alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
        10.24

    

    
 

    Amendment
      to Consulting Agreement

     

    This
      Amendment to Consulting Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of this
      3rd day of October 2008, by and between Mr. Ehud Arbit, M.D., residing at 166
      Elm Road, Englewood NJ (“Consultant”), and Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (the “Company”). 

    


    WHEREAS,
      the
      Company and Consultant entered into a Consulting Agreement as of May 1, 2008
      (the “Original Agreement”); and

     

    WHEREAS,
      Company
      and Consultant desire to amend some of terms and conditions of the Original
      Agreement.

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, the
      Company and the Consultant agree as follows:

     

    1.            
      In
      Section 1 the following paragraph is hereby added as a second
      paragraph:

    


    Exclusive
      Service.
      The
      Consultant shall perform the Services on a full time basis, shall devote his
      entire business time and attention to the business of the Company, and shall
      not
      undertake or accept any other paid or unpaid, direct or indirect position
      or engagement, or render any services of a business, professional or
      commercial nature to any other person or entity during the period of this
      Agreement.
      

    


    2.            
      Section
      2
      is hereby deleted in its entirety and a new Section 2 is as
      follows:

     

    Fees.
      In
      consideration of the Services, (i) for the period between May 1,
      2008 and June 30, 2008, the Company shall pay to Consultant a fee of
      $8,333 per month and (ii) from July 1, 2008 and thereafter, the Company
      shall pay to Consultant a fee of $16,666 per month. 

    


    3.            
      Except
      for the changes and/or additions stated herein, all the other terms of the
      Original Agreement shall remain valid and bind the parties without any change.
      In the case of a contradiction between the provisions of this Amendment and
      the
      provisions of the Original Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment shall
      prevail. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the term “Agreement”
as used in the Original Agreement shall be deemed to be the Agreement as amended
      by this Amendment.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amended and Restated Consulting
      Agreement as of the date first above written. 

    


    Oramed
      Pharmaceuticals Inc.

     

    By:
      /s/
      Nadav
      Kidron                            

    Name/Title:
      Nadav Kidron/CEO

    


    Consultant

    /s/
      Ehud
      Arbit                                        

    Ehud
      Arbit, M.D.
Exhibit 32.2



PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this annual report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the twelve months ended June 26, 2004 (the
Report), I, Michael D. Craighead, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.



September 29, 2004



By:

/s/ Michael D. CraigheadMichael D. CraigheadChief Financial OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001034237
<NAME>                        AEROCENTURY IV INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                                           975,570
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    106,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,081,880
<PP&E>                                         3,613,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                   362,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,806,330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            127,030
<BONDS>                                        4,869,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         243,420
<OTHER-SE>                                      (433,120)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,806,330
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 348,700
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 231,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               243,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (126,640)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (127,440)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (127,440)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.52)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              62
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    62
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      62
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,855
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,660
<OTHER-SE>                                    (157,453)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        62
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,148)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,148)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23** **Consent of the    Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     HearUSA Inc.    West Palm Beach, Florida     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the    Registration Statements on    Form S-8    (filed September 13, 1994),    Form S-8    (File    No. 333-08523),Form S-3    (File    No. 333-04303),Form S-3    (File    No. 333-04639),Form S-3    (File    No. 333-11429)    ,    Form S-3    (File    No. 333-18753),Form S-3    (File    No. 333-24357),Form S-3    (File    No. 333-25169),Form S-3    (File    No. 333-64571),Form S-3    (File    No. 333-38862),Form S-8    (File    No. 333-73022),Form S-3    (File    No. 333-115399)    and    Form S-3/A    (File    No. 333-128605)    of our report dated April 5, 2007, relating to the    consolidated financial statements and financial statement    schedule of HearUSA Inc., appearing in the Company’s Annual    Report on    Form 10-K    for fiscal year ended December 30, 2006.     BDO Seidman, LLP     West Palm Beach, Florida
#### Frederick W. Whiddon *vs.*Starbuck Sprague.

Suffolk.

November 11, 1909.

November 22, 1909.

Present: Knowlton, C. J., Morton, Braley, Sheldon, & Rtjgg, JJ.

*Sills and Notes,*Proof of indorsement. *Practice, Civil,*Answer. *Evidence,*Proof of signature.

Where, at the trial of an action by the holder of a negotiable promissory note, indorsed by the payee in blank, against the maker, the defendant relies upon an answer containing only a general denial, the plaintiff may introduce in evidence the note with the indorsement without further proof of the indorsement.

Contract, by the indorsee of a negotiable promissory note against the maker. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated September 25, 1908.

The case was tried before *DeCourcy,*J. The defendant relied solely upon a general denial. The plaintiff produced the note and offered it in evidence. The defendant stated that he was willing that the face of the note should be put in evidence, but not the indorsement. The presiding judge, subject to an exception by the defendant, ruled that, the defendant having failed to deny the genuineness of the signature in accordance with the *527provisions of R. L. c. 173, § 86, the plaintiff was not called upon to prove the genuineness of the indorsement, and that the plaintiff was entitled to introduce the note in evidence. There was no other evidence. The jury found for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

*E. W. Crawford & C. H.*Sprague, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

*C. F.*Eldredge, for the plaintiff.

Rugg, J.

This is an action on a promissory note payable to the order of The Raymond Syndicate, a corporation, indorsed in blank “ The Raymond Syndicate, Geo. J. Raymond, Gen’l Manager.” The declaration was on the note as indorsed to the plaintiff and the answer was a general denial. The only point raised is whether in this state of the pleadings the plaintiff was required to prove the genuineness of the indorsement. It was said in *Lowell*v. Bickford, 201 Mass. 543, 545, with ample citation of authorities, that “ It is the settled law of this Commonwealth that a holder of a negotiable promissory note payable to bearer or payable to order and indorsed in blank can sue on it in his own name. ... It is not necessary for him to prove that he owns the note or if not that he has the consent of the true owner to bring suit on it in his own name.” That case fully covers the present one, as the genuineness of the signature of the payee in the indorsement was not denied. R. L. c. 173, § 86. It was called to the attention of the parties in the trial court.

*Bradlee*v. *Warren Five Cents Savings*Bank, 127 Mass. 107, relied upon by the defendant, rests upon the law respecting savings banks, and has no bearing here.

These exceptions appear frivolous and are overruled, and double costs and interest at the rate of twelve per cent from the time when the exceptions were allowed are awarded against the defendant.

*So ordered.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         267,002
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,409
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (17,990)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               350,255
<PP&E>                                      15,320,714
<DEPRECIATION>                            (11,164,131)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,897,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,612,910
<BONDS>                                      3,800,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,534,984)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,897,700
<SALES>                                      6,114,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,114,611
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,999,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (401,809)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,291,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,291,383
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,291,383
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Honey Bee Breeding, Genetics, and Physiology Research: Baton Rouge, LA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Quick Links
                        Varroa Sensitive Hygiene (VSH)
                                    Russian Honey Bees
                                    Measuring Varroa Mite Population
                                    Small Hive Beetles
                                    Tracheal Mite Resistance
                                    History of the Bee LabSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Baton Rouge, Louisiana Honey Bee Lab People & Locations







David F Dodge
                        Honey Bee Breeding, Genetics, and Physiology Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician (Insects)
                        Phone: (225) 767-9283
                        
                        
                        Fax: (225) 766-9212(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

ESTATE OF BIMLA NAYYAR, by RAKESH 

NAYYAR, Personal Representative, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED 

May 14, 2020

V No. 343676

Wayne Circuit Court 

OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., doing 

business as OAKWOOD HOSPITAL & 

MEDICAL CENTER,

LC No. 13-009819-NH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: METER, P.J., and O’BRIEN and SWARTZLE, JJ.

METER, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in all aspects of this majority opinion, including reluctantly the disposition, save 

one issue. I disagree with the finding in Section C that a mistake was not made in the prior panel’s 

decision. I believe a mistake was made. As the majority notes, defendant admitted to breaching 

the standard of care prior to trial. Thus, trial testimony focused on causation and damages. 

Accordingly, any and all testimony elicited by plaintiff regarding the relevant standard of care and 

associated breach were completely irrelevant, as the majority recognizes. Whether plaintiff 

proceeded through trial under a theory of medical malpractice or ordinary negligence, the issue of 

causation was the same. See O’Neal v St. John Hosp & Med Ctr, 487 Mich 485, 496-497; 791 

NW2d 853 (2010). Similarly, the only difference regarding damages involved the amount: 

damages are capped in medical malpractice cases, but uncapped in ordinary negligence cases. 

However, this difference is not known to the jury when the jury deliberates on the issue of 

damages. See MCL 600.6304(5). Thus, in this case, the jury necessarily determined the only two 

remaining issues, independent of what theory of negligence plaintiff proceeded with. The prior 

panel should have remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of defendant, but with damages 

capped, which is standard operating procedure that trial courts can easily accomplish post-verdict 

in any medical malpractice case. See MCL 600.6304(5).
-2-

I would separately urge the Michigan Supreme Court to reexamine and clarify the law-ofthe-case doctrine in cases involving, as here, “lateral review”. Most importantly, I would strongly 

urge the Michigan Supreme Court to grant leave and remand the case for entry of a capped 

judgment in favor of defendant, which certainly the Michigan Supreme Court can do in a 

hierarchical review system. Then-Chief Justice Markman’s concurrence in this case’s prior appeal 

to the Michigan Supreme Court ended with a rhetorical question: “Yet the decedent’s husband’s 

plaintive inquiry nonetheless resonates loudly: ‘How is [this] possible in a just and fair world . . . ?’ 

There is no satisfactory answer, in my judgment, only that further review of this matter might well 

be pursued in an appropriate action.” Nayyar v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 501 Mich 972, 972; 

906 NW2d 212 (2018) (MARKMAN, C.J., concurring) (alteration in original). This case is that

appropriate action.

/s/ Patrick M. Meter
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JASON SAMPLE, 6:14-CV-01112-ST

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration,

 Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and

Recommendation (#25) on September 29, 2015, in which she

recommends this Court reverse and remand the Commissioner's

decision denying Plaintiff's applications for supplemental

security income benefits and disability insurance benefits for

the immediate calculation and payment of benefits. The matter is

now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

 - ORDER 1

Case 6:14-cv-01112-ST Document 27 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 2
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and

Recommendation (#25). Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the

decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this matter pursuant to

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the immediate calculation

and award of benefits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2015.

Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

 - ORDER 2

Case 6:14-cv-01112-ST Document 27 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 2