alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TIXE:ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXA~

Honorable

WilliamA. Harrison Cormnietlioner

of Insurance International

Life Building Austin~lk,

Texas Opinion NO. 

### ~41-361,
Re: Whether .an insurance company that dividesand hurar,rll of its capitalstook ona ng par basis may have different Dear Sir: classe4 ,of no par atock.
You have asked,

the opinionof this officewhetheran insnrante company

may have different classesof no par stock. Article 3.02a added to the Insurance Code in 1955, provides that a life inrurance company

may divide its sharesof stock,on a no par basic. It further provides,

“ if dividedorconverted Into sharesof no par value, Such 6hare shall be,equal in all respects to every other share," every'

..; A similar provisionis contained in Article 2.07 of the Texas Insurance

Code, which now r&late6 the issuance of no par stock by insurance

corporatiorwother than life. The first provisionin the Texas law permitt- a cnmoration of any type to iesueno par stock was enacted in 

### 1925. (Acts 1925, 39th Leg., p. 

### 236,and set forth as Articles 1538a-A538m, V.A.C.S.) Expresslyexcludedfrom the provisions of the Act were insurancecarporations. It was not until 1935 that Insurance canpanles

were first enabled to issue no par stock,and this by virtue of the 'parrage of Acts 

### 1935,

44th Leg., p. 492, amending Article 4794 of'the Atvised Civil Statutes. The 

### 1935 Act 60 far es is here mrterial containedsubstantially

the same language

ds that now in Anicles 3.02a and 2.07.
It is to be noted that in contrast to the provisions

of Articlea 2.07, 3:02a and the 

### 1935 Act, the provisione of Article 

### 1538a d ,they were originally

enacted in 1925 and were In effect at the time of the passage of the insurance no par provisicnwwergand are as fol-,, lows: "Every such shareshall be equal in all respects to every other share,except that the charteror any amendment thereof

may provide that much shams shouldbe divided into different classes.

the~shueo of each class to have preferences, deei@atioas, rights, prlvilegee, and powersand be eubjCct,to ,euch nemtricti~us,

limitations, and qualifications as shallbe stated in the charteror any amendment thereof."Ronorable William

A. Harrison,

pagd 2 (h-j61)

We believethat but one conclusion can be drawn from the lenguege in Articles3.02a and 2.07 previously referred

to above in view of the omission

of the provisoexpressly permitting

different

classes underlined

above, found in Article 1538a, applicable to corporations generally. That interpretation is that if an insurance ~company

issues no par stock,

all sharesof its-no par stockmust be equal in all respectsand that there cannbt be different

classesof no par stock, and you are so advised.

‘ An insurance company may not have different

classes

of no par stock.

OPINIONCOMMITTEE: Ceo. P. Blackburn,

Chairman MorganNesbitt John H. Minton,Jr. ' WaylandC. Rivers,Jr. Your6 very truly,
WILL WILSON Attorney

Generalof Texas

BY 7dEU!& Fred B. Werkenthin Assistant

REVIEWED

FOR~THEATTORNEY

GENERAL BY: W. V. Geppert
exv10w09



 






EXHIBIT 10.09




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Company”) and CHARLES H. COTROS
(“Executive”) hereby enter into this First Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement
(“Amendment”), effective May 27, 2005 (“Effective Date”), to amend the Executive Employment
Agreement dated October 4, 2004 (“Agreement”). The parties hereby agree as follows:



     1. Termination of Agreement by Mutual Consent. In accordance with Section 6.2 of the
Agreement, the Company and the Executive hereby mutually agree to terminate the Agreement (except
with respect to the provisions of this Amendment, and those provisions of the Agreement which,
according to the Agreement, have continuing effect following its termination) effective May 27,
2005 (“Date of Termination”).



     2. Vesting and Exercisability of Stock Options. In accordance with Section 6.2 of the
Agreement, the Executive shall become one hundred percent (100%) vested in the stock options
granted to the Executive under the Company’s stock plans coincident with the execution of the
Agreement. The options shall be exercisable at any time on or before October 4, 2010.



     3. Per Diem Compensation During Transition Period; Unused Vacation Time. During a
transition period through June 30, 2005, and such additional period(s), if any, to be determined by
the mutual agreement of the Company and the Executive, the Executive shall receive per diem
compensation at the same rate as the Base Salary which the Executive was entitled to receive under
the Agreement. The Executive’s compensation during the transition period shall include the value
of any accrued but unused (and previously uncompensated) Vacation Time as of the Date of
Termination.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: May 27, 2005.	 	ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Steven M. Helm, Executive Vice President
	 

	 	 	 	and General Counsel
	 

	 	 	 	“Company”
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Dated: May 27, 2005.	 	 
	 	 	Charles H. Cotros
	 

	 	 	 	“Executive”
ex10-4.htm


Exhibit 10.4

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT

 

 

 

This First Amendment to Securities Purchase Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of July 7, 2016, is entered into by and among Towerstream Corporation (the “Company”), and the Lead Investor.

 

RECITALS:

 

A.     On June 17, 2016, the Company entered into a securities purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) and issued Shares and Warrants to the Purchasers as more fully described in the Securities Purchase Agreement. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Purchase Agreement.

 

B.     The Company and the Lead Investor desire to amend the Purchase Agreement and Warrants as set forth herein.

 

AGREEMENTS

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:

 

1.     The definition of “Warrant” in Section 1.1 of the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

 

“Warrant” means the warrant to purchase Common Stock at an exercise price of $0.19 (subject to adjustment for reverse and forward stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations and other similar transactions of the Common Stock that occur after the date of this Agreement) issued to each Purchaser at the Closing, substantially in the form attached in Exhibit B.

 

2.     The form of Warrant set forth as Exhibit B to the Purchase Agreement shall be amended and restated in its entirety as set forth in Exhibit A to this Amendment. For the avoidance of doubt, the exercise price and share amounts set forth in the Warrant are subject to adjustment for reverse and forward stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations and other similar transactions of the Common Stock that occur after June 17, 2016.

 

3.     Except as modified herein, the terms of the Transaction Documents shall remain in full force and effect.

 

4.     This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and shall be binding upon all parties, their successors and assigns, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Amendment. A signature delivered by facsimile shall constitute an original.

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 


 

 




 


 

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT TO SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT]

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.

 

 

 

	
 
	
TOWERSTREAM CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation 

	
 
	
 

	 	 
	
 
	
By: ___________________

Name: Philip Urso 

Title: Interim Chief Executive Officer  



 

	 	
LEAD INVESTOR  

	 	 
	 	 
	 	
By: ________________

Name:
#### Francis Curte, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 154]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mega, J.), dated November 22, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff was “chipping concrete” as part of a repair of a train trestle located at the Huguenot station in Staten Island. A gust of wind caused by the passing of a nearby train caused a tarp to exert pressure against the plaintiffs ladder, the ladder moved away from the wall on which it had been propped, and this movement prompted the plaintiff to release his grasp and fall. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see Alomia v New York City Tr. Auth.,*292 AD2d 403 [2002]; *Lacey v Turner Constr. Co.,*275 AD2d 734 [2000]). Prudenti, P.J, Crane, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
PROPERTY RIGHTS ADVOCACY GROUP, On Behalf of Its Members and Other Similarly Situated Real Property Owners and Taxpayers of and in the Town of Oak Island, North Carolina and Honorable James W. Better, Individually v. TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a Former North Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, now known and referred to as Town of Oak Island, a North Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, and Successor in Interest to the Former Town of Long Beach; Town of Oak Island, a North Carolina Municipal Corporation and Body Politic; the State of North Carolina.

No. 559A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

G. Grady Richardson, Jr., for Property Rights Advocacy Group.

Roger Lee Edwards, Oak Island, for Town of Long Beach.

V. Lori Fuller, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiffs on the 4th day of October 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiffs on the 4th day of October 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Plaintiffs new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6269

MICHAEL RANKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; WILLIAM SMITH, Warden;

QUEEN STOOPS, Case Management; LARRY BOWERS,

Case Management; A. SMITH, Case Management;

SERGEANT YELLERTON, in their individual and

official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-95-1953-JFM)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney

General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Rankins v. Lanham, No. CA-95-1953-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 5, 1996).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BUSINESS
OBJECTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          78,972
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,870
<INVENTORY>                                        280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,196
<PP&E>                                          28,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,331
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,660
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,251
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,580
<SALES>                                         35,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,533
<CGS>                                            9,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,486
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,710
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,139
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,139
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.4

                              CO-TRUSTEE AGREEMENT

      This Co-Trustee Agreement ("Co-Trustee Agreement") dated as of June 28,
2005 is between The Bank of New York Trust Company (Cayman) Limited (the
"Trustee") and The Bank of New York (the "U.S. Trustee").

                                   WITNESSETH

      WHEREAS, Banco Bradesco S.A., acting through its Grand Cayman branch, and
the Trustee have entered into an indenture dated as of June 3, 2005 (the
"Indenture") with the intention of providing for the issuance of US$300,000,000
8.875% Perpetual Non-cumulative Junior Subordinated Securities by Banco Bradesco
S.A., acting through its Grand Cayman branch, which Indenture is subject to the
U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 as amended (the "Trustee Indenture Act");

      WHEREAS the Trust Indenture Act requires that at least one trustee is a
corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the United States;
and

      WHEREAS, the U.S. Trustee has its principal place of business in the
United States.

      NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

      FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED it is mutually covenanted and agreed
pursuant to the terms of the Indenture that the U.S. Trustee has been and by
this document is, appointed to serve the trustee under the Indenture. It is
understood and agreed that (a) the duties and responsibilities of the U.S.
Trustee shall be limited to the execution and delivery of all documents, and the
maintenance of all records, necessary to comply with the requirements of the
Trustee Indenture Act, and (b) the U.S. Trustee shall be entitled to all of the
benefits, immunities and protections provided to the Trustee in the Indenture
and all related documents. By the execution hereof, the U.S. Trustee accepts all
the terms and conditions provided for in the Indenture.

      This Co-Trustee Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts, each
of which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute
one and the same instrument. The Co-Trustee Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Co-Trustee Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.

The Bank of New York Trust Company (Cayman) Limited

By:   /s/ PATRICIA PHILLIPS-COWARD
      Name: Patricia Phillips-Coward
      Title: Assistant Vice President

The Bank of New York

By:   /s/ PATRICIA PHILLIPS COWARD
      Name: Patricia Phillips-Coward
      Title: Assistant Vice President

Acknowledged

Banco Bradesco S.A., acting through its Grand Cayman branch

By:   /s/ JOSE GUILHERME LEMBI DE FARIA
      Name: Jose Guilherme Lembi de Faria
      Title: Diretor Gerente
s



# Fourth Court of App **eals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 21, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00913

- CV

David MEDRANO

, Appellant

v.

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY , Successor by Merger Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. d.b.a HOMEQ, as servicing Age nt for Duetsche Bnk. National Trust Company as Trustee, Appellee s

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008

- CI

- 00027 The Honorable Richard E. Price, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Ap pellant’s brief was originally due June 19, 2015; however, the court granted appellant an extension of time until July 20. Appellant has filed a motion asking for an additional thirty

day extension of time to file the brief.

We grant the motion and orde r appellant’s brief due August 19, 2015 . Appellant is

advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the

efforts counsel has ex pended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Cause No. 14-1121-B TONYA ALLEN DDS, P.A., § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § VS. § § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS § SMITH COUNTY APPRAISAL § DISTRICT, § Defendant § 114th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES the Plaintiff/Appellant , TONYA ALLEN DDS, P.A., and s ubmits this Designation of Record on Appeal, and requests that the following items be contained in the record of this appeal: 1. A complete Statement of Facts of any and all hearings, or an y other matters connected with this case where the court reporter was p resent and transcribing the proceeding. 2. All of the pleadings of the Plaintiff. 3. All pleadings of the Defendant. 4. Any special pleas and motions of the Defendant.

5. Court's docket sheet. 6. Court's judgment. 7. Notice of Appeal.

8. All exhibits. 9 Any other matter contained within the Court's files. 10. Any notes written by the J udge in the Court's file.

DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEA L/TONYA ALLEN DDS , P.A./PAGE 1 ACCEPTED 12-15-00029-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 3/16/2015 8:25:31 AM CATHY LUSK CLERKDESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEA L/TONYA ALLEN DDS , P.A./PAGE 2 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully requests that the se matters be contained within the record of this appeal.

Respectfully subm itted, THE EATON LAW FIRM, PLLC

By:__________________________________ MICHAEL W. EATON SBN 06383800 1701 W. Northwest Highway, Suite 100 Grapevine, Texas 76051 Tele phone: (817) 431-1111 Telecopier: ( 817) 431-1180

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF TO NYA ALLEN DDS, P.A.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true a nd correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s Designation of Record on Appeal was served on couns el for Defendant/Appellee b y fax on March 16, 2015.

____________________________ MICHAEL W. EATON
Amendment to Stock Restriction/Repurchase Agreement, dated March 1, 1995



 EXHIBIT 10.9 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT dated March 1, 1995 to AGREEMENT dated May 1, 1980, 
  

			
		
	BETWEEN	 	THE NEWARK GROUP, INC., a New Jersey corporation having its principal office at 20 Jackson Drive, Cranford, NJ 07016 (“Newark”),
		
	AND	 	FREDERICK G. VON ZUBEN, a resident of New Vernon, New Jersey (“von Zuben”);

  
 W I T N E S S E T
H    T H A T : 
  
 WHEREAS, by agreement
dated May 1, 1980, Newark and von Zuben agreed that upon termination of von Zuben’s employment by Newark, Newark would purchase all of von Zuben’s shares for “book value”, which was defined as an amount per share equal to the net
worth of Newark divided by the number of shares outstanding; and 
  
 WHEREAS, von Zuben is now the Chief Operating Officer of Newark and soon will be elected as its Chief Executive Officer, and thus Newark desires to provide von Zuben with every incentive to contribute to Newark’s prosperity; and

  
 WHEREAS, Newark, therefore believes it is in its best
interests to enable von Zuben to realize the full value for the shares now owned by von Zuben and hereafter acquired by von Zuben, and further desires to provide von Zuben with a market for his shares upon the termination of his employment with
Newark, which it is anticipated will occur at the time of his retirement; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties understand and agree that it remains in the best interests of Newark to restrict the transferability of the shares owned by von Zuben, and 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that the Agreement dated May 1, 1980
is hereby amended in the following respects: 
  
 1. When von
Zuben sells his shares to Newark pursuant to Section 1 of the Agreement, the amount of the purchase price determined pursuant to Section 1.1 shall be the fair market value per share as at the date of the sale, which the parties hereto agree shall be
the then value per share as determined for by the independent appraiser engaged to determine the price at 








 
which Newark purchases shares from participants in Newark’s Employees Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”) who desire to sell their shares to Newark
pursuant to the “put option” described in the ESOP. 
  
 2. The restrictions set forth in the Agreement shall not apply with respect to any shares acquired by von Zuben from the ESOP. 
  
 3. If any portion of the purchase price is paid by Newark’s Installment Promissory Note, such note shall provide for the payment of interest at the
prime rate as in effect from time to time as published in the Money Rates column of the Wall Street Journal. 
  
 4. In all other respects the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

					
	 	 	THE NEWARK GROUP, INC.
			
	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Edward K. Mullen


	 	 	 	 	Edward K. Mullen, Chairman
	WITNESS:	 	 	 	 
			
	 /s/ Benedict M. Kohl

	 	 	 	 /s/ Frederick G. von Zuben


	Benedict M. Kohl	 	 	 	Frederick G. von Zuben

  

 -2-
KINTZ v. AMERLINK, LTD.

No. C0A05-164

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Nash (02CVS2041).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.