alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MUTUAL TERMINATION


 Exhibit 10.1 
 MUTUAL TERMINATION OF 
 STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 This Mutual Termination of Stock Purchase Agreement (this “Agreement”), is made and entered into as of July 31, 2009, by and
between The Colonial BancGroup, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., a Florida corporation (“TBW”). 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 
 WHEREAS, the Company and TBW executed and delivered that certain Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 31, 2009, as amended by that
certain First Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 30, 2009, and as amended by that certain Second Amendment to Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of May 22, 2009 (as so amended, the “Purchase
Agreement”; capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Purchase Agreement); 
 WHEREAS, all conditions to the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Purchase Agreement have not been satisfied as of July 31, 2009, the termination date of the Purchase Agreement as set forth in
Section 9.1(a) thereof; 
 WHEREAS, TBW is executing this Agreement under Section 9.1(j) of the Purchase Agreement as the
“Required Purchasers.” 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises,
representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 Section 1.
Termination of Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Agreement is hereby terminated. This termination is by mutual consent pursuant to Section 9.1(j) of the Purchase Agreement. 
 Section 2. Reimbursement of Expenses. The Company shall reimburse TBW for its expenses in accordance with the terms of that certain
Reimbursement Agreement between the Company and TBW dated on or about March 18, 2009. 
 Section 3. Funds Held in
Escrow. All funds held in escrow pursuant to Section 4.8 of the Purchase Agreement may be promptly released to the Purchasers without deduction. 
 Section 4. Effect of Termination. In accordance with Section 9.2 of the Purchase Agreement, Sections 6.10 and 9.2 and Article 10 of the Purchase Agreement shall survive the termination.

 Section 5. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be
enforceable against the parties actually executing such counterparts, and all of which together shall constitute one instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by facsimile or by PDF formatted page sent by
electronic mail shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement. 
 [SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE]







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered this Amendment as of the
date first above written. 
  

			
	COMPANY:
	
	THE COLONIAL BANCGROUP, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/    Simuel Sippial, Jr.

		 	Name: Simuel Sippial, Jr.
		 	Title: Chairman
	
	TBW:
	
	 TAYLOR, BEAN & WHITAKER
 MORTGAGE CORP.

	As the Required Purchasers
		
	By:	 	 /s/    Lee B. Farkas

		 	Name: Lee B. Farkas
		 	Title: Chairman
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. PR08-17-002]

Take notice that on May 21, 2010, Bay Gas Storage Company, Ltd (Bay Gas) filed to comply with the April 15, 2010, Commission Order which directed Bay Gas to file a mechanism whereby it will implement the crediting of LAUF charges to Florida Gas Transmission Co. Bay Gas requests an effective date of May 1, 2010.

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                           ( print page 31430)    *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, June 7, 2010.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-13365 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 62925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29952]








Commodity Futures Trading Commission

TIME AND PLACE: 10 a.m., Thursday, December 21, 1995.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95-29952 Filed 12-5-95; 1:35 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### In the Matter of James H. Boxley, Also Known as Hank Shocklee, et al. (And Two Additional Actions.) Edward Chalpin et al., Appellants, v Dienst & Serrins et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 4, 1995;

decided February 20, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying appellants’ motion to vacate or modify a prior Supreme Court order, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR


RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Axis Technologies Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kipton Hirschbach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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) 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 April 15, 2009
By:
/s/ Kipton HirschbachKipton HirschbachChief Executive Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5577 

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

for Federal Direct Loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mrs. DAVIS of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

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. ELIMINATION OF ORIGINATION FEES FOR FED4 ERAL DIRECT LOANS. 

5 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con6 gress that no origination fees should be charged on any 

7 future Federal Direct Loans. 

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

9 of section 455 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(c)) is repealed. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5577 IH

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

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

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

4 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.) for which the first dis5 bursement of principal is made, or, in the case of a Fed6 eral Direct Consolidation Loan, the application is received, 

7 on or after July 1, 2015. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 3rd day of 

September, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

The State of Texas, Appellant,

v.

Alfredo Zuniga Gonzalez Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00153-CR (Tr.Ct.No. CR-05-4054-H)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the order of the trial court granting Gonzalez’s application for writ of 

habeas corpus should be reversed and rendered. The Court orders the order of the trial 

court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment that Gonzalez's guilty plea is reinstated. 

Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 3, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 17th day of November, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41323

Conference Calendar

 

MICHAEL L. LORENZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

T. SIMMONS, Warden, ET. AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

---------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:97-CV-234

---------------------

June 17, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Michael L. Lorenz, Texas prisoner #681053, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous, arguing that the district court improperly dismissed

his claims concerning his disciplinary hearing. We have reviewed

the record and Lorenz’s brief and AFFIRM for essentially the same
No. 97-41323

- 2 -

reasons adopted by the district court. Lorenz v. Simmons, No.

9:97cv234 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1997). 

Lorenz’s appeal is without merit and therefore frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2. We caution Lorenz that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Lorenz is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; ALL OUTSTANDING

MOTIONS DENIED.
EXHIBIT 99.1




Pendaries Petroleum Ltd. Announces Increased Interest
and Entrance into Phase Three in Block 04/36, Bohai Bay, China

HOUSTON, TEXAS - September 27, 1999
AMEX SYMBOL: PDR
TSE SYMBOL: PDQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSTON, TEXAS - Pendaries Petroleum Ltd. (AMEX: PDR / TSE: PDQ) today announced
that  effective  October 1, 1999,  it will  increase  its  foreign  contractors'
interest in Block 04/36 in the Bohai Bay, China from 10% to 18.2%, following the
withdrawal  by a partner  from the block.  The  remaining  81.8% of the  foreign
contractors'  interest will be owned by a subsidiary  of Kerr-McGee  Corporation
(NYSE:KMG),  the operator.  There will be no monetary  consideration  associated
with acquiring the increased interests.

Kerr-McGee  and  Pendaries  also  agreed to enter into Phase  Three of the Block
04/36 Petroleum Sharing Contract which covers the period from October 1, 1999 to
September  30, 2001.  Entry into the third  exploration  phase carries with it a
commitment to drill one exploration  well,  which the parties expect to drill in
the fourth quarter of 1999.

Pendaries Petroleum is an independent oil and gas company with its primary focus
in the Bohai Bay, China.  Further information on Pendaries' holdings in China is
available on its website address shown below.



This  material  includes  "forward-looking  statements"  within  the  meaning of
Section 27A of the  Securities  Act of 1933, as amended,  and Section 21E of the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended.   The  opinions,   forecasts,
projections or other  statements,  other than statements of historical fact, are
forward-looking  statements.  Although  Pendaries believes that the expectations
reflected in such  forward-looking  statements  are  reasonable,  it can give no
assurance that such expectations will prove to have been correct.  Certain risks
and uncertainties  inherent in Pendaries'  business are set forth in the filings
of Pendaries with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


For further information please contact:

Pendaries Petroleum Ltd. - Houston
Philip R. Henry
Vice President - Investor Relations
(713) 355-2900
(713) 355-3511 (Fax)
pendaries@myweb.net
website:  www.pendariespetroleum.com
                                     - 30 -
David J. Richardson 

direct dial: 415.659.2583 

drichardson@bakerlaw.com 

 BakerHostetler

600 Montgomery St. 

Suite 3100 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

T: 415.659.2900 

F: 415.659.2601 

www.bakerlaw.com December 3, 2019 

VIA ECF 

Honorable Dennis Montali 

United States Bankruptcy Court 

Northern District of California 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: In re PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Case No. 19-30088 

(DM) (Jointly Administered) 

Dear Judge Montali: 

I write on behalf of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”) to join in the 

letter brief filed today by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “OCUC”) in 

connection with the Debtor’s Motion for Entry of Orders (I) Approving Terms of, and Debtors’ 

Entry Into and Performance Under, Exit Financing Commitment Letters and (II) Authorizing 

Incurrence, Payment, and Allowance of Related Fees and/or Premiums, Indemnities, Costs and 

Expenses as Administrative Expense Claims (the “Motion”) [Docket No. 4446], and the discovery 

pertaining to that Motion that remains outstanding. For the reasons described in the OCUC letter 

brief, the TCC concurs that a continuance of the hearing date on the Motion is necessary to ensure 

that the parties are able to respond to the Motion with adequate information and a fair and complete 

opportunity to conduct discovery. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ David J. Richardson 

David J. Richardson 

Counsel to the Official Committee of Tort Claimants 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4971 Filed: 12/03/19 Entered: 12/03/19 19:06:54 Page 1 of

1
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4432 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/23/19 13:29:57 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SCHEDULE 1 

Anchorage Capital Group, L.L.C., 

on behalf of certain funds and accounts 

610 Broadway, 6th Floor 

New York, NY 10012 

Centerbridge Partners, L.P., 

on behalf of certain funds and accounts 

375 Park Avenue, 11th Floor 

New York, NY 10152 

Fidelity Management & Research Company, 

on behalf of certain funds and accounts 

245 Summer Street 

Boston, MA 02210 

Silver Point Capital, L.P., 

on behalf of certain funds and accounts 

Two Greenwich Plaza 

Greenwich, CT 06830 

SteelMill Master Fund LP 

c/o PointState Capital LP 

40 West 57th Street, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4432 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/23/19 13:29:57 Page 2 of

2
ABID QURESHI

+1 212.872.8027/fax: +1 212.872.1002

aqureshi@akingump.com

One Bryant Park | New York, New York 10036-6745 | 212.872.1000 | fax: 212.872.1002 | akingump.com

December 3, 2019

VIA ECF

Honorable Dennis Montali

United States Bankruptcy Court 

Northern District of California

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: In re PG&E Corporation ̧ No. 19-30088 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.) (DM)

Your Honor:

I write on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Unsecured Noteholders (the “Ad 

Hoc Committee”) in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases of Pacific Gas and Electric Company

and PG&E Corporation (collectively, the “Debtors”). The Ad Hoc Committee supports the relief 

requested in the letter from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Creditors’ 

Committee”) to the Court regarding the need for a continuance of the December 17, 2019 

hearing on the Debtors’ Motion for Entry of Orders (I) Approving Terms of, and Debtors’ Entry 

Into and Performance Under, Exit Financing Commitment Letters and (II) Authorizing 

Incurrence, Payment, and Allowance of Related Fees and/or Premiums, Indemnities, Costs and 

Expenses as Administrative Expense Claims (the “Motion”) [Docket No. 4446], and for all the 

reasons stated therein, joins in the Creditors’ Committee’s request for a continuance and a 

corresponding extension of time to respond to the Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Abid Qureshi

Abid Qureshi

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4970 Filed: 12/03/19 Entered: 12/03/19 18:59:26 Page 1 of

1
#### Martin L. Sheeley, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Martha Funderburk, defendant in error.

Where a laborer who claims a lien on the property of his employer, under the Act of 1869, undertakes to foreclose it according to the provisions of section 1969 of the Code, he must aver in his affidavit demand for payment of the sum due on his employer, and refusal by the latter to pay. It is not sufficient to aver in general terms that defendant refuses to pay.

Laborer’s lien. Demand. Before Judge Clarke. Macon Superior Court. December Term, 1871.

Martha Funderburk foreclosed a laborer’s lien against Martin L. Sheely, upon the following affidavit: “ That Martin L. Sheely is indebted to deponent in the sum of $235 00, due for the work and labor of herself and three children upon the farm and in the crop of said Sheely; that the same is due and unpaid, and the said Sheely refuses to pay the ’ same, wherefore, she prays judgment in accordance with the law giving laborers a lien for their wages and work.”

The defendant filed a counter-affidavit, which it is unnecessary here to set forth. Upon the trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $123 53.

The defendant moved for a new trial, upon the following, among other grounds:

“ That the Court erred in ruling that, under the 1969th section of Irwin’s Revised Code, it was not necessary that there should be a demand and refusal to pay on part of defendant, and that it was not necessary to aver in the affidavit of foreclosure that a demand had been made by plaintiff on *288defendant for payment, and that the same had been refused by defendant.”

The motion for a new trial was overruled by the Court and plaintiff in error excepted, and assigns said ruling as error.

John E. Worrill ; James E. Schofield, for plaintiff in error.

Phil. Cook, represented by B. P. Hollis, for defendant.

Montgomery, Judge.

The plaintiff in error employed the defendant in error and her children as laborers upon his farm for the year 1870. In the autumn of that year, before the expiration of the time of service, he discharged her, as she testifies, and as the jury must have found. Whereupon, she sued out an execution against him, under section 1969 of the Code. He filed his counter-affidavit, and the sheriff returned the case to the Superior Court. When the case was called, plaintiff in error moved to dismiss the case and set aside the order, on the ground that plaintiff, in her affidavit for foreclosure, had not averred demand for payment upon the defendant, as required by section 1969. The Court overruled his motion and he excepted. The case went to trial and the verdict was for the defendant in error, the plaintiff below. Other exceptions were taken, which it is unnecessary .to notice. In accordance with the uniform rulings of this Court, holding that in these summary remedies, the requirements of the statute must be strictly complied with, we feel compelled to reverse the judgment of the Court below.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5475 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the care provided by 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to newborn children. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

newborn children. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT OF CARE PROVIDED TO NEW4 BORN CHILDREN. 

5 Section 1786 of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘seven days’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘14 days’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 section: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5475 IH

1 ‘‘(c) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than October 31 

2 of each year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees 

3 on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives and 

4 the Senate a report on the health care services provided 

5 under subsection (a) during the fiscal year preceding the 

6 date of the report, including the number of newborn chil7 dren who received such services during such fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS