alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021505EN.01000701.xml

| 15.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 505/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 505/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10484 – PAI Partners/New Tiger)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 505/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | PAI Partners S.à.r.l. (‘PAI Partners’, France), part of the PAI Group, |
| --- | --- |

—

PAI Partners S.à.r.l. (‘PAI Partners’, France), part of the PAI Group,

| — | New Tiger LLC (‘New Tiger’, US), controlled by PepsiCo, Inc. |
| --- | --- |

—

New Tiger LLC (‘New Tiger’, US), controlled by PepsiCo, Inc.

PAI Partners acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of New Tiger.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for PAI Partners: the management of a number of funds investing in the business services, distribution, food & consumer, general industrials, and healthcare sectors, |
| --- | --- |

—

for PAI Partners: the management of a number of funds investing in the business services, distribution, food & consumer, general industrials, and healthcare sectors,

| — | for New Tiger: the development, production, commercialization, marketing, distribution and sale of certain juice and juice-based beverages, in Europe in particular under the brands ‘Tropicana’, ‘Naked’ and ‘Punica’. |
| --- | --- |

—

for New Tiger: the development, production, commercialization, marketing, distribution and sale of certain juice and juice-based beverages, in Europe in particular under the brands ‘Tropicana’, ‘Naked’ and ‘Punica’.

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.

4.

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

M.10484 — PAI Partners/New Tiger

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 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
#### HASSETT, Respondent, v. KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 6, 1896.)

Action by Mary Hassett against the Knickerbocker. Ice Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

p0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

142092 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142092 

 COA: 293733 

 Macomb CC: 2008-005176-FH 

LARRY DONELL FORBES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 23, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

ZAHRA, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
EXHIBIT 11.1                                                    
                                                                
                                                                
                                                       ACE*COMM CORPORATION
                            COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE
                                                          JUNE 30, 1997
                                                                 
                                                                
                                                  Year Ended             Year
                                                              Ended
                                             June 30, 1996     June 30, 1997
                                                                
Weighted average common shares               3,274,745
outstanding                                                  6,134,886

                                                                
Add:  Conversion of mandatorily             1,530,950        1,530,950  
redeemable                               
Series C preferred stock                


                                                                
Add:  Conversion of common stock         486,330   
options (treasury stock method)           1,088,12
                                                 3

                                                                
Total weighted average common and                8,152,166                      
common equivalent shares                  5,893,81
                                                 8
                                                                
Net income                                     $1,059,656       
                                                              $2,624,214
                                                                
Pro forma net income per                       $0.18                            
share                                                         $0.32

                                                                
                                                                
Note:  There is no material difference                                         
between primary and fully-diluted income
per share.  Therefore, only primary
income per share is presented.
#### The State v. John Fuller.

'There are certain houses demominated “public houses,” and there are certain places considered as “public places” in the statute. If either of such “houses” or “places” is averred in the indictment, the allegation is sufficient. But if the houses or places mentioned in the indictment are not designated and charged as' enumerated in the code, then sufficient facts must be stated and averred to show, by the charge itself, that the place designated is a “public place.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2044, Note 640.)

Appeal from Harris. The case was tried before Hon. James Love, judge of the criminal court for the counties of Harris and Galveston.

The defendant was indicted for that “ in a certain public house in the city of Houston, occupied by one Lund, a colored man, on the east side of Milam street, between Capitol street and Rusk street, with divers other persons to the grand jurors unknown, play at a certain game with cards.” The defendant moved that the indictment be quashed, which motion was sustained, and the state appealed.

A. *B.*Turner, *Attorney*General, for the state.

Ho brief for the'appellee has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Lindsay, J.

—The indictment in this case was for playing cards in a “public place.” Although the accused may have played cards with divers unknown persons at a certain house, it does not necessarily follow that he violated the law enacted against gaming. Persons may play cards at a private house without being guilty of any offense against *560the law. There are certain houses denominated “public houses ” in the statute, and there are certain places considered as “ public places ” in the statute. If either of such “houses” or “places” is averred in the indictment, the allegation is sufficient. But if the houses or places mentioned in the indictment are not designated and charged as enumerated in the statute, then sufficient facts must be stated and averred to show, by the charge itself, that the place designated is a “public place.” In such cases a public place is a deduction of law from the facts appropriately alleged. The indictment in this case was properly quashed for the want of such allegations. • The judgment is

Aeeirmed.
#### Xavier Contracting, LLC, Respondent, v City of Rye et al., Appellants.

Submitted November 13, 2006;

decided January 11, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
(18 Misc. Rep. 604.)

#### HERMAN et al. v. GOODSON et al. In re COHEN.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

December 12, 1896.)

Liquor Tax Certificate—Collateral Attack of Assignment.

A receiver of a judgment debtor cannot collaterally attack an assignment of a liquor tax certificate, made by the debtor before the judgment, as such assignment is authorized by Laws 1896, c. 112, § 27.

Appeal from special term.

Proceeding by the S. Liebman Brewing Company against W. Harry Cohen to compel him to surrender to the brewing company a license tax certificate which had been assigned to it by Barris M* Goodson, and which Cohen had taken possession of as receiver of Goodson in supplementary proceedings. From an order directing such surrender, the judgment creditors appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before FITZSIMONS and O’DWYER, JJ.

W. O. Campbell, for appellants.

S. W. Hoff, for respondents.

FITZSIMONS, J.

The defendant and judgment debtor herein, desiring, prior to the judgment herein, to carry on a saloon business in this city, applied to and received from the proper authority a license to carry on such business. The license fee of $800 was loaned him by the S. Liebman Sons Brewing Company, and it received from him an assignment of such license. The deputy excise commissioner, upon receipt of said $800, and it having been established to his satisfaction that Goodson was a proper person to re*697ceive such license, issued to him a receipt for said license fee, which empowered said Goodson to carry on said saloon business until a license was issued to him, and the assignment herein referred to was made prior to the issuance of the said license. The judgment herein was obtained against the said Goodson. The receiver herein was appointed, and he received from the judgment debtor the liquor tax certificate, and he then applied to the excise commissioner for the rebate moneys due to the judgment debtor on the unexpired coupons on said certificate, just as if the judgment debtor had presented same for surrender and cancellation, as allowed him by the excise law of 1896. Because of such action of the receiver, an order to show cause was granted herein, and an ■order thereon was made requiring the said receiver to surrender to the brewing company the said certificate, because of the assignment of the same to the said company. From said order this appeal is taken.

The order appealed from, in our judgment, was a proper one. Chapter 112 of the Laws of 1896 permits an assignment of the liquor tax certificate in question to be made. If the receiver desires to question the legality of such transfer, he should do so by the usual action to set the same aside, and not attack it collaterally, or regard it as a nullity, as he has endeavored to do in this instance. Such assignment must stand until it is duly set aside by a competent tribunal, and by lawful means; not arbitrarily, and by mere physical force.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

O’DWYER, J., concurs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EAGLE USA AIRFREIGHT, INC. FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          38,338
<SECURITIES>                                     5,894
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,337
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               181,997
<PP&E>                                          45,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,192
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,215
<SALES>                                        187,365
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               187,365
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,497
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,368
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,960
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33


</TABLE>
# C_2021393EN.01000401.xml

| 29.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 393/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 393/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10440 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Varia Class Logistics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 393/04)

On 22 September 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10440. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10440. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of United Energy Corp. on Form 10-K for the
year ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:




(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 result of operations of United Energy Corp. for the
periods presented therein.




Dated: 
        July 14, 2010
              By:
              /s/ Ronald WilenRonald
      WilenChief
      Executive OfficerDated:  
       July 14, 2010
              By:
              /s/ James McKeeverJames
      McKeeverInterim
      Chief Financial Officer
Document

JOINDER TO GUARANTY


Dated to be effective as of: June 23, 2021


The undersigned, AIR’ZONA AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation (the “Additional Guarantor”), hereby joins in the Amended and Restated Guaranty dated as of March 28, 2019 (such Guaranty as amended to date and as it may be further amended, modified, supplemented or restated from time to time being the “Guaranty”) made by certain “Subsidiary” signatories thereto (collectively the “Other Guarantors”) in favor of MINNESOTA BANK & TRUST, a Minnesota state banking corporation (the “Bank”), pursuant to which such Other Guarantors jointly and severally guaranty the payment and performance of all “Obligations” of AIR T, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”), to the Bank, which Obligations include, without limitation, all “Obligations” under that certain Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2020, by and between the Borrower and the Bank (such Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, as it may be amended, modified, supplemented or restated from time to time being the “Credit Agreement;” capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein being used herein as therein defined), and as a result of such joinder, the undersigned Additional Guarantor, together with the Other Guarantors, jointly and severally guaranties the payment and performance of such Obligations  in accordance with the terms of the Guaranty.  


Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the undersigned Additional Guarantor agrees with the Bank that, as long as any portion of the Obligations shall be outstanding, it shall perform and observe the affirmative and negative covenants respectively set forth in Articles 6 and 7 of the Credit Agreement that apply to the undersigned as a Subsidiary of the Borrower or as a Loan Party and that such covenants are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein.


The undersigned Additional Guarantor represents and warrants to the Bank that each of the representations and warranties in the Credit Agreement applicable to it as a Subsidiary of the Borrower or as a Loan Party or words of like import referring to such undersigned are true and correct as of the date hereof. 




[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
084126\039\5860599.v1







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Joinder to Guaranty to be duly executed as of the date first set forth above.






						
		AIR’ZONA AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation 

		By:    /s/ Mark Harris        
Name:     Mark Harris
Its:     President                















						
		AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:


Minnesota Bank & Trust, a Minnesota state banking corporation

		By:       /s/ Dianne Wegscheid    
Name:  Dianne Wegscheid
Title:    Senior Vice President
#### Owen F. Burns III et al., Appellants, v James R. Varriale Jr., Defendant, and St. Paul/Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent. (And a Related Proceeding.)

Submitted January 8, 2007;

decided February 15, 2007

Motion by the Injured Workers’ Bar Association for leave to file an affirmation/brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affirmation/brief is accepted as filed.

Judge Jones taking no part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon Street, Appellant.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s alibi charge failed to unequivocally state that the People have the burden of disproving an alibi beyond a reasonable doubt *(People v Victor,*62 NY2d 374, 378) and impermissibly shifted to him the burden of proof has not been preserved for our review as a matter of law *(see, People v Hoke,*62 NY2d 1022). In any event, while the alibi charge was not exemplary *(cf.*1 CJI [NY] 12.10 pp 696-697), the charge as a whole adequately apprised the jury of the relevant concepts to be applied *(see, People v Canty,*60 NY2d 830).

Moreover, although several of the prosecutor’s remarks during summation might otherwise have been seen as exceeding the bounds of rhetorical comment, they must be evaluated in comparison with the summation of the defense *(see, People v Payne,*111 AD2d 938). Particularly where, as here, the defense questioned the ability of the People’s witness to be truthful *(see, People v Colon,*122 AD2d 151), the comments made by the prosecutor in his summation were not unreasonable and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for our review and we find it unnecessary to consider its merits in the interest of justice. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 0008 9

- CR

Aaron John Lewis Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 396th District Court

o f Tarran t County ( 1201653D )

November 21, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to reflect a

change in the total amount of reparations owed from $ 1,670 .00 to $ 600 .00

. We

delete from the reparations amount recited in the judgment $600.00 that was

identified as a fine; $320.00 that was identified as a probati on fee; and $150.00

identified as “Due to CSCS

. ” It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Anne Gardner
Exhibit 32.2

Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-Q

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:

Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may
be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certify that this Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Thomas T. McEntireName:

Thomas T. McEntireTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerAugust 2, 2007