alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
c61510_ex10-1.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing








Exhibit 10.1


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE

TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


               The Trans World Entertainment Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows, effective May 12, 2010: 


               1.       The following is added at the end of Paragraph A of Article 7 of the Plan:



“For purposes of this Plan, the bonus payment for fiscal year 2009 for Robert Higgins will be deemed to be $500,000 (two thirds of the amount earned under the applicable bonus formula prior to the exercise of negative
discretion by the Committee).”
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-46319 and
No. 333-72666) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-66456, No. 33-75374, No. 33-88304,
No. 333-55939 and No. 333-55971) of Firstwave Technologies, Inc. of our report dated April 16, 2001 relating to the statement of operations and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.



/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLPAtlanta, GA
May 1, 2003

---

QuickLinks
Summary of Compensation Arrangements with Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.14 

Summary of Compensation Arrangements with Executive Officers 

as of March 25, 2010 

On March 25, 2010, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of JMP Group Inc. (the
“Company”) completed its annual performance and compensation review of the Company’s named executive officers and approved the performance objectives for the named executive officers under the 2007 Senior Executive Bonus Plan, as more
fully described below. 
 Base Salaries 

The 2010 annual base salaries for the Company’s named executive officers continue to be as follows: 

 

				
	 Name and Position
	  	Base Salary 1
	 Joseph A. Jolson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	200,000
	 Raymond Jackson, Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	200,000
	 Craig R. Johnson, President
	  	$	200,000
	 Mark L. Lehmann, Director of Equities and Co-President of JMP Securities
	  	$	200,000
	 Carter D. Mack, Director of Investment Banking and Co-President of JMP Securities
	  	$	200,000

 2007 Senior Executive Bonus Plan

 The Committee established performance objectives for 2010 with respect to the payment of cash bonuses to each of the named
executive officers under the 2007 Senior Executive Bonus Plan. Under the 2007 Senior Executive Bonus Plan, each of the named executive officers may, subject to the Compensation Committee’s authority to reduce any such bonus in its sole and
absolute discretion, receive a cash bonus payment upon either or both of the following: (i) the achievement by the Company of a certain performance target with respect to operating income for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010, and
(ii) with respect to each named executive officer except our Chief Financial Officer, the production of revenues attributable to his area of business responsibility or production. Any cash bonus payments with respect to 2010 under the 2007
Senior Executive Bonus Plan will be paid in one lump sum payment shortly after the end of the 2010 fiscal year subject to the terms of any applicable compensation program, including, without limitation, that which provides for the election of the
form of compensation over certain breakpoints or other applicable compensation plan. 
 This document is intended to be a
summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any of the named executive officers.
#### Stephen LITTLEJOHN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 43258.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 26, 1991.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 2, 1991.

Application to Transfer Denied May 3, 1991.

Willard B. Bunch, John Edward Cash, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Barbara J. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentia-ry hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Edward M. Krell,certify that:

 

       1.     Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mothers Work, Inc;

 

       2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

       3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

       4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

       (a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

       (b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

       (c)   Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

       5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

       (a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

       (b)   Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: December 14,2004

 
| /s/    EDWARD M. KRELL                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Edward  M. Krell                                    |
| *Executive  Vice President-Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### Fred HELMS, Appellant, v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

No. WD 48955.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 8, 1994.

Ernest Courtwright, Warrensburg, for appellant.

Ronald R. McMülin, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

SPINDEN, Judge.

Fred Helms made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits on the insurance policy is*221sued to him by American States Insurance Company. American refused to pay, so Helms sued it on October 25, 1993, for the uninsured motorist benefits and for penalties for American’s vexatious refusal to pay. American filed a motion to dismiss Helms’ petition alleging several grounds for dismissal. On December 14, 1993, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice and without stating its reasons for the dismissal. Helms appealed. In the meantime, he refiled his suit in another county, and that suit was still pending on the date of oral arguments.

Subject to certain exceptions, only appeals from final judgments are permissible. *Nicholson v. Nicholson,*685 S.W.2d 588 (Mo.App.1985). A final judgment disposes of all parties and all issues and leaves nothing for further determination. *Ritter v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company,*686 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Mo.App.1985). Generally, a dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits. *Id.*The general rule is: “ ‘Dismissals of actions without prejudice ordinarily indicate that such judgments of dismissal affect no right or remedy of the parties and that there has been no decision of the case on the merits.’ 27 C.J.S. Dismissal & Nonsuit § 73 (1974).” *Id.*

Dismissals without prejudice are ap-pealable under certain circumstances. *See id.; Nicholson,*685 S.W.2d at 589. We must determine whether the dismissal amounted to a mere dismissal of the petition or whether it was a dismissal of the action itself. *Nicholson, id.*If the effect of the trial court’s dismissal was to dismiss the cause of action and not merely the pleading, then the dismissal was final and appealable. *Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc.,*807 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Mo. banc 1991). “If the dismissal was such that a refiling of the petition at that time would be a futile act, then the order of dismissal is appealable.” *Nicholson,*685 S.W.2d at 589.

We deem the trial court’s dismissal as a dismissal of the petition and not the action itself. Because the trial court dismissed Helms’ petition without prejudice and Helms chose to refile a second suit against American, no final judgment exists. Hence, we are without jurisdiction, and we dismiss Helms’ appeal. *See Downey v. Mitchell,*835 S.W.2d 554 (Mo.App.1992).

The appeal is dismissed.

All concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6949

Omron Management Center of America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,146,216
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,822,948
<PP&E>                                      77,672,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             402,073,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,273,599
<BONDS>                                    379,881,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,916,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               402,073,844
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,284,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,045,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,691,774)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (21,691,774)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,691,774)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 1995 / Notices 19329

[AC–21; OTS No. 4312]

Logansport Savings Bank, FSB,

Logansport, Indiana; Approval of

Conversion Application

Notice is hereby given that on April

5, 1995, the Assistant Director,

Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift

Supervision, or her designee, acting

pursuant to delegated authority,

approved the application of Logansport

Savings Bank, FSB, Logansport, Indiana,

to convert to the stock form of

organization. Copies of the application

are available for inspection at the

Information Services Division, Office of

Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20552, and the Central

Regional Office, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 111 Wacker Drive, Suite

800, Chicago, Illinois 60601–4360.

Dated: April 11, 1995.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Nadine Y. Washington,

Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9299 Filed 4–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–M
#### Donald Wayne MORRIS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ALTERNATIVES, INC., d/b/a Cope Alternatives, Inc., and Kevin Otis, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 66309.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Feb. 14, 1995.

Donald Wayne Morris, pro se.

Lawrence A. Baerveldt, St. Louis, for respondents.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Donald Wayne Morris, a prisoner serving a 79 year sentence in the Missouri Department of Corrections, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his civil action against defendants, Alternatives, Inc. and Kevin Otis for failure to prosecute when plaintiff faded to appear for trial. We dismiss for the reason that the order dismissing the case without prejudice is not a final, appealable judgment.

“A dismissal without prejudice permits the party to bring another civil action for the same cause, unless the civil action is otherwise barred.” Rule 67.01. Accordingly, a dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. *Davis v. Poetz,*712 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Mo.App.1986). Plaintiff argues that because he may be incarcerated for a long time and is prevented by § 491.230.2 from personally appearing in court, refiling of a petition would be a “futile act” and thus the order of dismissal should be appealable. Cases which have interpreted “futile act” refer to dismissals which have adjudicated procedural or substantive aspects of a plaintiffs action, not merely dismissed the pleading. *See Nicholson v. Nicholson,*685 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Mo.App.1985). In this case the order of dismissal does not prevent plaintiff from refiling his case, presenting evidence, or appearing through counsel in a future case. His status *400as a prisoner prevents only his personal appearance.

Appeal dismissed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7250

Omron Management Center of America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
NEW for 2019 NEW for 2019

0 0

0 0

FINAL PRODUCT

NEW
Applica Water Products LLC is a very small, family-owned and operated, manufacturer of water

filtration systems and sell under our CLEAR2O® brand. We source manufacture our own

designs and sell water filtration systems as our only line of business, we are headquartered in

Miramar, Florida.

Currently, 100% percent of our water filtration products are sourced from China. Of which, 90%

of those imported water filtration products & filters are only available from China due to the

location of our owned-tooling placed with 3rd party China manufacturers.

At present, our design & formulation is unique and thus comparable products are not available

in the US or from other countries. Additionally, major infrastructure changes need to be

implemented to facilitate reasonable priced products for the overall water filtration industry.

Currently, the USA and other countries lack the equipment infrastructure to cost-effectively

manufacture those parts needed to complete our line of products.

Applica Water Products LLC will experience an economic hardship due to the additional ad

valorem of 25 percent on all water filtration parts from China. Based on the annual volume of all

combined water filtration parts and accessories, the total tariffs on the next rounds of

containers will result in an immediate reduction of our net profits before taxes by a significant

amount. As a result, this event will cause a reduction in jobs, sales jobs, access to financing

options and / or higher financing costs.

As a small business in the water filtration industry, it will not be competitive to increase

consumer prices to mitigate the cost of tariffs. Price increases will result in the loss of long-term

and new customers. We are operating on a shoe-string budget. So, any internal cost cutting

will severely impact our daily operations. The long-term impact of these untimely tariffs will

result in net losses for our company, which ultimately reduces healthy competition in the water

filtration industry.

Our water filtration parts and accessories are not a part of the Made in China 2025.

In summary, we sincerely request that your office approves the exclusion of tariffs for Applica

Water Products LLC due to this untimely economic hardship.

Sincerely,

Keith Bernard

President

Applica Water Products LLC

954-998-1909

Keith.bernard@applicawater.com

www.clear2o.com
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8967]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Ameribank, Corporation, Inc.; Change in Bank Control Notices; 
Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 95-6789) published on page 
14760 of the issue for Monday, March 20, 1995.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City heading, the entry 
for Ameribank, Corporation, Inc., is revised to read as follows:
    1. Ameribank, Corporation, Inc.; Shawnee, Oklahoma; to acquire 29.6 
percent of the voting shares of United Oklahoma Bankshares, Inc., Del 
City, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire United Bank, Del City, 
Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 6, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-8967 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5426 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and 

Entrepreneurship 

AN ACT 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to provide a link to resources for submitting 

reports on suspected fraud relating to certain COVID– 

19 loans. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5426 RFS

1 SECTION 1. WEBSITE TO REPORT FRAUD RELATING TO 

2 CERTAIN COVID–19 LOANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 

5 the Small Business Administration shall include on the 

6 primary website of the Administration a link to a website 

7 of the Office of the Inspector General of the Small Busi8 ness Administration regarding reporting fraud, waste, 

9 abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct, and containing 

10 a resource for individuals to report suspected cases of 

11 fraud with respect to a covered loan to the Administration. 

12 (b) COVERED LOAN DEFINED.—In this section, the 

13 term ‘‘covered loan’’ means— 

14 (1) a loan made under paragraph (36) or (37) 

15 of section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

16 636(a)); or 

17 (2) a loan made under section 7(b) of such Act 

18 (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) in response to COVID–19 dur19 ing the covered period (as defined in section 1110(a) 

20 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9009)). 

Passed the House of Representatives February 29, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS