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

                                                                   Exhibit 10.26

                           Dwango North America Corp.
                             200 West Mercer Street
                                    Suite 501
                            Seattle, Washington 98119

                                                        March 19, 2004

Alexandra Global Master Fund Ltd.
c/o Alexandra Investment Management, LLC
767 Third Avenue
39/th/ Floor
New York, New York 10017

          Re: Dwango North America Corp.
              Board of Directors Designee

Gentlemen:

     Concurrently herewith, Alexandra Global Master Fund Ltd., a British Virgin
Islands company ("Alexandra"), and Dwango North America Corp., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), are entering into a Note Purchase Agreement, dated
the date hereof (the "Agreement"). Pursuant to the Agreement, Alexandra is being
issued a 9% Senior Convertible Note of the Company in the aggregate principal
amount of $2,300,00.00 (the "Note") convertible into shares of Common Stock of
the Company (such shares underlying the Note, or issued upon exercise of the
Note, hereafter referred to as the "Note Shares"). So long as Alexandra owns at
least 50% of the Note Shares (calculated without regard to any limitations upon
conversion contained in the Note), it shall be entitled to nominate a director
for election to the Board of Directors of the Company and the Company agrees to
take such actions as necessary to elect such designee to the Board of Directors
of the Company; provided, however, that the Company shall have the right to
approve any Alexandra nominee, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld. The rights provided in this letter agreement shall be in addition to
the rights granted under the letter agreement, dated January 8, 2004, by and
between the Company and Alexandra.

     Robert E. Huntley, by his execution below, agrees to vote all of his shares
of Common Stock of the Company for any such nominee at any and all meetings of
shareholders at which directors are elected.

                                        Very truly yours,
                                        DWANGO NORTH AMERICA CORP.


                                        By: /s/ Rick J. Hennessey
                                           -------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Rick J. Hennessey
                                        Title: CEO

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


/s/ Robert E. Huntley
----------------------------------------
Robert E. Huntley

<PAGE>

ALEXANDRA GLOBAL MASTER FUND LTD.
By: ALEXANDRA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,
    As Investment Advisor


  By:  /s/ Mikhail Filimonov
     -------------------------------------------
     Name: Mikhail Filimonov
     Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

                                       -2-
[926 NE2d 593, 900 NYS2d 239]

#### John R. Linton et al., Respondents, v Muhammad Nawaz et al., Appellants.

Decided April 6, 2010

*822APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C.,*New York City *(Stacy R. Seldin*of counsel), for appellants.

*Law Offices of Mark S. Gray,*New York City *(Peter J. Eliopoulos*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

In this personal injury case in which a taxi struck the plaintiff, the evidence plaintiff proffered relating to injuries to his right shoulder and lumbosacral spine raised a triable question of fact as to whether he suffered a serious injury that was causally related to the accident under the permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member and/or significant limitation of a body function or system criteria *(see*Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Since plaintiff established that at least some of his injuries meet the “no-fault” threshold, it is unnecessary to address whether his proof with respect to other injuries he allegedly sustained would have been sufficient to withstand defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Watson, Appellant.

Submitted January 23, 2012;

decided February 9, 2012

Reported below, 84 AD3d 1126.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn W.L. Fahey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### Calvin FISHER and Penny Fisher, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-16455.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 17, 2006.

Filed June 8, 2006.

Kevin M. Arnold, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Brenden James Griffin, Esq., Lewis & Roca, LLP, Tucson, AZ, Susan M. Freeman, Esq., Lewis *&*Roca, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and ALSUP, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable William Alsup, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Calvin and Penny Fisher appeal the district court’s decision to remand to the ERISA plan administrator, Aetna Life Insurance Company, for determination of the Fishers’ entitlement to accidental death benefits. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order.

The district court had jurisdiction over this ERISA action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1). Courts of appeals, however, have jurisdiction solely over appeals from “final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Under our precedent, an order remanding to an ERISA plan administrator is only final and appealable when:

> (1) the district court order conclusively resolved a separable legal issue, (2) the remand order forces the agency to apply a potentially erroneous rule which may result in a wasted proceeding, and (3) review would, as a practical matter, be foreclosed if an immediate appeal were unavailable.

*610*Banuelos v. Constr. Laborers’ Trust Funds for S. Cal.,*382 F.3d 897, 903 (9th Cir.2004); *see also Hensley v. N.W. Permanente P.C. Ret. Plan & Trust,*258 F.3d 986, 993 (9th Cir.2001); *Rendleman v. Shalala,*21 F.3d 957, 959 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1994).

This three-factor test has not been met here. *First,*the district court did not decide any separable legal issue. The district court simply declined to rule on an issue the plan administrator did not reach, namely whether benefits were due under the correct plan, and remanded for the plan administrator to make that determination in the first instance. In doing so, it did not rely upon evidence outside the record. *See Saffle v. Sierra Pac. Power Co. Bargaining Unit Long Term Disability Income Plan,*85 F.3d 455, 460-61 (9th Cir.1996). *Second,*remand will not be a wasted procedure. The plan administrator has not been asked to apply any erroneous rule. Rather, the exclusion question is a new determination based on what all agree is the correct policy. *Third,*if the administrator determines that an exclusion applies, the Fishers will be able to challenge that determination in the district court subject to appellate review. *See Williamson v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.,*160 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir.1998).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
exv4w1






Exhibit 4.1




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	[Name of company]	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Matter
	:		 	 	 	 	 	 	Issued to:
	Type of Share
	:	Ordinary	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Certificate #
	:		 	Date of Record	 	:	 	 	 
	# of Shares
	:		 	Transfer to cert. #	 	:	 	 	 
	Amount Paid
	:		 	# of Shares	 	:	 	 	 
	Par Value
	:	US$0.00005	 	Transfer Date	 	:	 	 	 






INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS




Focus
Media Holding Limited




	 	 	 	 	 
	This is to certify that
	 	 	 	 
	of
	 	 	 	 






is the registered shareholder of:



	 	 	 	 	 
	No. of Shares
	 	Type of Share
	 	Par Value

	 
	 	ORDINARY	 	US$
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date of Record
	 	Certificate Number	 	% Paid






The above shares are subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of
the Company and transferrable in accordance therewith.

GIVEN UNDER THE COMMON SEAL OF THE COMPANY





                         
                               
                              
 Director                               
                         
                               
Director/Secretary
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STICO MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, RRG, As Subrogee to 

Plaintiff MODERN WELDING 

COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC.,

 Appellant,

v.

ADVANCED POLYMER COATINGS, 

INC. AND TECHNI-KOTE, INC.,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§ 

§

No. 08-12-00011-CV

Appeal from the

171st Judicial District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2009-1176)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

summary judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the cause 

for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion. We further order that Appellant 

recover from Appellees all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall 

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Marvin Pollack, Appellant. State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 1, 2010;

decided April 29, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
# C_2020068EN.01002201.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/22

---

Order of the Court of 19 December 2019 — OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) v European Commission

(Case C-741/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State Aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers - Action for annulment - Alleged decisions not to raise objections - Deadline for lodging an appeal - Starting point - Awareness of the existence of the contested measure - Request for translation of the contested measure - Reasonable time - Out of time - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Assessment of the facts - Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)

(2020/C 68/21)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) (represented by: L. Szabó, űgyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

OPS Újpesti Csökkentmunkaképességűek Ipari és Kereskemeldi Ktf. (OPS Újpest Kft.) is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Cameron Jarell Smith * From the 29th District

Court of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. 14641.

Vs. No. 11-12-00133-CR * May 23, 2013

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

 This court has considered Appellant=s motion to dismiss his appeal and concludes 

that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this court=s opinion, 

the appeal is dismissed.
|                                                                                           |   | Percentage                Interest |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
| Name                of Entity                                                                  |   | 2007                               |   | 2006 |   |
| Jingzhou                Henglong Automotive Parts Co., Ltd.("Henglong")                        |   |                               | 44.50  | % |   | 44.50 | % |
| Shashi                Jiulong Power Steering Gears Co., Ltd. ("Jiulong")                       |   |                               | 81.00  | % |   | 81.00 | % |
| Shenyang                Jinbei Henglong Automotive Steering System Co., Ltd. ("Shenyang") |   |                               | 70.00  | % |   | 70.00 | % |
| Zhejiang                Henglong & Vie Pump-Manu Co., Ltd. ("Zhejiang")                    |   |                               | 51.00  | % |   | 51.00 | % |
| Universal                Sensor Application Inc. (“USAI”)                          |   |                               | 75.90  | % |   | 60.00 | % |
| Wuhan                Jielong Electric Power Steering Co., Ltd. (“Jielong”)         |   |                               | 85.00  | % |   | 85.00 | % |
| Wuhu                HengLong Auto Steering System Co., Ltd. (“Wuhu”)               |   |                               | 77.33  | % |   | 77.33 | % |
| Jingzhou                Hengsheng Automotive System Co., Ltd, “Hengsheng”          |   |                               | 100.00 | % |   | — |   |

----
# C_2018013EN.01002901.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/29

---

Action brought on 9 November 2017 — Bischoff v EUIPO — Miroglio Fashion (CARACTÈRE)

(Case T-743/17)

(2018/C 013/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bischoff GmbH (Muggensturm, Germany) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miroglio Fashion Srl (Alba, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Miroglio Fashion Srl

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘CARACTÈRE’ — European Union trade mark No 7 061 922

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2017 in Case R 328/2016-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in that it dismissed the appeal of the company Bischoff seeking a declaration of invalidity of the mark No 007061922 for the goods and services in Classes 14, 18, 24, 25 and 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in that it dismissed the appeal of the company Bischoff seeking a declaration of invalidity of the mark No 007061922 for the goods and services in Classes 14, 18, 24, 25 and 35;

| — | order EUIPO and the company Miroglio Fashion to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the company Miroglio Fashion to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Exhibit 12
 AIRGAS, INC.
 COMPUTATION OF FINANCIAL RATIOS
  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008EARNINGS COMPUTATION:Add:Pretax income from continuing operations before
equity earnings and minority interest
    
    $
    124,395
    
    
    $
    147,627
    
    
    $
    208,037
    
    
    $
    257,144
    
    
    $
    370,762Fixed charges
    
    
    66,848
    
    
    
    83,139
    
    
    
    92,553
    
    
    
    104,998
    
    
    
    142,000Distributed income of unconsolidated Affiliate
    
    
    724
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    191,967
    
    
    $
    230,766
    
    
    $
    300,590
    
    
    $
    362,142
    
    
    $
    512,762Subtract:Preferred dividend requirements of consolidated
affiliate
    
    
    (1,151
    )
    
    
    (4,626
    )
    
    
    (4,589
    )
    
    
    (4,589
    )
    
    
    (1,147
    )Earnings for purposes of computation
    
    $
    190,816
    
    
    $
    226,140
    
    
    $
    296,001
    
    
    $
    357,553
    
    
    $
    511,615FIXED CHARGES COMPUTATION:Interest expense (1)
    
    $
    46,340
    
    
    $
    57,547
    
    
    $
    65,110
    
    
    $
    75,725
    
    
    $
    111,262Estimate of the interest component of rent expense
    
    
    19,357
    
    
    
    20,966
    
    
    
    22,854
    
    
    
    24,684
    
    
    
    29,591Preferred dividend requirements of consolidated

affiliate (2)
    
    
    1,151
    
    
    
    4,626
    
    
    
    4,589
    
    
    
    4,589
    
    
    
    1,147Fixed charges for purposes of computation
    
    $
    66,848
    
    
    $
    83,139
    
    
    $
    92,553
    
    
    $
    104,998
    
    
    $
    142,000RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    
    
    2.85
    X
    
    
    2.72
    X
    
    
    3.20
    X
    
    
    3.41
    X
    
    
    3.60
    X
 
 (1)
    
    includes amortization of capitalized financing costs and discount on trade receivable
securitization.(2)
    
    Preferred stock of National Welders was converted to Airgas
Common stock on July 3, 2007.
[No. 13928.

Department One.

July 31, 1917.]

#### Morris & Company, *Appellant,*v. Harry W. Belken *et al., Respondents.**1*

Process—Nonresidents—Substituted Service. Where, upon dismissal of garnishment proceedings, there was no property within this state of nonresidents at the time of personal service on them outside of the state, such service was ineffectual for any purpose.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Ronald, J., entered June 26, 1916, dismissing garnishment proceedings, after a trial before the court.

Affirmed.

*Fred W. Catlett*and *Emmons & Emmons,*for appellant.

*Bronson, Robinson*& *Jones,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 166 Pac. 1142.

Per Curiam.

This appeal arises out of the same controversy referred to in *Morris & Co. v. Canadian Bank of Commerce,*95 Wash. 418, 163 Pac. 1139. The first case involved appellant’s right to a fund in the bank which was sought to be appropriated under proceedings in garnishment. This appeal involves the sufficiency of personal service upon *458respondents in Canada, which, under our statute, is the equivalent of service by publication. The final disposition of the garnishment proceedings, a rehearing having been denied, disposes of the only question involved in this appeal. The garnishment proceedings having been dismissed, it follows that, at the time of the service upon respondents, there was no property within this state that could be seized under attachment, and personal service upon respondents without this state would be ineffectual for any purpose. *Dittenhoefer v. Coeur d’Alene Clothing Co.,*4 Wash. 519, 30 Pac. *660; Cosh-Murray Co. v. Tuttich,*10 Wash. 449, 88 Pac. 1134.

Judgment affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-422-000]

Take notice that on May 17, 2001, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC (KMIGT) tendered for filing to become part of KMIGT's FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1-A and Fourth Revised Volume No. 1-B, the revised tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, and to be effective June 17, 2001.

KMIGT is making this housekeeping filing as an effort to clarify and correct various sections of KMIGT's FERC Gas Tariff.

KMIGT states that a copy of this filing has been served upon all of its customers and affected state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-13362  Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M