Hong Kong..........................    Hong Kong Corporation
FRS Luxembourg.........................    Luxembourg Corporation
FRS Netherlands........................    Netherlands Corporation
FRS Singapore..........................    Singapore Corporation
FRS Spain SL...........................    Spain Corporation
FRS U.K. Ltd...........................    UK Corporation
Mosaic Software Holdings (UK) Ltd......    UK Corporation
Mosaic Software Ltd....................    UK Corporation
Mosaic Software, Inc...................    Florida Corporation
Regency Systems, Inc...................    Texas Corporation
S1, Inc................................    Kentucky Corporation
S1 Australia PTY Limited...............    Australia Corporation
S1 Belgium N.V.........................    Belgium Corporation
S1 Corporation (S) PTE Limited.........    Singapore Corporation
S1 CRM Solutions, Inc..................    Delaware Corporation
S1 Deutschland GmbH....................    Germany Corporation
S1 Europe Holdings C.V.A...............    Belgium Corporation
S1 Greater China Limited...............    Hong Kong Corporation
S1 Group Holdings BVBA.................    Belgium Corporation
S1 Holdings, LLC.......................    Delaware LLC
S1 Ireland Ltd.........................    Ireland Corporation
S1 Services India Pvt. Ltd.............    India Corporation
S1 UK Ltd..............................    UK Corporation
S1 France S.A.R.L......................    France Corporation
Software Dynamics, Incorporated........    California Corporation
Temple Acquisition Corporation.........    Delaware Corporation
X/Net Associates, Inc..................    New York Corporation
</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-13-00398-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JOSEPH E. MCCLAIN III, APPELLANT,

v.

DELL, INC. AND SEATON CORP. 

D/B/A STAFF MANAGEMENT, APPELLEE. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 201st District Court 

of Travis County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals by order 

of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.220(a) (West Supp. 

2011) (delineating the jurisdiction of appellate courts); TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West 2005) (granting the supreme court the authority to transfer cases from one court of 
2

appeals to another at any time that there is “good cause” for the transfer). The 

appellant's brief in the above cause was due on October 9, 2013. On October 23, 2013, 

the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and that the 

appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of the letter, 

appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured 

by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response has been received 

from appellant. 

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a 

motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

26th day of November, 2013.
# L_2014294DE.01005101.xml

| 10.10.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 294/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 294/51

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 101/2011 des Rates vom 4. Februar 2011 über restriktive Maßnahmen gegen bestimmte Personen, Organisationen und Einrichtungen angesichts der Lage in Tunesien

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 31 vom 5. Februar 2011
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 31 vom 5. Februar 2011

Auf Seite 1, Erwägungsgrund 4:

anstatt:

| „(4) | In Anbetracht der spezifischen Bedrohung für den internationalen Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit in der Region, die von der Situation in Tunesien ausgeht, und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung des Anhangs des Beschlusses 2011/72/GASP des Rates sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Liste in Anhang I dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(4)

In Anbetracht der spezifischen Bedrohung für den internationalen Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit in der Region, die von der Situation in Tunesien ausgeht, und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung des Anhangs des Beschlusses 2011/72/GASP des Rates sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Liste in Anhang I dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“

muss es heißen:

| „(4) | In Anbetracht der spezifischen Bedrohung für den internationalen Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit, die von der Situation in Tunesien ausgeht, und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung des Anhangs des Beschlusses 2011/72/GASP des Rates sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Liste in Anhang I dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(4)

In Anbetracht der spezifischen Bedrohung für den internationalen Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit, die von der Situation in Tunesien ausgeht, und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung des Anhangs des Beschlusses 2011/72/GASP des Rates sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Liste in Anhang I dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“

---