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


 


SUPPORT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT is made as of the 28th day of May, 2018,


 


B E T W E E N:


 


BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT INC., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario


 


(“Brookfield”)


 


- and -


 


TERRAFORM POWER, INC., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware


 


(“TerraForm”)


 


RECITALS:


 


Brookfield and TerraForm entered into a Support Agreement dated February 6, 2018 (the “Support Agreement”).


 


The parties wish to amend the Support Agreement to reflect an increase in the maximum amount of the back-stop.


 


NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment Agreement and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto agree as follows:


 



	
1.

	
Amendment







 


The Support Agreement is hereby amended by increasing the amount of the “Equity Offering” (as defined in the recitals to the Support Agreement) from “up to approximately $400 million” to “up to $650 million”.


 


Except as amended hereby, the terms of the Support Agreement remain in full force and effect.  TerraForm acknowledges and agrees that the Conflicts Committee of the TerraForm Board of Directors has agreed to and approved this Amendment Agreement.


 



	
2.

	
Further Assurances







 


Each of the parties hereto shall promptly do, make, execute or deliver, or cause to be done, made, executed or delivered, all such further acts, documents and things as the other party hereto may reasonably require from time to time for the purpose of giving effect to this Amendment Agreement and shall use its best efforts and take all such steps as may be reasonably within its power to implement to their full extent the provisions of this Amendment Agreement.









- 2 -





	
3.

	
Governing Law







 


This Amendment Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.


 



	
4.

	
Counterparts







 


This Amendment Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, and by different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  Execution and delivery of this Amendment Agreement may be made and evidenced by facsimile transmission or other means of electronic communication.


 


[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]









- 3 -




IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


	 	
BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT INC.


	 	 
	 	
by:

	/s/ Sachin Shah
	 	 	
Name:

	
Sachin Shah


	 	 	
Title:

	
Senior Managing Partner





 


	 	
TERRAFORM POWER, INC.


	 	 
	 	
by:

	/s/ Andrea Rocheleau
	 	 	
Name:

	
Andrea Rocheleau


	 	 	
Title:

	
General Counsel and Secretary
II-00054

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Marissa Dupont <marissa.dupont@gmail.com>

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 3:19 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Marissa Dupont

169 Piscassic Road

Newfields, NH 3856
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3674 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate origination fees 

for Federal Direct Loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 10, 2019 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. SMUCKER, and Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate 

origination fees for Federal Direct Loans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminating the Hid5 den Student Loan Tax Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF ORIGINATION FEES FOR FEDERAL 

7 DIRECT LOANS. 

8 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con9 gress that no origination fees should be charged on any 

10 future Federal Direct Loans. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3674 IH

1 (b) REPEAL OF ORIGINATION FEES.—Subsection (c) 

2 of section 455 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

3 U.S.C. 1087e(c)) is repealed. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 subsection (b) shall apply with respect to loans made 

6 under part D of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

7 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.) for which the first dis8 bursement of principal is made, or, in the case of a Fed9 eral Direct Consolidation Loan, the application is received, 

10 on or after July 1, 2020. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Fred C. HOLLAND, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

No. 16-5393.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2012025EN.01001701.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — J. C. van Ardennen v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-435/10) (1)

(Directive 80/987/EEC - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Insolvency benefit - Payment subject to registration as a job-seeker)

(2012/C 25/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J. C. van Ardennen

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of Articles 4, 5 and 10 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Extent of the guarantee offered by the guarantee institution — National legislation obliging employees to register immediately as job-seekers before they apply for payment of outstanding pay claims.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 must be interpreted as precluding a national rule which obliges employees to register as job-seekers in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in order to fully assert their right to payment of outstanding wage claims, such as those in issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---
II-OlO05

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

jean mueller <ctr56990@centurytel.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:16 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

jean mueller

705 n. hamilton st.,#26

st. croix falls, WI 54024
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                 In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Cost-U-Less,  Inc. (the “Company”)         on Form 10-Q for the period         ended April 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission         on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,         Martin P. Moore, Chief Financial 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) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
                 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
Date: May 15, 2006 /s/   Martin P. Moore Martin P. MooreChief Financial Officer
# C_2009069EN.01004401.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/44

---

Action brought on 5 January 2009 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META)

(Case T-1/09)

(2009/C 69/98)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metaform Lucchese SpA (Monsagrati, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) of 3 November 2008 (R 1152/2006-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) of 3 November 2008 (R 1152/2006-4);

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs including those costs incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs including those costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘META’ for goods in Classes 9, 11, 20 and 21 (Application No 3 081 271).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Metaform Lucchese SpA.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘METAFORM’ for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24 (Community trade mark No 1 765 361), the Italian figurative mark (Trade mark No 587 108) and the international figurative mark (Trade mark No 603 054) also for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Hugh Leslie BARAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-1474.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (250)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,625
<PP&E>                                           3,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,335)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,381
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,220
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,252
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,771
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   205
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,912)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,050)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,050)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)


</TABLE>
II-00164

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Debora Winn <debbe08@att.net>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 9:55 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Debora Winn

23265 Caminito Andreta

Laguna Hills, CA 92653
<PAGE>   1

                                 EXHIBIT 11
                                 ----------

                 COMMUNITY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
            STATEMENT REGARDING:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months Ended                     Nine Months Ended       
                                                                September 30                          September 30         
                                                    --------------------------------       --------------------------------- 
                                                      1996                  1995              1996                 1995      
                                                    ---------           ------------       ----------           ------------ 
<S>                                                <C>                  <C>                 <C>                  <C>
Income Per Common Share (1)

Net income (in thousands)                          $       570          $       598         $      1,950         $      1,991
                                                   ===========          ===========         ============         ============

Net income per share                               $       .26          $       .27         $        .88         $        .90
                                                   ===========          ===========         ============         ============

Weighted average common shares outstanding           2,219,082            2,206,085            2,216,286            2,201,135
                                                   ===========          ===========         ============         ============
Income Per Common Share, Assuming
  Full Dilution (1)

Net income (in thousands)                          $       570          $       598         $      1,950          $     1,991
                                                   ===========          ===========         ============          ===========

Net income per share                               $       .26          $       .27         $        .88          $       .90
                                                   ===========          ===========         ============          ===========

                                                     2,219,082            2,206,085            2,216,286            2,201,135
                                                   ===========          ===========         ============          ===========
</TABLE>

(1)      Net income per share has been computed using the weighted average 
         number of common shares and common share equivalents outstanding 
         during each year presented.  Common stock equivalents include stock 
         options.  Warrants have not been included in CFGI's computation of 
         earnings per share because the market price of CFGI's common stock has
         been less than the exercise price of the warrants since issue.  See 
         Note F to CFGI's consolidated financial statements.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1699/2004

of 30 September 2004         

amending Regulation (EC) No 275/2004 as regards registration of imports of steel ropes and cables produced by one Moroccan exporting producer

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (the basic Regulation) (1), and in particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A.   PROCEDURE

B.   REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

C.   INVESTIGATION PERIOD

D.   FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF REMER MAROC SARL

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following paragraph shall be added to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 275/2004:

‘4.   Notwithstanding paragraph 1, imports of the product identified in Article 1 which are produced by the following companies shall not be subject to registration:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2004.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2)OJ L 217, 17.8.1999, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1674/2003 (OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 1).

(3)OJ L 47, 18.2.2004, p. 13.

----
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
 
 The
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    the
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Oconee Financial Corporation (the
      “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (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.
 
 
 
 Dated:
      March 30, 2005
    /s/
      Jerry K.
      Wages
      Jerry K. Wages
      Chief
      Financial Officer