alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10.4 Annex 1 to Guarantee of IPG Laser


Exhibit 10.4


	
													
	Annex 1 (original version) to the Corporate Guarantee dated 11 August 2014 in the amount of EUR 30 mn.

	in connection with the Umbrella Facility Agreement with an amount of EUR 30 mn dated 07 August 2014

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	The following branches and subsidiaries of Deutsche Bank AG ("Lending Offices") have entered into business relationship

	with the subsidiaries of IPG Laser GmbH (named hereinafter "IPG Laser Group")

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	In this context the following facilities of the Umbrella Credit Agreement dated 07 August 2014 have been allocated

	inter alia for the use of the companies listed hereafter:
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Summary of credit agreements for the IPG Laser Group of companies in Germany and abroad:

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Debtor
	Lending Office
	local currency
	amount (in currency)
	Facility 1
Cash
	Facility 2
Guarantee 
	Facility 3
LC
	Facility 4
Margin Line 
	total

	if not in EURO convert to EURO

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	IPG Photonics (Italy) s.r.l., Via Kennedy 21, 20023 Cerro Maggiore (Milano), Italy
	Deutsche Bank Spa, Milano, Italy
	 
	 
	3,000,000
	—
	 
	 
	3,000,000

	IRE-Polus NTO, 141190, Fryazino pl. Vvedenskogo, Russia
	Deutsche Bank Ltd., Moscow, Russia
	 
	 
	3,000,000
	13,000,000
	 
	 
	16,000,000

	IPG Photonics (Beijing) Fiber Laser Technology Company Limited
	Deutsche Bank Ltd., Beijing, China
	 
	 
	3,000,000
	 
	 
	 
	3,000,000

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	—

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	—

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	—

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	—

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	—

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	—

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	—

	Total credit lines based on the guarantee
	 
	 
	 
	9,000,000
	13,000,000
	

	—
	

	—
	

	22,000,000
	


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Burbach, 11 August 2014
	 
	Cologne, 7 August 2014
	 
	 

	Place and date
	 
	Place and date
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Eugene Scherbakov
	 
	/s/ Eddy Henning, /s/ Joachim Gartz
	 
	 

	(corporate seal and  binding signatures of the Guarantor)
	 
	(Deutsche Bank AG Filiale Deutschlandgeschäft)
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Valentin Gapontsev, Oxford, MA, August 11, 2014
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	(legally binding signature of IPG Photonics Corporation)
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,  UNITED STATES CODE

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officers of Corgenix Medical Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report
of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities an Exchange Commission (the "10-K Report")
that:



Dated:
September 22, 2011

This Certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This written statement shall not be deemed to be "filed" as part of the annual report on
Form 10-K that it accompanies.

/s/ DOUGLASS T. SIMPSON President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ WILLIAM H. CRITCHFIELD Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
----

----

|   | 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 Corporation. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                |   |   |   |                                                            |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: July 11, 2011 |   |   |   | /s/ Frank Lamendola                                             |
|                |   |   |   | Frank Lamendola                                                 |
|                |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Acting Principal Accounting Officer |

----

----
#### Capitol Hill Monument Company, Appellant, v. E. P. Wells, Appellee.

APPEAL AND ERROR: Review — Moot Case. The court on appeal will not concern itself with a contract which *ex vi termini*has ceased to have legal effect.

*578Headnote 1: 4 O. J. p. 1135.

Headnote 1: 2 R. 0. L. 169.

*Appeal from Polk District Court.*— Lester L. Thompson, Judge.

November 16, 1926.

Suit to restrain breach of agreement not to enter into competition with employer after termination of employment. Motion to dissolve temporary injunction and motion to dismiss were sustained. Plaintiff *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*Gillespie & Canfield,*for appellant.

*Strock, Cimninghdm, Sloan & Herrick,*for appellee.

Morling, J.

Plaintiff employed defendant as salesman, under contract dated April 23, 1924, to continue until January 1, 1925, unless canceled by either party upon five days’ notice. By the contract the defendant agreed not to engage in similar business for the period of one year after the termination of the contract, without plaintiff’s written consent. On June 3, 1924, defendant gave plaintiff written notice of resignation, effective June 7, 1924. Plaintiff thereupon brought this suit, to restrain defendant from engaging in competing business, and obtained a temporary writ of injunction. Motion to dissolve and motion to dismiss were sustained on May 21, 1925. On September 21, 1925, this appeal was taken.

Plaintiff questions whether the employment terminated at the time specified in defendant’s notice, but it is immaterial. The contract expired by limitation January 1, 1925. The agreement not to engage in competition with plaintiff in any event expired one year from that date, or January 1, 1926. The only relief claimed is temporary and permanent injunction against engaging in competing business in violation of the contract. The period during which the defendant might, on plaintiff’s contention, have been restrained, has long since expired. The case is moot. *Richman v. Letts,*202 Iowa-; *Horrabin v. City of*
      *579
      *Iowa City,*160 Iowa 650. See eases cited in 4 Corpus Juris 574, 584, 1134.

The judgment *is*— Affirmed.

De G-raff, C. J., and EvaNS and Albert, JJ., concur.
(logo) Grant Thornton                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

                                                                                Reportof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

Board of Directors

Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC

 

Audit • Tax • Advisory

 

Grant Thornton LLP

1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2200

Kansas City, MO 64106

 

T 816.412.2400

F 816.412.2404

www.GrantThornton.com

 

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in theaccompanying Management’s Certification Regarding Compliance with ApplicableServicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Trimont Real Estate Advisors,LLC (formerly known as Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.)(the “Company”)complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Company’s Operatingor Trust Advisor Services (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December31, 2015, excluding criteria which management has determined are not applicablein Exhibit A. The Platform consists of asset-backed transactions and securitiesfor which the Company acted as operating or trust advisor and as defined bymanagement in Exhibit B of Management’s Report. Management is responsible forthe Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about theCompany’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platformbased on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with thestandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform andperforming such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backedtransactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether theCompany performed servicing activities related to those transactions andsecurities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the periodcovered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicingactivities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting thePlatform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect materialnoncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered by this reportand that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the periodcovered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination onthe Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2015 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.

 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Kansas City, MO

February 29, 2016
Six Months ended June 30,
    
    
    Three Months ended June 30,(In thousands, except per share data)
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007Basic Numerator:Income before discontinued operations
    
    $
    438,686
    
    
    $
    311,026
    
    
    $
    277,295
    
    
    $
    215,893Income from discontinued operations,
net
    
    
    643,294
    
    
    
    27,186
    
    
    
    5,032
    
    
    
    20,097Net income  basic
    
    $
    1,081,980
    
    
    $
    338,212
    
    
    $
    282,327
    
    
    $
    235,990Diluted Numerator:Income before discontinued operations
    
    $
    438,686
    
    
    $
    311,026
    
    
    $
    277,295
    
    
    $
    215,893Income from discontinued operations,
net
    
    
    643,294
    
    
    
    27,186
    
    
    
    5,032
    
    
    
    20,097Net income  diluted
    
    $
    1,081,980
    
    
    $
    338,212
    
    
    $
    282,327
    
    
    $
    235,990Denominator:Weighted average common shares -
basic
    
    
    494,975
    
    
    
    494,105
    
    
    
    495,201
    
    
    
    494,364Effect of dilutive securities:Stock options and restricted stock
    
    
    1,662
    
    
    
    1,175
    
    
    
    1,686
    
    
    
    1,324Denominator for net income per common
share  diluted
    
    
    496,637
    
    
    
    495,280
    
    
    
    496,887
    
    
    
    495,688Net income (loss) per common share:Income before discontinued
operations  basic
    
    $
    .89
    
    
    $
    .63
    
    
    $
    .56
    
    
    $
    .44Income from discontinued operations,
net  basic
    
    
    1.30
    
    
    
    .05
    
    
    
    .01
    
    
    
    .04Basic
    
    $
    2.19
    
    
    $
    .68
    
    
    $
    .57
    
    
    $
    .48Income before discontinued
operations  diluted
    
    $
    .88
    
    
    $
    .63
    
    
    $
    .56
    
    
    $
    .44Income from discontinued operations,
net  diluted
    
    
    1.30
    
    
    
    .05
    
    
    
    .01
    
    
    
    .04Diluted
    
    $
    2.18
    
    
    $
    .68
    
    
    $
    .57
    
    
    $
    .48
#### Harlfinger and wife, Respondents, vs. Mueller and others, as Ozaukee County Highway Committee, and another, Appellants.

*February 6*

February *28, 1958.*

For the appellants there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Richard E. Barrett,*assistant attorney general, and *Richard C. Bonner,*special counsel for Ozaukee county, and oral argument by *Mr. Barrett, Mr. Bonner,*and by *Mr. James J. Koenen,*district attorney.

For the respondents there was a brief and oral argument by *Frank X. Didier*of Port Washington.

Martin, C. J.

The facts in this case are similar to those in *Kultgen v. Mueller,*ante, p. 346, 88 N. W. (2d) 687, and this case is controlled by the decision therein.

On June 23, 1956, plaintiffs, acquired from Alex J. Klas, brother-in-law of Leo Harlfinger, a parcel of the Klas farm *352on Highway 57 in Ozaukee county. The transfer was recorded in the office of the register of deeds on June 25, 1956.

The complaint states that on September 10, 1956, the County Highway Committee mailed to the plaintiffs an instrument purporting to be an award of damages for a portion of the land in question, and that the award was recorded with the register of deeds on September 6, 1956. As in the *Kultgen Case,*it is alleged that the award is null and void principally for failure of the defendants to negotiate with the plaintiffs to acquire the property before proceeding.

In this case defendants alleged in their answer, among other things, that the transfer of title to the plaintiffs was “for the purpose of obtaining additional benefits and damages far in excess of reasonable market value and to harass the defendants herein from expediting the purchase of lands for highway purposes.”

Defendants failed to prove this contention. On cross-examination the plaintiff Leo Harlfinger was asked how much he paid for the land. Objection to the question was sustained by the trial court, but defendants’ counsel made no offer of proof, which he should have done if he wished to rely on it. The record is devoid of anything but suspicion that the transfer was part of a scheme to increase the value of the land.

Other allegations in the pleadings are not disposed of because of our holding.

As decided in the *Kultgen Case,*it must be held that the complaint should be dismissed. Plaintiffs had a complete remedy under sec. 32.11, Stats., and should have followed it.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
111298720 v1

June 16th, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11063 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket 

No. FAA-2014-0358.

Dear Sir or Madam;

Snaproll Media was issued an Exemption numbered 11063 (hereinafter the Exemption)

for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and television 

industry. Snaproll Media herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional

type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the 

Exemption. 

Snaproll Media wishes to operate an Intuitive Aerial Aerigon IA3 under the same terms 

and conditions contained in the Exemption. Submitted to the below CC as a confidential 

document, is the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) for the additional UAS. All 

operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another 

type of unmanned aerial vehicle, Snaproll Media respectfully submits that good cause exists so 

that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request 

for an amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely yours, Spencer Valdez

cc:

Robert Pappas

Jake Troutman
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Homeowners Choice, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2008 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



/s/ RICHARD R. ALLENRichard R. AllenChief Financial OfficerAugust 29, 2008


A signed original of this document has been provided to Homeowners Choice, Inc. and will be retained by
Homeowners Choice, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



39
# L_2011119EN.01001001.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 119/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 119/10

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 441/2011

of 6 May 2011

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 May 2011.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 May 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | JO | 78,3 |
| MA | 36,3 |
| TN | 109,4 |
| TR | 84,5 |
| ZZ | 77,1 |
| 0707 00 05 | TR | 117,7 |
| ZZ | 117,7 |
| 0709 90 70 | MA | 86,8 |
| TR | 125,3 |
| ZZ | 106,1 |
| 0709 90 80 | EC | 27,0 |
| ZZ | 27,0 |
| 0805 10 20 | EG | 45,8 |
| IL | 61,0 |
| MA | 46,8 |
| TN | 57,6 |
| TR | 69,5 |
| ZZ | 56,1 |
| 0805 50 10 | TR | 48,5 |
| ZZ | 48,5 |
| 0808 10 80 | AR | 80,9 |
| BR | 69,2 |
| CL | 83,1 |
| CN | 95,4 |
| MA | 86,7 |
| NZ | 107,6 |
| US | 133,4 |
| UY | 66,1 |
| ZA | 79,2 |
| ZZ | 89,1 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

JO

78,3

MA

36,3

TN

109,4

TR

84,5

ZZ

77,1

0707 00 05

TR

117,7

ZZ

117,7

0709 90 70

MA

86,8

TR

125,3

ZZ

106,1

0709 90 80

EC

27,0

ZZ

27,0

0805 10 20

EG

45,8

IL

61,0

MA

46,8

TN

57,6

TR

69,5

ZZ

56,1

0805 50 10

TR

48,5

ZZ

48,5

0808 10 80

AR

80,9

BR

69,2

CL

83,1

CN

95,4

MA

86,7

NZ

107,6

US

133,4

UY

66,1

ZA

79,2

ZZ

89,1

---

(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
  ZZ
  ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-556V 

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* 

DAVID POKORNY, * 

* Filed: July 28, 2014 

Petitioner, * 

* 

v. * 

* Decision by Stipulation; Attorneys’

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Fees and Costs

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Laurence F. Padway, Law Offices of Laurence F. Padway, Alameda, CA, for Petitioner.

Claudia B. Gangi, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On August 30, 2012, David Pokorny filed a petition seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On July 28, 2014, the parties filed motion for a 

dismissal decision. 

On July 28, 2014, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time 

regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should 

receive a lump sum of $37,018.49 in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 

205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C § 

300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential 

information. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) permit each party 14 days within which to request redaction “of any 

information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is 

privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute 

a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the decision will be available to the 

public. Id.

 
Petitioner’s counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In 

addition, in accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a statement on July 28, 2014, 

indicating that he had incurred no reimbursable costs in pursuit of his claim.

I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, 

an award should be made in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

counsel, Laurence F. Padway, Esq., in the amount of $37,018.49. In the absence of a motion for 

review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER 

JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing (jointly or separately) notices 

renouncing their right to seek review.