alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# LINENS N THINGS

# INCREASE SUPPLEMENT

INCREASE
SUPPLEMENT, dated as of November 2nd, 2001, to the Credit Agreement,
dated as of October 20, 2000, by and among Linens N Things, the
(Borrower), the Subsidiary Borrowers party thereto, the Lenders
party thereto and Fleet National Bank, as Administrative Agent (as the same may
be amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the
Credit Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein that are defined
in the Credit Agreement shall have the meanings therein defined.

1.  
Pursuant to Section 2.13 of the Credit Agreement, the Borrower hereby proposes
to increase (the Increase) the Aggregate Commitment Amount from
$140,000,000 to $150,000,000.

2.  
The following Lender has been invited by the Borrower, and is ready, willing and
able to increase its Commitment Amount (which following the acquisition of the
Commitment Amount of Summit Bank was at $55,000,000) as follows:

|Name of Lender |  | Commitment Amount (After giving effect to the Increase)
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------

|Fleet National Bank |  | $65,000,000
|------------------- |  | -----------

3.  The proposed effective date for the Increase is as of the date first above written.

4.
  The Borrower hereby represents and warrants to the Agent and the Lender that (i)
immediately before and after giving effect to the Increase no Default exists or
would exist, (ii) it has full power and authority to enter into this Increase
Supplement and to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby, and the
execution, delivery and performance of the Credit Agreement and this Increase
Supplement has been duly and validly approved by all necessary corporate action,
and no other actions or proceedings on the part of the Borrower is necessary to
authorize this Increase Supplement, and (iii) immediately after giving effect
thereto, the Aggregate Commitment Amount shall not have been increased pursuant
to Section 2.13 of the Credit Agreement in an aggregate amount greater than
$150,000,000.

5.  
Pursuant to Section 2.13 of the Credit Agreement, by execution and delivery of
this Supplement, together with the satisfaction of all of the other requirements
set forth in Section 2.13, (i) the undersigned Lender shall have, on and as of
the effective date of the Increase, a Commitment Amount equal to the amount set
forth above next to its name and (ii) the sum of the Commitment Amounts
reflected on Exhibit A of the Credit Agreement shall be equal to the amount set
forth in paragraph 1 above.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have caused this Increase  Supplement to be duly executed and delivered by
their proper and duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written.



LINENS N THINGS, INC.DAVID J. DICKBy:_________________________________Name:  David J. Dick
       Title:  TreasurerFLEET NATIONAL BANK,as Administrative AgentTHOMAS J. BULLARDBy:_________________________________Name:  Thomas J. Bullard
       Title:  DirectorFLEET NATIONAL BANK, as LenderTHOMAS J. BULLARDBy:_________________________________Name:  Thomas J. Bullard
       Title:  Director
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7486

ANTHONY EUGENE BAILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR FREUND, Medical Agent of the RichmondCity Jail; LIEUTENANT WOMACK, Assistant Supervisor, Medical Agent of the Richmond City Jail; DOCTOR THOMPKINS, Medical Agent of theRichmond City Jail; CAPTAIN MINION, Supervisor, Medical Agent of the Richmond City Jail, Defendants - Appellees, and NURSE SMITH; NURSE PARRISH, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-924-2) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Eugene Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Chandra Dore Lantz, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX & ALLEN, Richmond, Virginia; Elizabeth Stanulis Skilling, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia; Carlyle Randolph Wimbish, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Anthony Eugene Bailey appeals from the district court’s orderdenying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bailey v. Freund , No. CA97-924-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1999). We deny Bailey’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1461

To amend the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 to remove

the exemption for nonprofit organizations from the general requirement

to obtain commercial use authorizations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. HEFLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Parks Omnibus Management Act

of 1998 to remove the exemption for nonprofit organizations from the general requirement to obtain commercial

use authorizations.

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF EXEMPTION FROM REQUIRE4 MENT TO OBTAIN COMMERCIAL USE AU5 THORIZATIONS.

6 Section 418(c) of the National Parks Omnibus Man7 agement Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–391; 112 Stat.
2

•HR 1461 IH

1 3517) is amended by striking ‘‘Nonprofit institutions’’ and

2 all that follows through the final period.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-26-PB

John Nadolny

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 3, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to finalize plea negotiations. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 3, 2007 to May 1, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00026-PB Document 9 Filed 03/26/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 26, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to 

April 16, 2007 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 23, 2007

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00026-PB Document 9 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven L. Bromley

v .

State of Utah, et al .

Civil No . 06-cv-181-JD

ORDE R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated June 26, 2006, no objection having been filed .

SO ORDERED.

July 25, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Steven Bromley, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00181-JD Document 8 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1325

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

3160 Irvin Cobb Drive in Paducah, Kentucky, as the ‘‘Morgan Station’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 2001

Mr. WHITFIELD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 3160 Irvin Cobb Drive in Paducah, Kentucky,

as the ‘‘Morgan Station’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 3160 Irvin Cobb Drive in Paducah, Kentucky,

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Morgan Station’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility
2

•HR 1325 IH

1 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

2 to the Morgan Station.

Æ
#### DUPUY v. GODCHAUX SUGARS, Inc., et al.*

No. 16814.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 28, 1938.

Jno. E. Fleury, of Gretna, and Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr., and Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, all of New Orleans, for appellant Henry Dupuy.

Edward Rightor and W. H. Sellers, both of New Orleans, for appellees Godchaux Sugars, Inc., and General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corporation, Ltd.

Leo W. McCune, of Gretna, and W. T., Holloway, of Jonesboro, for appellee succession of William J. Hammon.

*

Rehearing denied Jan. 10, 1939.

JANVIER, Judge.

This suit arises from the same accident out of which resulted the case of Mrs. Julia Dupuy, Widow of Damas Dupuy, against the. same defendants. We have this day rendered opinion and decree in that case. La.App., 184 So. 730. Henry Dupuy, the plaintiff here, was the driver of the truck in which Louis W. Ernest, Damas Dupuy, and John McDevitt were guest passengers.

For the reasons given in that opinion there can be no recovery by Henry Dupuy against Godchaux Sugars, Inc., nor against its insurer.

Counsel for the Estate of Hammon contends that there should be no recovery even against that Estate because of alleged acts of contributory negligence on the part of Henry Dupuy. But we find in the record neither an appeal nor an answer to the appeal and therefore the judgment below which was in favor of Henry Dupuy and against the Estate of Hammon cannot be reversed or amended in favor of appellee.

It is contended by plaintiff, Henry Dupuy that the amount, awarded should be increased, but we do not think that the record justifies such increase.

It is therefore ordered,, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment appealed from be and it is affirmed. .Appellant to pay costs of appeal; other costs to be paid by Mrs. Jennie Hammon, Administratrix of the Succession of William J. Hammon.

Affirmed.
#### Beverly Garrett, Plaintiff, v New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. et al., Defendants. Rhona Silverman, Esq., Appellant-Respondent; Bruce G. Clark & Associates, P.C., Respondent-Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 196]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered July 26, 2004, which apportioned 60% of the subject contingency fee to plaintiffs incoming attorney, and 40% to the outgoing attorneys, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to the contention of the incoming attorney, the outgoing attorneys were the attorneys of record from December 1989 until their discharge in July 2001. This is evidenced by the fact that on December 12, 1989, plaintiff and the outgoing attorneys (then incoming) executed a notarized consent to change attorney form which clearly indicated that the outgoing attorneys were substituted as attorneys of record for plaintiff in *425this dental malpractice litigation. Although the outgoing attorneys failed to timely file an OCA retainer statement, their filing of a retainer statement nunc pro tunc, was sufficient to preserve their right to recover legal fees otherwise earned *(see e.g. Warren v Meyers,*187 Misc 2d 668, 672 [2001]).

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in apportioning the attorneys’ fees. The case remained with the outgoing attorneys for seven or eight years, and although the firm took steps to move the matter towards resolution, it was not until the matter was transferred to the incoming attorney, a former employee of the outgoing firm, that it was vigorously prosecuted and made ready for trial *(see Ebrahimian v Long Is. R.R.,*269 AD2d 488 [2000]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
Case 1:05-cv-00079-SM Document 41 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 35.1
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
Re:  Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, in its capacity as Servicer (the "Servicer") under the Amended
and Restated Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2009, among Daimler Trust, as Titling Trust, Daimler Title
Co., as Collateral Agent, and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Lender and as Servicer (the
"Servicing Agreement"), and under the 2018-B Servicing Supplement, dated as of November 1, 2018, among the
same parties (the "Servicing Supplement") for the period from November 20, 2018, to December 31, 2018 (the
"Reporting Period")
I, Brian T. Stevens, certify that:
(a)
A review of the Servicer's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the
Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement has been made under my supervision.
(b)
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under
the Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.
Dated:  March 25, 2019
/s/ Brian T. Stevens
Name: Brian T. Stevens
Title: Vice President and Controller
C orre c te d Oc tobe r 5, 2015+ N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
STEPHEN ANTHONY HENR Y, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. PR ISON M EDIC AL PR OVIDER S OF C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR TM ENT OF C ORREC TION AND REHAB ILITATION; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16516 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00201-C RB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Ste phe n Anthony He nry , a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the 

# FIL ED SEP 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** + The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).distric t c o urt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo, Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004), a

nd we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use He nry

fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts we re de libe ra t e ly

indiffe re nt by

de l ay ing his re fe rra l to a

n e ar, nose and throa

t spe c ia list. Se e id. at 1057-60 (a

prison offic ia l a c t s with de l ibe rat e indiffe re n c e only if he or she knows of a

nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to theprisone r’ s he a lth; ne glige nc e and a m e re diffe re nc e in m e dic a l opinion a re insuffic ie nt); Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th C ir. 2002) (whe re the prisone r is a lle ging tha t de la y of m e dic a l tre atm e n t e vinc e s de libe rate indiffe re nc e , the prisone r m ust show tha

t the de la y le d to furthe r injury ). AFFIRM E D.

1 4
- 1 6 5 1 6 2
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, May 5-9, 2003Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,095,971 90,597 182,827 352,272 191,202 56,655 65,65Number of loans 38,582 2,940 6,345 13,264 6,186 1,286 1,84Weighted average maturity (months)1 27.01 19.00 26.68 25.51 27.52 17.63 17.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 10.80 13.76 6.90 9.92 3.77 2.91 6.

Weighted average risk rating3 2.93 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 6.04 6.76 6.48 5.72 5.53 6.72 5.

 Standard error5 .12 .26 .21 .32 .43 .33 .4

 Interquartile range6

 75th percentile 7.14 8.11 7.38 6.97 6.50 7.50 6.6 25th percentile 5.05 6.25 5.39 4.55 4.33 5.90 3.6 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.64 6.19 6.86 4.55 5.30 5.63 5.4 Other livestock 5.71 4.49 6.79 5.20 4.64 6.31 7.5 Other current operating expenses7 6.37 6.95 6.54 6.23 5.90 6.71 5.5

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.18 8.43 6.96 5.79 5.14 7.46 6. Farm real estate 6.50 5.84 6.64 6.56 6.61 6.55 6.0 Other8 5.24 6.38 5.99 4.69 4.71 6.17 4.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 64.12 38.31 53.87 68.02 91.59 84.92 74.9 Under commitment 67.75 71.47 66.41 63.23 89.65 81.42 74.9 Callable 21.33 14.35 21.57 25.83 13.89 9.73 17.0

 Subject to prepayment penalty 2.08 .21 .62 3.77 3.99 .50 .4 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 8.70 6.17 17.21 10.83 3.83 7.05 2.9 Other livestock 7.38 3.88 11.20 7.22 9.09 2.36 2.7 Other current operating expenses7 47.76 78.74 38.61 41.02 49.51 34.76 40.0

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.89 .96 .61 8.42 11.19 29.03 3. Farm real estate 9.31 .48 4.54 15.44 8.51 6.90 8. Other8 18.95 9.77 27.84 17.07 17.87 19.90 41.5

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 22.33 33.19 23.32 26.32 12.48 16.69 19. Other 71.13 63.89 71.89 64.09 82.20 82.69 69.9 For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks

Loan volume Percent change from Percent change from

(billions of dollars) previous quarter previous year

Real Non-real- Real Non-real- Real Non-realTotal estate estate Total estate estate Total estate estate

Quarter loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans

1990: Q2... 49.0 17.1 31.9 6.4 2.2 8.7 4.3 5.1 3.9

 Q3... 50.5 17.3 33.2 3.1 1.1 4.1 5.3 5.0 5.5

 Q4... 50.1 17.2 32.9 -.8 -.6 -.9 5.7 3.5 6.9

1991: Q1... 49.5 17.5 32.0 -1.3 1.5 -2.8 7.4 4.3 9.1

 Q2... 52.6 18.1 34.5 6.2 3.4 7.7 7.2 5.5 8.1

 Q3... 53.9 18.3 35.6 2.5 1.4 3.1 6.6 5.8 7.1

 Q4... 53.0 18.4 34.6 -1.6 .6 -2.7 5.7 7.0 5.1

1992: Q1... 51.9 18.9 33.0 -2.1 2.7 -4.6 4.9 8.2 3.1

 Q2... 55.1 19.5 35.6 6.2 3.3 7.8 4.9 8.1 3.2

 Q3... 56.2 19.9 36.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 4.2 8.6 1.9

 Q4... 54.5 19.9 34.7 -2.9 -.2 -4.4 2.9 7.8 .2

1993: Q1... 52.8 20.0 32.8 -3.2 .5 -5.3 1.7 5.6 -.5

 Q2... 56.0 20.6 35.4 6.0 3.1 7.8 1.6 5.4 -.6

 Q3... 58.0 20.8 37.1 3.5 1.2 4.9 3.2 4.7 2.4

 Q4... 57.7 20.9 36.8 -.5 .1 -.8 5.8 5.0 6.2

1994: Q1... 56.8 21.2 35.5 -1.5 1.8 -3.4 7.6 6.4 8.3

 Q2... 61.1 21.9 39.2 7.6 3.2 10.2 9.1 6.4 10.7

 Q3... 63.0 22.4 40.6 3.1 2.2 3.6 8.7 7.5 9.3

 Q4... 61.3 22.6 38.7 -2.7 .7 -4.6 6.2 8.2 5.2

1995: Q1... 59.9 22.9 36.9 -2.3 1.6 -4.6 5.4 8.0 3.9

 Q2... 63.5 23.6 40.0 6.1 2.7 8.2 4.0 7.5 2.0

 Q3... 65.3 23.8 41.5 2.9 1.1 3.9 3.7 6.3 2.3

 Q4... 63.7 23.9 39.8 -2.5 .4 -4.1 3.9 5.9 2.8

1996: Q1... 61.7 24.0 37.7 -3.1 .5 -5.3 3.1 4.8 2.0

 Q2... 65.7 24.7 41.0 6.5 2.7 8.9 3.4 4.7 2.7

 Q3... 66.6 24.9 41.6 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.9 4.7 .3

 Q4... 65.5 25.0 40.5 -1.6 .3 -2.8 2.8 4.6 1.8

1997: Q1... 63.8 25.4 38.4 -2.6 1.4 -5.1 3.4 5.5 2.0

 Q2... 69.0 26.2 42.8 8.2 3.3 11.5 5.1 6.2 4.4

 Q3... 71.1 27.0 44.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 6.8 8.1 6.0

 Q4... 71.3 27.1 44.2 .3 .7 .0 8.9 8.5 9.1

1998: Q1... 70.1 27.6 42.4 -1.7 1.8 -3.9 9.8 9.0 10.4

 Q2... 75.0 28.5 46.5 7.1 3.2 9.6 8.6 8.8 8.5

 Q3... 76.3 28.9 47.4 1.7 1.3 1.9 7.2 7.2 7.3

 Q4... 74.7 29.3 45.5 -2.0 1.3 -4.0 4.8 7.8 3.0

1999: Q1... 72.7 29.7 42.9 -2.8 1.7 -5.6 3.7 7.6 1.1

 Q2... 75.8 30.8 45.1 4.4 3.5 5.0 1.1 8.0 -3.1

 Q3... 76.8 31.4 45.5 1.3 1.9 .9 .7 8.6 -4.1

 Q4... 76.0 31.8 44.2 -1.0 1.5 -2.8 1.7 8.8 -2.8

2000: Q1... 71.5 31.4 40.1 -5.9 -1.4 -9.2 -1.6 5.5 -6.5

 Q2... 79.7 33.7 45.9 11.4 7.5 14.4 5.0 9.6 1.9

 Q3... 80.1 33.9 46.2 .6 .5 .6 4.3 8.1 1.6

 Q4... 80.9 34.0 46.9 1.0 .3 1.5 6.4 6.8 6.1

2001: Q1... 79.4 34.3 45.1 -1.9 .8 -3.9 11.0 9.2 12.4

 Q2... 82.9 35.1 47.7 4.4 2.5 5.8 4.0 4.2 3.9

 Q3... 82.5 35.4 47.1 -.4 .8 -1.3 3.0 4.5 2.0

 Q4... 82.2 35.6 46.7 -.3 .4 -.9 1.6 4.6 -.5

2002: Q1... 80.1 36.0 44.1 -2.6 1.2 -5.5 .9 4.9 -2.2

 Q2... 83.7 37.0 46.7 4.4 2.7 5.9 1.0 5.1 -2.1

 Q3... 84.4 37.7 46.7 .9 2.1 -.1 2.3 6.5 -.9

 Note. Data are as of end of quarter.

21
awsm-ex102_7.htm



Exhibit 10.2

 

 

July 10, 2019

 

Cool Holdings, Inc.

2001 NW 84th Avenue

Miami, FL  33122

 

Re:  Letter Agreement for Financing

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Stock Purchase Agreement dated May 9, 2019, as amended on June 20, 2019 and July 8, 2019 (the “Agreement”), by and among GameStop Corp., Simply Mac, Inc. (“Simply Mac”) and Cool Holdings, Inc. (the “Cool”). Pursuant to the Agreement, on or before July 12, 2019, Cool is required to have either (a) closed on at least $2,700,000 in funding that is dedicated for the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement (the “Transactions”) or (b) provide a written fully executed third party commitment from an investor that provides for the irrevocable and unconditional commitment to Cool to fund at least the aggregate amount of $2,700,000 that is dedicated for the closing of the Transactions, which commitment is enforceable against such investor.

This letter is being delivered to confirm and memorialize the agreement between SOL Global Investments Corp. (“SOL”) and Cool that SOL hereby agrees to provide, directly or through an affiliate or designee (collectively, the “Investors”), Cool an aggregate amount of $2,700,000.00 (the “Financing Amount”) on or before the scheduled closing of the Transactions (the “Closing”), which such Financing Amount shall be used by Cool for the sole and exclusive purpose of funding the aggregate purchase price under the Agreement to consummate the Transactions.  This agreement by SOL to provide the Financing Amount is irrevocable and unconditional.  This letter agreement is intended to be a legally binding obligation of SOL, enforceable against SOL in accordance with its terms, and is irrevocable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this letter agreement, and SOL’s obligations to provide the Financing Amount, shall terminate concurrently with the termination of the Agreement, if at all.

 

Very truly yours,

SOL GLOBAL INVESTMENTS CORP.

 


	
By:
	
      /s/ Peter Liabotis
	
 





	

	
Name: Peter Liabotis
	
 





	

	
Title: Chief Financial Officer
	
 




 

 

Agreed and Accepted:

COOL HOLDINGS, INC.

 


	
By:
	
     /s/ Vernon A. LoForti           
	
 





	

	
Name: Vernon A. LoForti
	
 





	

	
Title: Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

ex rel. Geoffrey Lundy, M.D.

v. Case No. 06-cv-337-SM

Genesio W. Biesek, M.D.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 18, Unopposed Application for Additional

Extension of time to Consider Election to Intervene

Ruling: Granted. As the Government was warned in January,

this is an aging case and it must either move forward or be

abandoned. The government has had over 18 months in which to

determine whether to intervene, including 5 extensions of time

(including this one). The motion is granted, but the government

will either intervene or not by the close of business on June 9,

2008. No further extensions will be granted. 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

Date: April 7, 2008

cc: John J. Farley, AUSA

Daphne Lessard, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00337-SM Document 20 Filed 04/07/08 Page 1 of 1