alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT




The following are subsidiaries of the Registrant:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        State or Province
                                          of Incorporation
                                        ------------------
<S>                                     <C>
Arden-Mayfair, Inc.                          Delaware
Gelson's Markets                             California
AMG Holdings, Inc.
 (formerly Telautograph Corporation)         Virginia
</TABLE>


Arden-Mayfair, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant.  Gelson's
Markets and AMG Holdings, Inc. are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Arden-Mayfair,
Inc.  All of the subsidiaries listed above are included in the consolidated
financial statements of the Registrant.



                                       51
A92A0603.

#### GREENE COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY v. TURNER.

(421 SE2d 715)

Cooper, Judge.

Appellee brought an action against appellant d/b/a Minnie G. Boswell Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “hospital”) and Dr. William Buhrow for injuries appellee suffered as a result of surgery performed by Dr. Buhrow. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-9.1, appellee filed an affidavit which set forth the negligence of Dr. Buhrow. However, the affidavit did not set forth any negligence on the part of the hospital. The hospital filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment on the ground that appellee’s expert affidavit did not allege any negligence as to the hospital or any of its employees. The trial court’s order recites that the hospital’s motion is granted as to appellee’s “medical malpractice and/or medical professional negligence claims” but denied as to appellee’s “ordinary negligence claims.” We granted the hospital’s interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss appellee’s negligence claims against the hospital.

The Supreme Court of Georgia decided in *Gillis v. Goodgame,*262 Ga. 117 (414 SE2d 197) (1992) that the affidavit requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 apply only to those professions recognized under Georgia law in OCGA §§ 14-7-2 (2); 14-10-2 (2); and 43-1-24. Id. at 118. In another case decided on the same day as *Gillis,*the Supreme Court held that the affidavit requirements of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 did not apply to a plaintiff’s claims of negligence against a hospital because the case was not one against a “professional” or involving “professional malpractice.” See *Lamb v. Candler Gen. Hosp.,*262 Ga. 70 (413 SE2d 720) (1992). In the complaint, the only claim stated against the hospital is that the hospital “was negligent in that its staff failed to meet the standard of care required of medical professionals generally in screening, observing, and treating [appellee].” The same language is used to state a claim against Dr. Buhrow. While that language may state a claim of malpractice against Dr. Buhrow since he is a professional, the language states only a claim of ordinary negligence *214against the hospital to the extent that the members of the hospital “staff” referred to in appellee’s complaint are non-professionals as defined by *Gillis.*Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss as to appellee’s ordinary negligence claims. However, as the Supreme Court noted in *Lamb,*the hospital is not precluded from asserting the lack of a § 9-11-9.1 affidavit as a defense if the hospital establishes that the “staff” members are professionals under *Gillis.*See *Lamb,*supra at 72, footnote 3. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss.

Decided May 5, 1992

Reconsideration denied July 28, 1992

*Webb, Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, Wade K. Copeland, N. Beth Dorsey, Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Bryant, Milton F. Eisenberg II,*for appellant.

' *Sherry J. Locklin,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Sognier, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.*
# C_2009203EN.01000701.xml

| 28.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/7

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to national regional investment aid

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 203/05

| Aid No | XR 4/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Austria |
| Region | Alle Regionen gem. genehmigter Fördergebietskarte für Regionalbeihilfen in Österreich 2007-2013;
  N 492/06 |
| Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement | ERP-Regionalprogramm
  Nachfolgeregelung des ERP-Regionalprogramms
  N 302/97 |
| Legal basis | Richtlinien für das ERP-Regionalprogramm
  Allgemeine Bestimmungen für ERP-Programme:
  Industrie und Gewerbe |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Annual budget | EUR 50 million |
| Maximum aid intensity | 30 % |
| In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 1.1.2007 |
| Duration | 31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors eligible for regional investment aid |
| except NACE 1; 2; 5; 10; 11–13; 16; 50–52; 55; 60–62; 65–67; 75; 80; 85; 95; 99 |
| Name and address of the granting authority | ERP-Fonds |
| Ungargasse 37 |
| 1030 Wien |
| ÖSTERREICH |
| Tel. +43 1501-75 DW 466 |
| e.kober@awsg.at |

Aid No

XR 4/07

Member State

Austria

Region

Alle Regionen gem. genehmigter Fördergebietskarte für Regionalbeihilfen in Österreich 2007-2013;

N 492/06

Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement

ERP-Regionalprogramm

Nachfolgeregelung des ERP-Regionalprogramms

N 302/97

Legal basis

Richtlinien für das ERP-Regionalprogramm

Allgemeine Bestimmungen für ERP-Programme:

Industrie und Gewerbe

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Annual budget

EUR 50 million

Maximum aid intensity

30 %

In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

1.1.2007

Duration

31.12.2013

Economic sectors

All sectors eligible for regional investment aid

except NACE 1; 2; 5; 10; 11–13; 16; 50–52; 55; 60–62; 65–67; 75; 80; 85; 95; 99

Name and address of the granting authority

ERP-Fonds

Ungargasse 37

1030 Wien

ÖSTERREICH

Tel. +43 1501-75 DW 466

e.kober@awsg.at

Internet address of the publication of the aid scheme

http://www.awsg.at/portal/media/2286.pdf

Other information

—

---
#### Nelson Gregorio PIZARRO, Plaintiff, v. Maribel SANCHEZ-MUÑOZ, Defendant.

Civil No. 08-1308 (FAB).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

April 21, 2008.

Nicolas Nogueras-Cartagena, Nicolas Nogueras Law Offices, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BESOSA, District Judge.

On March 27, 2008, this Court ordered plaintiff Nelson G. Pizarro to show cause why this case should not be remanded because of its improper removal and because of the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Docket No. 2)

On April 19, 2008, 12 days after the deadline set by the Court, Mr. Pizarro filed his “Response to Order to Show Cause”. (Docket No. 5)

Having considered the docket in this case, it is clear that Mr. Pizarro’s claims constitute a challenge solely to the *139grounds of the state court’s decision to disqualify him as the guardian of his mother Maria M. Olivo Ayala and his sister Karen Y. Pizarro Olivo. As such, even if within the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, his challenge would fall within the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1332(a)(1) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides for original jurisdiction for all civil actions in the federal district courts when the action is between citizens of different states, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Despite this broad language, federal courts have refused to enter into certain disputes even when the requirements for diversity are present. One of the exceptions is domestic relations cases. *See Rotolo v. Rotolo,*682 F.Supp. 8 (D.P.R.1988) (internal citations omitted).

This refusal has been explained on the grounds that the area of domestic relations is one in which “... the states have an especially strong interest in the proper implementation of their policies and local courts have a well developed competence.” *Rotolo,*682 F.Supp. at 8 (citing Wright, Miller and Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d Section 3609 (1984 ed.)) As stated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, “[rjegardless of the historical inaccuracies and doctrinal distortions that mark the birth and early years of this exception to diversity jurisdiction, ... the exception has endured for too long for us to abandon it in the absence of contrary action by Congress or the Supreme Court.” *Sutter v. Pitts,*639 F.2d 842, 843 (1st Cir.1981).

The same prudential concerns supporting the domestic relations exceptions for divorce, alimony, and child custody cases apply equally in guardianship cases. *See Mazur v. Woodson,*932 F.Supp. 144, 148 (E.D.Va.1996)

Therefore, as a matter of judicial economy, state courts are more eminently suited to work this type of case than are federal courts, which lack the close association with state and local government organizations dedicated to handling issues that arise out of conflicts over divorce, alimony, child custody decrees and guardianship cases. *See e.g., Mazur,*932 F.Supp. at 149 *(citing, Ankenbrandt v. Richards,*504 U.S. 689, 704, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992)).

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, Fajardo Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
#### OLD KENT MORTGAGE SERVICES *v.*DORIS FORD ET AL.

*Raymond J. Devlin, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

*Matthew B. Woods,*in opposition.

Decided March 31, 2005

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 24300) is denied.

PALMER, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit (23)
 
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

        Certified Public Accountants

        225 Market Street      Telephone 717 238 7131       Telefax 717 233 1101
        Suite 300
        P.O. Box 1190
        Harrisburg, PA  17108-1190



                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------

The Board of Directors
Dauphin Deposit Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 
33-59941, 33-17401, 33-61848, 33-50172 and 2-73258) on Form S-8 and registration
statement (No. 33-53793) on Form S-3 of Dauphin Deposit Corporation of our 
report dated January 26, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of 
Dauphin Deposit Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, 
and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and 
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 
1995, which report appears in the December 31, 1995 annual report on Form 10-K 
of Dauphin Deposit Corporation.

Our report refers to a change in the Company's method of accounting for 
impairment of loans and a change in the Company's method of accounting for 
mortgage servicing rights.

                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
March 8, 1996





[ART]
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 14, 2010 

# Order

October 14, 2010

138863-66 (109 )(113)(115)(117)

ANGLERS OF THE AuSABLE, INC., MAYER FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC, and NANCY A. FORCIER TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, SC: 138863-138866 v COA: 279301, 279306, 280265, 280266 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTA L Otsego CC: 06-011697-CE QUALITY, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees.

_____________ _______________ _____________

On order of the Chief Justice, motions by Preserve the Dunes, Inc., the Michigan Environmental Council, Mich igan Citizens for Water Cons ervation and the Michigan
Manufacturers Association for leave to file briefs amicus curiae in this case are considered, and they are GRANTED.
---



Exhibit
  99.3



COMMENTS BY AUDITORS
    FOR U.S. READERS
    ON CANADA-U.S. REPORTING DIFFERENCES




In the United
  States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an explanatory
  paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there are changes in accounting
  principles that have a material effect on the comparability of the financial
  statements, such as the changes described in Note 1 to Bell Canadas consolidated
  financial statements or when there is a retroactive restatement such as described
  in Note 1. Our report to the shareholders dated March 2, 2005 is expressed in
  accordance with Canadian reporting standards, which do not require a reference
  to such changes in accounting principles in the auditors report when the
  changes are properly accounted for and adequately disclosed in the financial
  statements.

Bell Canada
  is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal
  control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal
  control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that
  are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing
  an opinion on the effectiveness of Bell Canadas internal control over
  financial reporting. Accordingly we express no such opinion.



(signed) Deloitte & ToucheDeloitte
          & Touche LLP  Montreal, Canada 
    March 2, 2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name*: Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative Activities (1193).                    

*Date/Time*: June 11, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.                    

*Place*: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting*: Closed.                    

*Contact Person*: Dr. Caroline Wardle, CISE Information Technology Workforce (ITWF), Experimental and Integrative Activities, Room 1160, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, VA 22230 Telephone: (703) 292-8980.                    

*Purpose of Meeting*: To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation for financial support.                    

*Agenda*: To review and evaluate CISE Information Technology Workforce (ITWF) proposals submitted in response to the program announcement (NSF 01-33).                    

*Reason for Closing*: The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 1, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-11291 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<PAGE>

                        EXECUTIVE PERQUISITE/FLEX POLICY
                           EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1999


A.    EXECUTIVE PERQUISITES

      The Company will provide for the direct payment of selected perquisite
      expenses that are offered because of competitive compensation practice
      and/or because the service is being expensed in the business interests of
      the Company.

      The following outlines the executive perquisites offered:

          -    Physical examination every three years under 40 years of age,
               every two years over age 40

          -    Tax preparation fees and financial planning benefit for the Chief
               Executive Officer up to $5,000/year

          -    Tax preparation fees and financial planning benefit for other
               Corporate officers and General Managers up to $2,500/year

          -    Tax gross-up on 25% of the imputed income from the IRS "Annual
               Lease Value Table" and IRS defined fuel costs for personal use
               or actual expense

          -    Automobile actual operating expenses

<PAGE>

B.    OFFICER FLEX ACCOUNT

      The Company will reimburse Corporate officers for the reasonable cost of
      certain services. The maximum allowable reimbursement will be up to 10% 
      of the officers' annual base pay.

      Expenses eligible for reimbursement are as follows:

          -    Athletic, country and business club memberships

          -    Automobile lease, or, if the automobile is purchased, monthly
               reimbursement equivalent to the pro-forma lease cost

<PAGE>

C.    INELIGIBLE EXPENSES

      The following expenses will no longer be eligible for direct payment or
reimbursement:

          -    Home security system

          -    Legal advice

          -    Tax assistance in excess of $5,000/year for the Chief Executive
               Officer and $2500/year for other officers and general managers

          -    Financial counseling

          -    Daycare for children

          -    Season tickets to sporting and cultural events

          -    First class business travel

          -    Spouse travel not required by business needs

          -    Additional personal liability insurance

          -    Additional business liability insurance

          -    Education for children

          -    Additional business travel insurance

          -    Supplemental life insurance

          -    Up to $3,000/per calendar year of health care expenses not
               covered by Company benefit plans

          -    Personal computer leases
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of enherent Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas A. Catalano, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as 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/ Douglas A. CatalanoDouglas A. CatalanoChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentJanuary 25, 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 enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 6 of 6
ECF 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 

 07-CIV-5739 

 -against-

 DEFENDANT 

LEWIS PERRY, YOLANDA PERRY, ALEXANDER ALEXANDER ROAD 

ROAD ASSOCIATION, INC., ANTHONY VULPONE, ASSOCIATION, INC.’S 

ESTATE OF ANTHONY VULPONE, ROBERT STATEMENT 

ANTALOCY, THOMAS HARRIS, DOLORES PURSUANT TO FED. 

A. KORZ, JOHN P. KILDUFF, KENNETH LEE d/b/a R. CIV. P. 7.1 

“I CAN GET IT FOR YOU WHOLESALE”, SALLIE 

E. HARMON, PAUL RUGGERIO, MICHELLE 

RUGGERIO, TERRANCE DONNARY, ANDREW PERNA, 

KAREN PERNA, ROBERT McMAHON, CARL McMAHON, 

KELVIN M. LEWIS, MARCHELLE KIRBY, JHON 

GORDON, RUTH MONROE, EDWARD R. MATEO, 

ROSANN P. MATEO, ADAM DORAN, NICOLE DORAN, 

CREDENCE DEVELOPMENT, INC., RICHARD DELISI, 

ADELAIDE FAULKNER, PAUL ESPEL, CAROL ESPEL, 

DAWN FORNOFF, RICHARD BURTON, GARY MARINA, 

and JOHN DOE NO. “1” through “10”, inclusive, the names 

of the last ten defendants being ficticous, the true names 

being unknown to plaintiff, the parties intended being 

those having an ownership interest in property effected 

by a certain easement described in the complaint, 

Defendants. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a), to enable Judges and Magistrate Judges of the 

Court to evaluate possible disqualification or recusal, the undersigned counsel of record 

for Defendant Alexander Road Association, Inc. certifies that NO parent corporation 

and/or publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. 

Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 33 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
DATED: August 14, 2007 

 ZRAICK, NAHAS & RICH

By: S/ 

Stuart E. Nahas, Esq. (SN-8206) 

 303 Fifth Avenue 

 New York, New York 10016 

 (212) 686-0855 

Attorneys for Defendants and CounterClaimants Lewis Perry, Yolanda Perry, 

Alexander Road Association, Inc., Edward R. 

Mateo, Rosann P. Mateo, Adam Doran, Nicole 

Doran, Credence Development, Inc. and 

Richard Delisi 

Sen/2007-16/ARA Statement per FRCP 7.1 

2

Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 33 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01530-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1