alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7












DEBT FORGIVENESS AGREEMENT







THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of this 31st day of March, 2014 by and between Pub Crawl Holdings / Excelsis Investments Inc., a Nevada corporation, operating at 8901 West Bay Drive, Suite 470, Largo, Florida 33770 (the "Company") Inc., and Hermaytar SA, the note Purchaser/Lender ("Lender").







RECITALS:







WHEREAS Lender is owned US $150,000 according to a Note Purchase Agreement between the Company and the Lender dated December 6, 2012, whereby the Lender purchased a $150,000 note from the Company.







WHEREAS, the Lender has agreed to forgive the Note/Debt and to terminate the Agreement between the Company and Lender effective March 31, 2014; and







WHEREAS, the Company and Lender acknowledge that as a result of the aforementioned forgiveness, no amount is due and owing to Lender by the Company.







AGREEMENT







1.  Lender agrees the Note/Debt shall be deemed satisfied in full and hereby releases and forever discharges the Company, and its officers, directors, employees, and agents from any and all causes of action whether known or unknown, debts, sums of money, claims and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity, related to the Note/Debt, which Company now or hereafter can, shall or may have.







2.  This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective assigns and successors.







3.  This Agreement contains the entire understanding among the parties related in any way to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements among them respecting the within subject matter.







4.  This Agreement may be executed at different times and places, in counterparts, and shall be effective as of March 31, 2014. Any party may rely upon a copy of this Agreement received by facsimile or email transmission and bearing another party's signature as having been signed by such other party, and a copy of this Agreement so received and signed by or on behalf of a party shall have been validly executed to the same




























extent as if an original copy had been executed.

















	
Excelsis Investments Inc. / Pub Crawl Holdings Inc.


	
 

	
 


	
By:

	
BRIAN McFADDEN


	
 

	
Brian McFadden, CEO/President


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 


	
HERMAYTAR SA


	
 

	
 


	
By:

	
SERMO TULIO VAIGO CALPA


	
 

	
S. Calpa, Director
# C_2012355EN.01001901.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Ballast Nedam Infra v Commission

(Case T-362/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Proof of the infringement - Gravity of the infringement - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Rights of the defence - Production of new pleas in the course of proceedings - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2012/C 355/37

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ballast Nedam Infra BV (Nieuwegein (Netherlands)) (represented: initially by A. Bosman and J. van de Hel, and subsequently by A. Bosman and E. Oude Elferink, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted initially by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, and subsequently by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)) in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, first, for annulment in part of that decision and for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant and, second, for annulment in part of that decision in so far as it sets the duration of the infringement with respect to the applicant and for a corresponding reduction of the fine imposed on it.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(a) of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)) in so far as it concerns the participation of Ballast Nedam Infra BV in the infringement between 21 June 1996 and 30 September 2000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(a) of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)) in so far as it concerns the participation of Ballast Nedam Infra BV in the infringement between 21 June 1996 and 30 September 2000;

| 2. | Reduces the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Ballast Nedam Infra in Article 2(a) of that decision to EUR 3.45 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Reduces the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Ballast Nedam Infra in Article 2(a) of that decision to EUR 3.45 million;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Patent
Development Corporation (the "Company") for the second quarter ended June 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officer's knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: August 15, 2005





Jerome I. Feldman                                    Scott N. Greenberg
Chief Executive Officer                              Chief Financial Officer
State of North Carolina v. Krystal Schimmelpfenning, Defendant.

No. COA15-1315

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

VACATED AND REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3891 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3891

 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to award Urban Area Security Initiative grants to 
     nonprofit organizations not located in high-risk urban areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2014

  Ms. Titus introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to award Urban Area Security Initiative grants to 
     nonprofit organizations not located in high-risk urban areas.

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

SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORITY TO AWARD URBAN 
              AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANTS TO NONPROFIT 
              ORGANIZATIONS NOT LOCATED IN HIGH-RISK URBAN AREAS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2003 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
(6 U.S.C. 604) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
        subsection (e):
    ``(e) Special Rule for Grants to Nonprofit Organizations.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may award a 
grant under this section to an organization (as described under section 
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax 
section 501(a) of such code) located in an area that is not designated 
as a high-risk urban area.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to a grant made after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.32


                                PROMISSORY NOTE


$900,000                                                       February 18, 1997


     As hereinafter stated, for value received Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
Corporation promises to pay to the order of Carl Westcott in Dallas, Texas the
sum of Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars, payable on demand with interest at the
rate of prime per annum from the date of this Promissory Note.   This Promissory
Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty. Amounts due under this
Promissory Note from and after it is due shall bear interest at the highest
lawful rate.

     We, the makers, sureties, endorsers and guarantors of this Promissory Note,
hereby severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
and notice of protest and diligence of bringing suit for collection, and consent
that time of payment may be extended without notice thereof to any of the
makers, sureties, endorsers or guarantors of this Promissory Note.  It is
further expressly agreed that if this Promissory Note is placed in the hands of
an attorney for collection, or suit is brought on same, or is collected through
the Probate Court, then, and in that event, the makers, sureties, endorsers and
guarantors will pay the holder of this Promissory Note the costs of collection,
including but not limited to the attorney's fees, incurred by the holder of this
Promissory Note.

     MAKER:                          /s/ Douglas Theodore
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
                                    By: Douglas Theodore
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES—OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of NES Rentals Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Andrew P. Studdert, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  ANDREW P. STUDDERT                |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |
| Andrew  P. Studdert                    |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |
| November  12, 2004                     |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     I, James R. Kupferschmid, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        November 14, 2006 By:  /s/ JAMES R. KUPFERSCHMID    James R. Kupferschmid    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
fs12014a1ex10xv_textmuni.htm


Exhibit 10.15


 





 


Creative Capital Ventures Ltd.



 



July 9, 2014


 


Textmunication Holding, Inc.


Wais Asefi, President 


1940 Contra Costa Blvd 


Pleasant Hill, CA 94523


 


Mr. Asefi,


 


On January 1, 2014 Creative Capital Ventures, Ltd. entered into a Standby Equity Distribution Agreement (SEDA). This letter is to advise you that such agreement is hereby terminated and no longer valid.


 




	
Thank you,

	  
	  	  
	
/s/ J. C. Csurgo

	  
	
J. C. Csurgo

	  
	
Managing Director

	  





 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Commonwealth Trust, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           73581
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    25975
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 99556
<PP&E>                                           13113
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  106184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            46120
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1785669
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1725605)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     60064
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 17919
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                154271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (136352)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (136352)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (136352)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008064EN.01002302.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 21 December 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stadeco BV

(Case C-566/07)

(2008/C 64/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appellant:

Respondent: Stadeco BV

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that no liability to pay VAT arises in the Member State in which the issuer of the invoice is resident or established if the issuer of that invoice includes in it the VAT in respect of an activity which, according to the common system of value added tax, is deemed to be carried out in another Member State or in a non-member country? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that no liability to pay VAT arises in the Member State in which the issuer of the invoice is resident or established if the issuer of that invoice includes in it the VAT in respect of an activity which, according to the common system of value added tax, is deemed to be carried out in another Member State or in a non-member country?

1

| 2. | If not: if an invoice as referred to in Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive has been issued to a recipient of services who is not entitled to deduct VAT (and consequently there is no risk of any loss of tax revenues), are the Member States entitled to make the correction of the erroneously invoiced VAT which, according to that provision, is consequently liable to be paid, subject to the requirement that the taxable person subsequently issues a corrected invoice to his customer in which there is no mention of any VAT amount? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not: if an invoice as referred to in Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive has been issued to a recipient of services who is not entitled to deduct VAT (and consequently there is no risk of any loss of tax revenues), are the Member States entitled to make the correction of the erroneously invoiced VAT which, according to that provision, is consequently liable to be paid, subject to the requirement that the taxable person subsequently issues a corrected invoice to his customer in which there is no mention of any VAT amount?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua STROESSENREUTHER

No. COA16-511

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
# C_2008022EN.01005701.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/57

---

Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Van Beers v Commission

(Case F-126/07)

(2008/C 22/110)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Isabelle Van Beers (Woluwe-St-Etienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's application under the attestation procedure for 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's application under the attestation procedure for 2006;

| — | Declare Article 4(2) of the general implementing provisions (GIP) of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations unlawful, inasmuch as it has the effect either of excluding from consideration the true level of the tasks carried out by a candidate for attestation or of maintaining a distinction between the former grades C* and B* since 30 April 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 4(2) of the general implementing provisions (GIP) of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations unlawful, inasmuch as it has the effect either of excluding from consideration the true level of the tasks carried out by a candidate for attestation or of maintaining a distinction between the former grades C* and B* since 30 April 2006;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official in grade AST 6, lodged an application under the attestation procedure for 2006. On 29 March 2007, the appointing authority definitively confirmed its decision of 22 February 2007, after an appeal by the applicant against that decision, not to admit her application under the attestation procedure for 2006.

In support of her action, the applicant claims, firstly, that there has been a manifest error of assessment.

She submits, furthermore, that Article 4(2) of the GIP of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations is unlawful.

In particular, the applicant alleges breach of the principles of equal treatment, of non-discrimination and of proportionality, breach of the principle of sound administration and the principle that recruited officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

---