alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019403EN.01006701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 29.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 403/67 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9631 — Kennedy-Wilson Holdings/AXA Group/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 403/04)

1.

On 21 November 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019403EN.01006701-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. (‘Kennedy-Wilson’, United States of America), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | AXA S.A. (‘AXA’, France), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | The JV (Ireland). |

Kennedy-Wilson and AXA acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of three newly created companies (together, ‘the JV’).

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in the JV.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Kennedy Wilson: real estate investment, development and management, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for AXA: life, health and other forms of insurance, as well as investment management, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for the JV: will acquire, hold and manage private rented accommodation, retail and office space in County Dublin, Ireland. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019403EN.01006701-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9631 — Kennedy-Wilson Holdings/AXA Group/JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019403EN.01006701-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019403EN.01006701-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 24209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11644]



[[Page 24209]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service


Harbor Maintenance Fee No Longer To Be Collected on Cargo Loaded 
for Export

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: General notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces that as of April 25, 1998, Customs 
will no longer be collecting the Harbor Maintenance Fee for cargo 
loaded on board a vessel for export at a port subject to the Harbor 
Maintenance Fee. Further, this document announces that protest 
procedures are inapplicable to refund claims for export-related Harbor 
Maintenance Fees.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Barbare, Operations Management Specialist, Budget Division, 
(202) 927-0034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Harbor maintenance Fee was created by the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4461 et seq.) (the Act) and is 
implemented by Sec. 24.24 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 24.24). 
The fee, pursuant to the Act and as implemented by the regulations was 
to be assessed on port use associated with imports, exports, and 
movements of cargo and passengers between identified ports and paid to 
the U.S. Customs Service.
    On March 31, 1998, the Supreme Curt in United States, Petitioner v. 
United States Shoe Corporation ______US______, No. 97-372 declared that 
the Harbor Maintenance Fee is unconstitutional as applied to exports. 
Consequently, as of April 25, 1998, the United States Customs Service 
will no longer be collecting the Harbor Maintenance Fee for port use 
associated with exports.
    The Supreme Court also affirmed the decision of the lower courts 
that protest procedures are inapplicable to refund claims for export-
related Harbor Maintenance Fees. The public is hereby advised that the 
Customs Service will not decide or respond to any protest alleging that 
the export-related Harbor Maintenance Fees are prohibited by the Export 
Clause of the United States Constitution. Any person who previously 
received correspondence from Customs concerning any such protests 
should disregard such correspondence and will not receive further 
communications regarding such protests.
    Pursuant to a court order issued by the United States Court of 
International Trade in the case United States Shoe Corp. v. The United 
States (Court No. 94-11-0068), dated April 6, 1998, the government will 
design a claim form for refund claims and the claim form process will 
apply to all claims filed within the 2-year statute of limitations 
applicable to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1581(i) cases.

    Dated: April 28, 1998.
Samuel H. Banks,
Acting Commissioner of Customs.
[FR Doc. 98-11644 Filed 4-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
#### Eva Electris CANNIE aka Ava Electris Cannie, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB dba Christiana Trust, Not Individually but as Trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-2598

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 20, 2017.

Rehearing Denied January 10, 2018

*508Eva Electris Cannie aka Ava Electris Cannie, pro se, Appellant.

David Rosenberg of Robertson, An-schutz & Schneid, P.L., Boca Raton, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee’s motion, filed on October 6, 2017, is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and M.K THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### George Hayes, . Jr., an Infant, by His Father, George Hayes, Sr., Petitioner, *v.*Stanley L. Van Rensselaer et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 10, 1972.

*Nancy E. Le Blanc*and *Michael Opton*for petitioner. *Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Lillian Z. Cohen*of counsel), for respondents.

Jacob Markowitz, J.

This is an application pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR for an order directing the respondents to permit the infant petitioner to file a late notice of claim under subdivision 2 of section 625 of the Executive Law. Hnder the latter section, a victim of a crime must file a claim within 90 days after the occurrence; however, upon good cause shown, the Crime Victims Compensation Board may extend the time for filing for a period not exceeding one year after such occurrence. The infant petitioner was purportedly assaulted on April 17, 1969; a claim was not filed with the board until November 17, 1970. Petitioner now contends that, by reason of his infancy, the one-year provision may now be extended by reason of CPLR 208. On the other hand, the respondents assert that the one-year prohibition of subdivision 2 of section 625 of the Executive Law is absolute and may not be extended for any reason, including infancy.

An action or special proceeding must be commenced within the time specified in article 2 of the CPLR unless a different time is prescribed by law or a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement (CPLR 201). However, the sole question presented upon this application is whether a ‘‘ notice of claim ’ ’ may be filed later than one year after the occurrence. Therefore, the time limitations set forth in article 2 of the CPLR are not directly relevant to the present discussion.

In resolving this controversy, the one-year caveat in subdivision 2 of section 625 of the Executive Law should be closely analogized to a' similar provision in subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law. With respect to the timeliness of filing a notice of claim against a municipal corporation under the latter statute, the highest court of this State has *316ruled that the one-year prohibition is absolute; neither infancy nor any other disability can eliminate it as a barrier (cf. *Matter of Rosenberg*v. *City of New York,*309 N. Y. 304, 308; *Spiciarich*v. *New York City Housing Auth.,*23 A D 2d 653). Likewise, the parallel provision set forth in subdivision 2 of section 625 of the Executive Law must be construed as establishing an inflexible one-year standard. Consequently, the petition must be dismissed since more than one year had elapsed before the notice of claim was filed by the infant petitioner with the board.
|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History:                                                      
|                                                                   
|Delaware Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Other  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                   
|                                                                   
|Delaware Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Other  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        | 0      |        |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
07/19/2012 18:22 FAX 2024935142 

~ 001/001 FAA ~ OMS 

Direct Dial: 435.oJ4.J5Jo 

Direct Fax: 4.15.<iJ4 . .1SO::i 

c-mad: tcrtlcr~~!)n(f!t~k ywt!sl.\:2'!.1 

RECEIVED 

.JUL - 2 21112 

HEARING DOCKET 

VIA F't:D~:RAL F.XPRESS 

Federal A vi at ion Administration 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, .t\GC-430 

Wilbttr Wright Building- Suite 2WI 000 

800 lnclcpcndcnt;t: A vcnu~ SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Rc: c~-.se No. 2011NM060005 

Dear .Sii'/Madam: 

June 29,2012 

The Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty iu the abovc-rererence case was 

received in our officx on June 25, 2011. 

Pursuant to ~ 13.16 (e) (2) (ii) of Fcd(;ral Air Regulations, Sky West Airlines hereby 

requests a hearing on this matter. 

~~erely, 

luc. 

Todd C. Emcr --~ ... --· 

Director- Government and Legal Affairs 

TCE/jb 

cc: Jeffrey M. Harper 

0
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 24828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Levi Strauss & Company; Notice of Termination of Investigation

Tennessee
    TA-W-34,101
    Mountain City Plant
    Cold Springs Road, Route #1
    Mountain City, Tennessee 37683

    TA-W-34,101A
    Powell Plant
    2307 Beaver Creek Drive
    Powell, Tennessee 37849

    TA-W-34,101B
    Knoxville Laundry Facility
    2700 Hoitt Avenue
    Knoxville, Tennessee 37917

Texas
    TA-W-34,101C
    Harlingen Plant
    Industrial Air Park
    Harlingen, Texas 78553

    TA-W-34,101D
    Amarillo Finishing Center
    4724 N.E. 24th Street
    Amarillo, Texas 78553

    TA-W-34,101E
    San Antonio Finishing Center
    5827 Highway 90 West
    San Antonio, Texas 78227

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on December 15, 1997 in response to a worker petition 
which was filed September 9, 1997 on behalf of workers at Levi Strauss 
in Mountain City, TN (TA-W-34,101), Powell, TN (TA-W-34,101A), 
Knoxville, TN (TA-W-34,101B), Harlingen, TX (TA-W-34,101C), Amarillo, 
TX (TA-W-34,101D), and San Antonio, TX (TA-W-34,101E).
    The petitioning group of workers are covered under an existing 
Trade Adjustment Assistance certification (TA-W-34,513). Consequently, 
further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the 
investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of April, 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-11909 Filed 5-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-050-CV

IN RE HEIDI KLARA 								   RELATOR

JUANDINE WILLIAMS

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

									PER CURIAM

PANEL A: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and GARDNER, J.

DELIVERED: February 22, 2006
# C_2019121EN.01000301.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/3

---

Opinion of the advisory committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 23 November 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.39849(1) BEH Gas

Rapporteur: Lithuania

(2019/C 121/03)

1.

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 9 November 2018 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant product and geographic markets as the markets for (i) capacity-related services on the Bulgarian Transmission Network, (ii) capacity-related services on the Romanian Transit Pipeline 1; (iii) capacity-related services for storage at UGS Chiren, (iv) downstream wholesale supply of gas in Bulgaria, except for supplies to customers in the South West of Bulgaria; and (v) retail supply of gas to large end customers connected to the Bulgarian Transmission Network in Bulgaria, except for supplies to customers in the South West of Bulgaria.

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that BEH, Bulgargaz and Bulgartransgaz abused their dominant position on the relevant markets by preventing, restricting and delaying third party access to the Bulgarian Transmission Network, UGS Chiren and Romanian Transit Pipeline 1 (by capacity hoarding) without objective justification.

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the conduct covered by the draft decision constitutes one single and continuous infringement of Article 102 TFEU.

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that BEH, Bulgargaz and Bulgartransgaz should be held jointly and severally liable for the infringement.

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---
Sarbanes-Oxley Certification


  I, E. Todd Whittemore, 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 Lehman Mortgage Trust 2006-1,(the "Exchange Act periodic
reports");

  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, 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 period covered by this report;

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

  4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted
in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report
under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, 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 related attestation 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 Rules 13a-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 in
such 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:
Citibank, N.A., as Trustee and Paying Agent; LaSalle Bank National
Association, as Custodian; U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian
First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas LP, as sub-contractor for
Aurora Loan Services LLC; Newport Management Corporation, as sub-contractor
for Aurora Loan Services LLC.

     Dated:    March 29, 2007

By : /s/ E. Todd Whittemore
    --------------------------------------------------------
         E. Todd Whittemore
         Executive Vice President
S95Y0334.

#### IN THE MATTER OF DONALD T. ROBINSON.

(456 SE2d 211)

Per curiam.

The State Bar of Georgia filed a formal complaint against Respondent alleging violations of Standards 4 and 25 of Bar Rule 4-102 *349(d) along with notice that the State Bar would ask the review panel to use Bar Rule 4-1031 to disbar Respondent for this third disciplinary matter. Respondent acknowledged service of the formal complaint but failed to respond within 30 days. There being no answer, the special master appointed in this matter found that the facts admitted by default supported the allegations of the complaint.

Decided April 10, 1995.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Marie L. McCarthy, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

The allegations established by default were that Robinson, after being suspended by order of this Court, held himself out to the public as a practicing attorney. A client filed a grievance after Respondent failed to deliver documents he was retained to draft and failed to refund the fee he had accepted.

The review panel found that Respondent had violated Standards 4 and 25 of Bar Rule 4-102 and because it found this to be his third disciplinary offense, Bar Rule 4-103 applied. The panel recommended that Respondent be disbarred.

We have reviewed the record and agree with and adopt the review panel’s recommendation. It is hereby ordered that Donald T. Robinson be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Georgia. It is further ordered that Donald T. Robinson immediately cease the practice of law and, within the time provided, certify to this Court that he has taken all actions necessary to protect the interests of his clients and that he has satisfied all the requirements of Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 Standard 4 proscribes engaging in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or wilful misrepresentation; Standard 25 proscribes practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would violate the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction. Bar Rule 4-103 is a recidivist provision.
No. 12-6563.

#### Finger *v.*Anderson County, Tennessee, et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### WISHNEFSKY, B. v. SOMERSET HOSPITAL

1750 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/09/2017

Reargument Denied 10/18/2017

565 Civil 2011

(Somerset)

Affirmed