alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w75






Exhibit 10.75








December 31, 2008



Ullico Inc.

1625 Eye Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006





			
	          Re:	 	That certain Commercial Loan Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2008 (the
“Loan Agreement”), by and between (i) Patriot Risk Management, Inc., PRS Group, Inc.,
Guarantee Insurance Group, Inc., Patriot Risk Services, Inc., Patriot Risk Management
of Florida, Inc. and SunCoast Capital, Inc. (collectively, the “Borrowers”) and (ii)
Ullico Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Lender”)




Ladies and Gentlemen:




     Reference is hereby made to the Loan Agreement. Unless’ otherwise defined herein, capitalized
terms shall have their respective meanings set forth in the Loan Agreement.



     In connection with the execution of the Loan Agreement and the closing thereunder, the
Borrowers and Steven M. Mariano acknowledge that they have not delivered proof of the funding of
the $500,000 additional equity investment by Mr. Mariano in accordance with Section 31(b)(i) of the
Loan Agreement (it being acknowledged that only $500,000 of the $1,000,000 equity
investment required pursuant to Section 31(b)(i) of the Loan Agreement has been made as of the date
hereof and the additional $500,000 shall be made by Mr. Mariano in accordance with the terms of
this letter agreement).



     Notwithstanding such failure and the terms of Section 31(b)(i) and Section 8(a)(ii) of the
Loan Agreement, and subject to the terms of this letter agreement, the Lender has agreed to
consummate the closing and make the Loan pursuant to the Loan Agreement. Subject to the terms of
this letter agreement, the Lender acknowledges that such failure shall not constitute an Event of
Default under the Loan Agreement.



     The
Borrowers and Mr. Mariano each agree and covenant that, notwithstanding any of the terms,
conditions, representations or warranties contained in the Loan Agreement, the Borrowers and Mr.
Mariano shall deliver to the Lender proof, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Lender, that Mr.
Mariano has funded the additional $500,000 equity investment required by Section 31(b)(i) of the
Loan Agreement on or before 12:01 p.m. on January 6, 2009. Attached to this letter agreement is
written approval by Mr. Mariano’s home’ equity lender that he will have sufficient funds to satisfy
such requirement on or before 12:01 p.m. on January 6, 2009.



[Signature page follows]




401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste 1540 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 phone 954.670.2937 fax 954.779.3556 www.prmigroup.com




 









 





December 31, 2008

Page 2 of 2




     Failure by the Borrowers and Mr. Mariano to satisfy any of the conditions set forth above shall
constitute an immediate Event of Default under the Loan Agreement.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,

PATRIOT RISK MANAGEMENT, INC.


 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Steven M. Mariano
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Steven M. Mariano 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ Steven M. Mariano
 	 
	 	Steven M. Mariano
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ROSE HILLS COMPANY AND
SUBSIDIARIES, FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,934
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,105
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,590
<PP&E>                                          59,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 320,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,214
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   320,951
<SALES>                                         23,847
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,847
<CGS>                                           15,250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,021
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,803
<INCOME-TAX>                                       859
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       944
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2019270EN.01001901.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 17 May 2019 — RTS infra BVBA, Aannemingsbedrijf Norré-Behaegel v Vlaams Gewest

(Case C-387/19)

(2019/C 270/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: RTS infra BVBA, Aannemingsbedrijf Norré-Behaegel

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Questions referred

| 1. | Should the provisions of Article 57(4)(c) and (g), in conjunction with paragraphs 6 and 7 of that article, of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as precluding an application whereby the economic operator is required to provide evidence on its own initiative of the measures that the economic operator has taken to demonstrate its reliability? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should the provisions of Article 57(4)(c) and (g), in conjunction with paragraphs 6 and 7 of that article, of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted as precluding an application whereby the economic operator is required to provide evidence on its own initiative of the measures that the economic operator has taken to demonstrate its reliability?

| 2. | If so, do the provisions of Article 57(4)(c) and (g), in conjunction with paragraphs 6 and 7 of that article, of Directive 2014/24 therefore have direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, do the provisions of Article 57(4)(c) and (g), in conjunction with paragraphs 6 and 7 of that article, of Directive 2014/24 therefore have direct effect?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.

---
# C_2020103EN.01000802.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 7 November 2019 — RE v Privredne banke Zagreb d.d.

(Case C-820/19)

(2020/C 103/11)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RE

Defendant: Privredne banke Zagreb d.d.

By order of the Court of 6 December 2019, Case C-820/19 was removed from the register of the Court of Justice of the European Union

---
EXHIBIT 4.(b)iii OFFER TO PURCHASE DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2004 REGARDING ACQUISITION OF FILM PROPERTIES FROM NOBLE HOUSE PRODUCTION INC.



OFFER TO PURCHASE



NAME:Noble House Entertainment Inc. (previously known as First Empire Corporation Inc.)



of the city/town of Toronto in the province of Ontario (as Purchaser)



HEREBY AGREES TO AND WITHNoble House Productions, Inc. (as Vendor) to purchase certain assets of the vendor comprising scripts and related intellectual properties of ten movies and distribution contracts relating to another six movies as detailed in the Schedule 1 (the Assets) as reviewed and approved by the Purchaser, at the price or sum of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) as follows:



Three and a half (3.5) million common shares at $0.10 per common share of the Purchaser and,



Three and a half (3.5) million warrant convertible within two years of the closing date, into equal number of common shares of the Purchaser at a price of $1 per warrant.  Warrants shall be construed to have no intrinsic value at the time of their issuance.



Common shares to be issued under this Agreement will be restricted in terms of their transferability and salability for the five years from the closing date, unless otherwise agreed by the vendor.



The vendor represents and warrants that it is the owner of the assets herein agreed to be purchased, and that the same are free and clear of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever.



The parties agree to jointly elect pursuant to Section 167(1) of the Excise Tax Act with respect to Goods and Services Tax.



The sale shall be completed on the 30th day of November 2004 on which date possession of the assets described in Schedule 1 is to be given to the Purchaser.



The Bill of Sale or other transfer document to be prepared at the Vendors expenses, and the Promissory Note or other security document, if any, to be prepared at the expense of the Purchaser, and each party to pay the costs of registration of its own documents.



This Offer when accepted shall constitute a binding contract of purchase and sale, and time in all respects shall be of the essence of this Agreement.



The parties hereto agree that there is no representation, warranty collateral agreement or condition affecting this Agreement or stipulated hereby other than as expressed herein in writing.



All goods, chattels and contents of the above-described business shall be and remain at the risk of the Vendor until completion of sale.



DATED at Toronto this 30th day of November, 2004.



SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED in the presence of



NOBLE HOUSE ENTERTAINMENT INC.





/s/Kam Shah

Kam Shah

Chief Executive Officer



The undersigned Vendor hereby accepts the foregoing offer.



DATED at Toronto this 30th day of November, 2004.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and seal.



SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED in the presence of



NOBLE HOUSE PRODUCTIONS INC.





/s/Damian Lee

Damian Lee

President
##### 



Exhibit 14.8 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD) We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the
Registration Statement on Form F-4 (File Nos. 333-109610; 333-109610-01) of
CVRD and Vale Overseas Limited (Vale Overseas); and (ii) the Registration
Statement on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale
Overseas of our report dated January 21, 2004 on the consolidated financial
statements of Navegação Vale do Rio Doce S.A.  DOCENAVE which appears in the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended
December 31, 2003. June 4, 2004 /s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Minera Andes Inc. (the “Corporation”), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Allen V. Ambrose, President of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of my knowledge:

|        |        |                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | 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. |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                     |

|                    |                   |                      |
|--------------------|-------------------|----------------------|
|               | MINERA ANDES INC. |
|               |              |                 |
| Date: May 12, 2003 | By:               | /s/ ALLEN V. AMBROSE |
|               |              |                      |
| ** **         | ** **        | **Allen V. Ambrose** |
| ** **         | ** **        | **President**        |
| ** **         | ** **        | ****                 |
# C_2019155EN.01002001.xml

| 6.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 January 2019 — FX v GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother

(Case C-41/19)

(2019/C 155/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FX

Defendant: GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother

Questions referred

| 1. | Does an application opposing enforcement made pursuant to Paragraph 767 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) against a foreign maintenance order constitute a matter relating to maintenance within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (the European Maintenance Regulation)? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does an application opposing enforcement made pursuant to Paragraph 767 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) against a foreign maintenance order constitute a matter relating to maintenance within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (the European Maintenance Regulation)? (1)

| 2. | If not, does an application opposing enforcement made pursuant to Paragraph 767 ZPO against a foreign maintenance order constitute proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments within the meaning of Article 24(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, does an application opposing enforcement made pursuant to Paragraph 767 ZPO against a foreign maintenance order constitute proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments within the meaning of Article 24(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters? (2)

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
# C_2020161EN.01001602.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/16

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2019 by Camelia Manéa against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2019 in Case T-225/18 Manéa v CdT

(Case C-892/19 P)

(2020/C 161/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Camelia Manéa (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CdT)

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of 12 September 2019 (T-225/18); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of 12 September 2019 (T-225/18);

| — | Rule again on the action and grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule again on the action and grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance;

| — | Order the CdT to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the CdT to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her appeal the appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal:

The first ground of appeal, relating to paragraphs 36 to 38 of the judgment under appeal, alleges distortion of the factual and legal basis of the first plea in law of the application.

The second ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 43 of the judgment under appeal, alleges a breach of the rules of evidence, a substantially incorrect assessment based on an incomplete examination of the file, a distortion of the evidence, and a distortion of a document in the case file.

The third ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 44 of the judgment under appeal, alleges contradictory reasoning, a distortion or substantially inaccurate assessment of the decision of 10 June 2016 arising from an incomplete examination of the case file, and breach of the duty to restore the previous situation taking account of legality.

The fourth ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, alleges distortion of the grounds of the decision of 29 May 2017.

The fifth ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 56 of the judgment under appeal, alleges distortion of the plea in law contained in the application concerning the failure to comply with the duty to state reasons.

The sixth ground of appeal alleges a contraction in the reasoning in paragraphs 81 and 83 of the judgment under appeal.

The seventh ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 84 of the judgment under appeal, alleges a distortion of the arguments, a substantially inaccurate assessment arising from an incomplete examination of the case file and the inadequacy of the General Court’s response to the appellant’s arguments.

---
# C_2019187EN.01005001.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/50

---

Appeal brought on 26 March 2019 by Cham Holding Co. SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 January 2019 in Case T-413/16 Cham v Council

(Case C-261/19P)

(2019/C 187/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Cham Holding Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 16 January 2019, Cham v Council, T-413/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 16 January 2019, Cham v Council, T-413/16;

And, giving judgment itself,

| — | Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---
**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), each of the undersigned officers of Vale Overseas    Limited (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s    knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended    December 31, 2002 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section    13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained    in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial    condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|                       | /s/ Gabriel Stoliar                                                              |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                                                  |
|  Dated: June 30, 2003 | Name: Gabriel Stoliar            Title: Director and Principal Executive Officer |
|                       |                                                                             |
|                       | /s/ Tito Botelho Martins                                                         |
|                       |                                                                                  |
| Dated: June 30, 2003       | Name: Tito Botelho Martins       Title: Director and Principal Financial Officer |

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.

----
# C_2019383EN.01003701.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/37

---

Appeal brought on 27 May 2019 by Xianhao Pan against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2019 in Case T-777/17: Pan v EUIPO - Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)

(Case C-412/19 P)

(2019/C 383/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Xianhao Pan (represented by: M. Oliva, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Entertainment One UK Ltd

By order of 12 July 2019 of the Vice-President the Court of Justice held that the appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.

---