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



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION BY CFO PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the special financial report pursuant to Rule 15d-2 under the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 of Viskase Companies, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Gordon S. Donovan, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge:  1.
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Gordon S. DonovanGordon S. DonovanVice President and Chief Financial Officer
 Date: April 6, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17368]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD08-98-035]
RIN 2115-AE46


Special Local Regulations; City of Pittsburgh Independence Eve 
Celebration Allegheny River Mile 0.0-0.5, Monongehela River Mile 0.0-
0.2 and Ohio River Mile 0.0-0.9

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of implementation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice implements the special local regulations of 33 CFR 
100.201, ``Annual marine events within the Second Coast Guard 
District'', Table One, number 15, listed as ``City of Pittsburgh 
Independence Eve Celebration.'' In 1996, the Second Coast Guard 
District was disestablished, and the Eighth District boundaries were 
expanded to include the prior Second District area of responsibility. 
The Eight District Commander now exercises authority over the combined 
geographical region. 61 FR 29958 (June 13, 1996). This event will be 
held on July 4, 1998 at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Implementation of 
Sec. 33 CFR 100.201 (Table One, 15) is necessary to provide for the 
safety of life on navigable waters during the event.

DATES: 33 CFR 100.201 (Table One, 15) is effective from 7 p.m. until 12 
p.m. on July 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT T.J. Ferring, Marine Safety Office, 
Pittsburgh, PA, Tel:(412) 644-5808.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City of Pittsburgh Independence Eve 
Celebration is an annual river festival sponsored by Citiparks. These 
special local regulations permit the Coast Guard to control vessel 
traffic in order to ensure the safety of spectators and participants. 
Spectators will be able to view the event from areas designated by the 
sponsor. Non-participating vessels will be able to transit the area 
during breaks between scheduled events.

    Dated: June 11, 1998.
A.L. Gerfin, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist. Acting.
[FR Doc. 98-17368 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
#### In the Matter of Sharon V. Smith, Appellant, v Kenneth Cooks, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[49 NYS3d 158]

Appeal by the maternal grandmother from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Ellen R. Greenberg, J.), dated October 28, 2015. The order, without a hearing, granted the father’s motion to dismiss the maternal grandmother’s petition for custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In August 2015, the petitioner, who is the subject child’s maternal grandmother, filed a petition seeking custody of the child. The petitioner alleged that the child’s mother and father had joint legal custody of the child, with residential custody to the mother, but that the mother was expected to shortly begin serving a term of incarceration. The father opposed the petition. Following two court appearances, the Family Court granted the father’s motion to dismiss the grandmother’s custody petition, without a hearing, for lack of standing.

“ Tn a child custody dispute between a parent and a nonpar-ent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, *815persistent neglect, unfitness, or other extraordinary circumstances’ ” *(Matter of Maddox v Maddox,*141 AD3d 529, 529 [2016], quoting *Matter of Bailey v Carr,*125 AD3d 853, 853 [2015]; *see*Domestic Relations Law § 72 [2]; *Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]). In such a dispute, the burden of proof is on the nonparent to “ ‘prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances in order to demonstrate standing ” *(Matter of Maddox v Maddox,*141 AD3d at 529, quoting *Matter of Suarez v Williams,*26 NY3d 440, 448 [2015]; *see Matter of Santiago v Henderson,*122 AD3d 866, 867 [2014]). Without proof of such extraordinary circumstances, an inquiry into the best interests of the child is not triggered *(see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d at 548; *Matter of Bailey v Carr,*125 AD3d at 853; *Matter of Santiago v Henderson,*122 AD3d at 867). “ ‘A hearing to determine the issue of standing is not necessary where there are no triable issues of fact raised in the submitted papers’ ” *(Matter of Moskowitz v Moskowitz,*128 AD3d 1070, 1070 [2015], quoting *Matter of Roberts v Roberts,*81 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2011]) and the allegations are conclusory and non-specific *(see Matter of Fielding v Fielding,*41 AD3d 929, 930 [2007]; *Matter of El-Sheemy v El-Sheemy,*35 AD3d 738, 739 [2006]).

Here, the grandmother’s petition failed to sufficiently allege the existence of extraordinary circumstances relating to the father, who had joint custody of the child. Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the father’s motion to dismiss the petition, without a hearing, based upon her lack of standing *(see Matter of Maddox v Maddox,*141 AD3d at 529; *Matter of Moskowitz v Moskowitz,*128 AD3d at 1070; *Matter of Santiago v Henderson,*122 AD3d at 867).

Dillon, J.R, Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
# C_2013156EN.01005202.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/52

---

Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-95/12, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-204/13 P)

2013/C 156/96

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commision

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

| — | Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those set out in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.

Marcuccio

Commission

---
#### People v Burns

4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1401 (Cayuga)

denied 3/13/17 (Rivera, J.)
# C_2014061EN.01001402.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/14

---

Action brought on 24 December 2013 — TUI Deutschland GmbH v OHIM — Infinity Real Estate & Project Development (Sensimar)

(Case T-706/13)

2014/C 61/25

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TUI Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Infinity Real Estate & Project Development GmbH (Rantum/Sylt, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 1476/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 1476/2012-1;

| — | reject the opposition to the applicant’s Community trade mark registration No 7 212 889; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition to the applicant’s Community trade mark registration No 7 212 889;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs relating to the cancellation proceedings, the appeal proceedings and this action before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs relating to the cancellation proceedings, the appeal proceedings and this action before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Sensimar’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 7 212 889

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Infinity Real Estate & Project Development GmbH

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks ‘SANSIBAR’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 35 and 44

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

ASSIGNMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 

THIS ASSIGNMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT dated May 28, 2014, is made by and between Wheeler Interests, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company, (“Assignor”), and WHLR-Harrodsburg Marketplace LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”). 

Background: 
 A. Wheeler Interests, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company and STEC No. 09-4083, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company previously entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated May 23, 2014 (the “Agreement”), with respect to the purchase of
a shopping center located at Harrodsburg, Kentucky and commonly referred to as Harrodsburg Marketplace; 
 B. Assignor desires to assign the
Agreement to Assignee. 
 Agreement: 

For and in consideration of the mutual promises herein, Assignor herby assigns all of its rights and delegates all of its obligations under the
Agreement to Assignee and Assignee hereby accepts the assignment of the rights of Assignor under the Agreement and assumes all of the obligations and liabilities of Assignor under the Agreement. 

(Signature Page Follows) 







 In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Assignment as of the 28th day of May 2014. 
  

							
	ASSIGNOR:
	
	WHEELER INTERESTS, LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company
			
		 		 	 /s/ Jon S. Wheeler

		 		 	By	 	Jon S. Wheeler, its Managing Member
	
	ASSIGNEE:
	
	WHLR-Harrodsburg Marketplace LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
			
		 		 	 /s/ Jon S. Wheeler

		 	By	 	Jon S. Wheeler, its Manager
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory C. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.



/s/    GREGORY C.
WALKERGregory C. Walker Senior Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer




February 9, 2005



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2408

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the nonrecognition of gain on long-term real property which is involuntarily converted

as the result of the exercise of eminent domain, without regard to

whether the replacement property is similar or of like kind.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 19 (legislative day, AUGUST 18), 1994

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

for the nonrecognition of gain on long-term real property

which is involuntarily converted as the result of the exercise of eminent domain, without regard to whether the

replacement property is similar or of like kind.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 2408 IS

1 SECTION 1. NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN

2 REAL PROPERTY INVOLUNTARILY CON3 VERTED AS RESULT OF EXERCISE OF EMI4 NENT DOMAIN.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1033 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to involuntary conversions)

7 is amended by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection

8 (j), and by inserting after subsection (h) the following new

9 subsection:

10 ‘‘(i) CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY HELD FOR

11 AT LEAST 10 YEARS.—For purposes of subsection (a), if

12 real property held by the taxpayer for at least 10 years

13 is (as the result of its seizure, requisition, or condemna14 tion, or threat or imminence thereof) compulsorily or in15 voluntarily converted, any other property shall (at the elec16 tion of the taxpayer) be treated as property similar or re17 lated in service or use to the property so converted.’’

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

19 this section shall apply to dispositions of converted prop20 erty occurring on or after October 1, 1991.

Æ
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2773 

To amend title 13, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Commerce 

to conduct a mid-decade census of population for the Northern Mariana 

Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2019 

Mr. SABLAN (for himself, Mr. SAN NICOLAS, and Mrs. RADEWAGEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 13, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a mid-decade census of 

population for the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, 

American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CENSUS FOR THE NORTHERN MARIANA IS4 LANDS, GUAM, AMERICAN SAMOA, AND THE 

5 U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 141 of title 13, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2773 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub2 section (h); and 

3 (2) by adding after subsection (f) the following: 

4 ‘‘(g) The Secretary shall, in 2025 and every 10 years 

5 thereafter, take a mid-decade census of population as of 

6 the first day of April of the applicable year for each of 

7 the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 

8 and the U.S. Virgin Islands.’’. 

9 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For the 

10 purpose of carrying out the amendments made by sub11 section (a), there are authorized to be appropriated 

12 $12,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2020 to 2024 

13 and $6,000,000 for each succeeding fiscal year after 2024. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
## NUMBER 13 - 1 5 - 00 158 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ MELISSA MARIE GARCIA , A ppellant ,
v. DAVID R. DE JESUS , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 156 th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Melissa Marie Garcia, appeals a judgment rendered against her in favor of David R. De Jesus on a breach of contract claim. This cause was abated on May 6, 2015 to allow the parti es to this appeal to mediate

. The parties have now filed an agreed motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice on grounds that they have settled and compromised this matter.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s agreed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Accordingly, we REINSTATE the appeal and we GRANT t he agreed motion to dismiss . T he appeal is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice

. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See id. R. 42.1(d) ( “ Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant. ” ). Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 16th day of July , 20 1 5

.
No. 10-6678.

#### Melvin Friend, Jr., Petitioner v. Virginia.

562 U.S. 1069, 131 S. Ct. 657,

178 L. Ed. 2d 492,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9395.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Do you have any of these symptoms?

• cough, shortness of breath, 

or chest pain 

• nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, 

or diarrhea 

• fever, chills, or weight loss

Do you use e-cigarette, or vaping, 

products?

If you answered YES to these questions, be sure to talk to 

your doctor about your symptoms and tell them that you 

use e-cigarette, or vaping, products.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

VISIT WWW.CDC.GOV/LUNGINJURY OR CALL 800-CDC-INFO.

PRINT ONLY CS311310-A 11/27/2019
Final - May 4, 2021

PRESIDER/PRESENTER(s)

Dr. José Romero (ACIP Chair)

Dr. Amanda Cohn (ACIP Executive Secretary, CDC)

11:30 Rabies Vaccines

Introduction

Rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis and children 

Background and approach to rabies post-exposure prophylaxis 

Next steps 

Dr. Sharon Frey (ACIP, WG Chair)

Dr. Agam Rao (CDC/NCEZID)

Dr. Agam Rao (CDC/NCEZID)

Dr. Agam Rao (CDC/NCEZID)

1:00

1:05

1:25

1:30

Dr. Wilbur Chen (ACIP, WG Co-Chair)

Dr. Gabriela Paz-Bailey (CDC/NCEZID)

Dr. Gabriela Paz-Bailey (CDC/NCEZID)

4:00

CDC

CMS

COVID-19

EtR

FDA

GRADE

HRSA

IHS

NCHHSTP

NCIRD

NCEZID

NIAID

OIDP

SARS-CoV-2

WG

WHO

VE

National Center for HIV, Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention [of CDC/OID] 

National Center for Immunization & Respiratory Diseases [of CDC/OID] 

World Health Organization

Vaccine Effectiveness

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases [of CDC/OID]

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Work Group

Coronavirus disease 2019

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

Health Resources and Services Administration

Indian Health Service

Public Comment

Evidence to Recommendations Framework

Food and Drug Administration

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Break

Dengue Vaccine

Introduction

Evidence to recommendations framework

Draft recommendations

Adjourn

Acronyms

MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Atlanta, Georgia 30329 

May 5, 2021

AGENDA ITEM

Wednesday, May 5

11:00 Welcome & Introductions

Break

page 1 of 1
# C_2015026EN.01002601.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2014 — Max Mara Fashion Group v OHIM — Mackays Stores (M&Co.)

(Case T-272/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark M&Co. - Earlier Community and national figurative marks MAX&Co. - Earlier national word mark MAX&CO. - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 026/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Max Mara Fashion Group Srl (Turin, Italy) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Mackays Stores Ltd (Renfrew, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Gould and K. Passmore, Solicitors, J. Baldwin, Barrister, and M. Howe QC)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2013 (Case R 1199/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Max Mara Fashion Group Srl and Mackays Stores Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Max Mara Fashion Group Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Max Mara Fashion Group Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 4.1.2

                                SECOND AMENDMENT

                                       TO
                             HAUPPAUGE DIGITAL INC.

                          EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

      A.    Section 4.01 is hereby amended to increase the number of shares
            reserved for issuance under the Plan from One Hundred Eighty
            Thousand (180,000) shares of Common Stock to Two Hundred and Sixty
            Thousand (260,000) shares of Common Stock which shares shall be
            authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock.

      B.    Section 4.02 is hereby amended to change the date of December 31,
            2004 to December 31, 2006.

      C.    Except as amended herein all of the other terms of the Plan shall
            continue in full force and effect.

      D.    The effective date of this Second Amendment is July 21, 2004 subject
            to approval by the holders of a majority of the shares of Common
            Stock present and represented at the next special or annual meeting
            of the shareholders of the Company duly held.