alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021325EN.01000401.xml

| 13.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10420 — Brookfield/Digital Realty/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 325/03)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Project Holdings Three (DIFC) Limited, belonging to the group of Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (‘Brookfield’, Canada), |
| --- | --- |

—

Project Holdings Three (DIFC) Limited, belonging to the group of Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (‘Brookfield’, Canada),

| — | Digital India, LLC, belonging to the group of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (‘Digital Realty’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Digital India, LLC, belonging to the group of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (‘Digital Realty’, USA),

| — | Mercury Holdings SG Pte. Ltd. (the ‘JV’, Singapore) |
| --- | --- |

—

Mercury Holdings SG Pte. Ltd. (the ‘JV’, Singapore)

Brookfield and Digitial Realty indirectly acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control over the JV. The transaction is accomplished by means of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

| — | for Brookfield: global asset manager focused on real estate, infrastructure, renewable power and private equity, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Brookfield: global asset manager focused on real estate, infrastructure, renewable power and private equity,

| — | for Digital Realty: real estate investment trust that owns, acquires, develops and operates data centres. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Digital Realty: real estate investment trust that owns, acquires, develops and operates data centres.

| — | for the JV: the acquisition, development, construction and operation of data centre facilities in India. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the JV: the acquisition, development, construction and operation of data centre facilities in India.

3.

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

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.10420 — Brookfield/Digital Realty/JV

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

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

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

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

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
(9 Misc. Rep. 209.)

#### MEHRBACH v. PARTRIDGE.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

June 20, 1894.)

Summons—Service—Waiver oe Irregularities.

An objection that a summons issued by the city court of New York was not served within the city of New York is not waived by the appearance of defendants before the referee in supplementary proceedings, where they did not appear in the action before judgment was entered, as irregularities in service of summons can be waived only before entry of judgment.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Isidore Mehrbach against Frank H. Partridge. From an order denying a motion to set aside the judgment, and an order directing examination of, defendant in supplementary proceedings, •defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before NEWBURGER and CONLAN, JJ.

George W. Galinger, for appellant.

Myer J. Stein, for respondent.

NEWBURGER, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made by defendant to set aside a judgment entered herein, *682and the order for the examination of defendant in proceedings supplementary to execution. It is claimed by defendant, and conceded by counsel for the respondent, on the argument, that the service of the summons was made on the defendant in the county of Westchester. It is well settled that a summons issued by this court can only be served in the city of Hew York, and therefore the service on the defendant was a nullity, and this court had no-jurisdiction. It is claimed, however, by the respondent, that the defendant waived the defect in the service by his appearance before the referee in the supplementary proceedings. Irregularities, in the service of a summons can only be waived prior to the entry of a judgment, either by appearance in person or by attorney, or by the service of an answer or demurrer. This court has held that even the obtaining of an extension of time to answer is not a sufficient appearance on the part of defendant to operate as a waiver of the irregularities in the service of the summons, and to confer jurisdiction. Bell v. Good (City Ct. N. Y.) 19 N. Y. Supp. 693. It is conceded that the defendant did not appear, either in person or by attorney,, prior to the entry of.the judgment, and no act of his. subsequent to the entry of the judgment could confer jurisdiction on this court. The order appealed from must therefore be reversed, and the motion to vacate judgment and order in supplementary proceedings granted, with costs of this appeal.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Westell Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their 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 result of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report. 

 

 

/s/ E. VAN CULLENS  

E. Van Cullens

Chief Executive Officer 

August 9, 2005

 

/s/NICHOLAS C. HINDMAN, Sr.

Nicholas C. Hindman, Sr.

Chief Financial Officer 

August 9, 2005

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Westell Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Westell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
.RadToolTip_Default.rtLoading{background:url('WebResource.axd?d=ll2Mw9hd_3R5E9SHNeqdC6uzIIEtxbup-2cagbDVph6mJkteRcRymcmEeYG950VjQV479Uyc5qXh9bM6tZ75t03gUKyS6HPsCNBF-lcvIh5D6r6D4cZ5X4vLOOs1&t=638258172349659015') no-repeat center}.RadToolTip_Default .rtWrapper .rtWrapperTopLeft,.RadToolTip_Default .rtWrapper .rtWrapperTopRight,.RadToolTip_Default .rtWrapper .rtWrapperBottomLeft,.RadToolTip_Default .rtWrapper .rtWrapperBottomRight,.RadToolTip_Default .rtWrapper .rtWrapperTopCenter,.RadToolTip_Default .rtWrapper .rtWrapperBottomCenter,.RadToolTip_Default table.rtShadow .rtWrapperTopLeft,.RadToolTip_Default table.rtShadow .rtWrapperTopRight,.RadToolTip_Default table.rtShadow .rtWrapperBottomLeft,.RadToolTip_Default table.rtShadow .rtWrapperBottomRight,.RadToolTip_Default table.rtShadow .rtWrapperTopCenter,.RadToolTip_Default table.rtShadow .rtWrapperBottomCenter,.RadToolTip_Default .rtCloseButton{background-image:url('WebResource.axd?d=FMcut1qn97urj_3I65DOPG1msOOBLNx0SNcwooVZUMQq5IDI4_kgfiNSCc4XTBSMP4GxGQH3UK8vcb0c_khTsQHbvfo94EhPHA4tMefyU39oTS3O4G3EfQkjwcXBIa9jiFqGIQ2&t=638258172349659015')}.RadToolTip_Default .rtWrapper .rtWrapperLeftMiddle,.RadToolTip_Default .rtWrapper .rtWrapperRightMiddle,.RadToolTip_Default table.rtShadow .rtWrapperLeftMiddle,.RadToolTip_Default table.rtShadow .rtWrapperRightMiddle{background-image:url('WebResource.axd?d=yTmZJFyrKBE6EUaSKlRMgeKa_AMl383gnd1BGKyTlbqGlrfxvRMoj1-6MxTZ6RVb9X0Mnp59diqcKY-AMuQAU229rAaSXCD-jd6QJ12XrcY6shX8uOLWYIQw3_2gIQwmV0h_U7di8Eowebd80&t=638258172349659015')}.RadToolTip_Default .rtWrapper .rtWrapperContent{background-color:#fff;color:#333}.RadToolTip_Default .rtTitlebar{color:#333}.RadToolTip_Default .rtCallout{background-image:url('WebResource.axd?d=lokbm08SifMBITYHjETCmIlxK_WZZ_MNhToDWOM6qYpC2aK0Cm2ETOT9oPmKM4X0-vs6Ox_BVLi2BKUVuocDl3vHUICU1mi7gMXZc9dU-BClAJxqGB5wwCU9aCkZODarzedWMw2&t=638258172349659015')}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0320

DAVID ALLEN WARD,

Petitioner and Appellant, and SHANELLE J. VAN DYKE,

Respondent and Appellee. 

## ;,„;

, 

### AUG 1 2 2020
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Through counsel, Shanelle J. Van Dyke (Van Dyke)moves to dismiss this appeal because it is premature. Self-represented AppellantDavid Allen Ward (Ward) has not filed a response. Ward is appealing the First Judicial District Court's May 13, 2020 order denying his motion to modify an order ofprotection issued in February 2020. Van Dyke points out that the underlying proceeding began with her petition for a temporary order ofprotection in the Lewis and Clark County District Court last year, later consolidated with Ward's petition to establish a parenting plan.' She points out that Ward already appealed the February order of

protection in March 2020 and later moved to dismiss the appeal on advice of counsel. This Court dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Van Dyke v. Ward, No.DA 20-0172, Order (Mont. Mar. 26, 2020). Van Dyke notes that the consolidated action remains pending, and Ward is represented by counsel in that action. Van Dyke contends that Ward's instant appeal is an attempt to reach the terms ofthe February order of protection, the appeal of which already was dismissed with prejudice. Van Dyke concludes that this appeal should be dismissed because it is not ripe and does not contain a M.R.Civ.P.54(b)certification from the District Court. She also requests fees to respond to what she argues is a frivolous appeal. The initial action was Van Dyke v. Ward, Cause No. CDR-2019-685, and it was consolidated with the parenting plan proceeding,Cause No.BDR-2020-49,on April 22,2020. 08/12/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0320Upon review,we agree that this appeal is notproperly before the Court. Ward does

not appeal a final judgment,pursuant to M.R.App.P. 4(1)(a)and 6(1),as the proceeding remains pending before the District Court. We decline to award Van Dyke fees in responding to this appeal. M.R.App.P. 19(5). Future improper filings may warrant an award ofsanctions, and we expressly warn Ward that he is not to file documents in this Court on his own behalfwhile he is represented by counsel and while this matter is still pending in the District Court. See M.R.App.P. 10(1)(c), 19(5). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Van Dyke's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED. This appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Van Dyke's Request for Fees is DENIED. The Clerk ofthe Supreme Court is directed to close this case as ofthe date ofthis Order and to issue remittitur. The Clerk also is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to the appointed mediator, Robert T. Cummins;to the Honorable Michael F.McMahon,First Judicial District Court; to Angie Sparks, Clerk of District Court, Lewis and Clark County, under Cause No.BDR 20-049;to counsel ofrecord;to David B.Gallik,and to David Allen Ward personally. DATED this day ofAugust,2020.

•
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jason
W. Rees, Principal Accounting 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:

(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 the Company.

/s/ JASON W. REES
-----------------------------------------------------
Jason W. Rees
Vice President of Finance and Chief Accounting Officer
August 11, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          41,568
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,718,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,176,885
<PP&E>                                       1,518,302
<DEPRECIATION>                               (264,930)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,587,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,797,477
<BONDS>                                      1,775,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,098,215
<COMMON>                                    11,747,076
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,173,092)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,587,719
<SALES>                                     14,820,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,820,459
<CGS>                                       10,107,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,107,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,629
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,336,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,861,326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,862,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,826,926)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)


</TABLE>
#### OREGON IMPROVEMENT COMPANY *v.*EXCELSIOR COAL COMPANY.

ERROR to the circuit court of the united states for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 1198.

Submitted November 11, 1889

Decided November 25, 1889.

Where a complaint in an action at law, for the infringement of a reissued patent for an invention, avers that the reissue is “ for the same invention,” as the original patent, and the answer denies “ each and every, all and singular, the allegations ” of the complaint,- it is error,- on the trial, to exclude the original patent from being put in evidence by the defendant.

The case is stated in the opinion.

*Mr. Sidney V. Smith*and *Mr. John A. Wright,*for plaintiff in erroi submitted' on their briefs.

*Mr. J. J. Sorivner,*for defendant in error, submitted on his brief.

Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action at law brought by The Excelsior Coal Company, a corporation, against The Oregon Improvement Company, another corporation, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, for the . infringement of a reissued patent.

The complaint avers that, on the surrender.of the original patent, a new patent was>issued to the patentee “ for the same invention, for the residue of the term then unexpired for which the said original letters patent were granted.” The answer of the defendant denies “each and every, all and singular, the allegations ” contained in -the complaint. The case was tried before a jury, and resulted In a verdict of $7000 for the plaintiff, for which, with costs, judgment was entered. To review this judgment the defendant has brought a writ of error.

*216There is a bill of exceptions, which states that the plaintiff read in evidence, without objection, the reissued patent, a copy of the specification of which with.the drawings is set forth, and put in other evidence tending to show its right to recover damages; that the defendant, “to sustain the issues on its part,” offered in evidence a duly certified copy of the original patent, a copy of which with the drawings is set forth; that the plaintiff objected to the introduction of the original patent, on the ground that the same was immaterial and irrelevant to any defence raised by the answer; that the court sustained the objection; and that the defendant excepted to such ruling.

We are of opinion that the Circuit Court committed an error in excluding the original patent. It was relevant evidence upon the question whether the reissue was “for the same invention ” as the original, and the issue on that subject was sufficiently raised by the averment of the complaint and the denial in the answer. The defendant was entitled to try that question in a formal manner, and it could not do so unless the original patent was introduced in evidence.

*The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the*, *Circuit Court with a direction to award a new trial.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001043236
<NAME> ELDER TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,986
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,783
<PP&E>                                         182,412
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,894
<BONDS>                                         19,957
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,988
<SALES>                                         19,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,496
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,282<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,790)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,790)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,790)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.76)

<FN>
<F1> Represents bad debt expense.
</FN>

</TABLE>
Exhibit 14.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12904) pertaining to the Employees’ Share Purchase Plan and the Share Incentive Plan of Tikcro Technologies Ltd. of our report dated June 29, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of Tikcro Technologies Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009.




June 29, 2010

Tel-Aviv, Israel

/s/ KOST, FORER GABBAY & KASIERER

KOST, FORER GABBAY & KASIERER

A Member of Ernst & Young Global
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5811 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5811

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
  Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 
  Tribe to determine blood quantum requirement for membership in that 
                                 tribe.

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

SECTION 1. BLOOD QUANTUM REQUIREMENT DETERMINED BY TRIBE.

    Section 108(a)(2) of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and 
Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300g-
7(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) any person of Tigua Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Indian 
        blood enrolled by the tribe.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5811

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
  Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to allow the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 
  Tribe to determine blood quantum requirement for membership in that 
                                 tribe.
```