alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10(C)



 



Exhibit 10(c)

PNC Bank, National Association

  One PNC Plaza

  249 Fifth Avenue

  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-2707 

November 25, 2003


Worthington Receivables Corporation

1205 Dearborn Drive

Columbus, Ohio 43085

Attention: Randal I. Rombeiro



	 	 	 
	Re:	 	
Extension of Facility Termination Date





Ladies and Gentlemen:


     Reference is hereby made to that Receivables Purchase Agreement (as
amended from time to time, the “Agreement”), dated as of November 30, 2000,
among each of the undersigned hereto. Terms used herein and not defined herein
shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.


     As you have requested pursuant to Section 1.10 of the Agreement, we hereby
agree to extend the Facility Termination Date to November 24, 2004.
Accordingly, clause (a) of the definition of “Facility Termination Date” as set
forth in Exhibit I to the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the date
“November 26, 2003” with the date “November 24, 2004” therein.


     If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please execute the enclosed copies
of this letter and return them to the undersigned. Your execution of this
letter shall constitute your representation and warranty that all necessary
corporate action has been taken to extend the Facility Termination Date
contemplated hereby. This letter may be executed in counterparts and shall be
effective following our receipt of the fully executed counterpart hereto and
once the Fifth Amendment to the Market Street Funding Corporation Liquidity
Asset Purchase Agreement and the First Amendment to the Liberty Street Funding
Corp. Liquidity Asset Purchase Agreement become effective.


(Continued on following page)


 







 


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this letter as of the date
first written above.



	 
	MARKET STREET FUNDING CORPORATION
	as a Purchaser
	 
	By: /s/ Evelyn Echevarria
	Name: Evelyn Echevarria
	Title:  Vice President
	 
	 
	PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

as a Administrator and a Purchase Agent
	 
	By: /s/ John T. Smathers
	Name: John T. Smathers
	Title: Vice President
	 
	 
	LIBERTY STREET FUNDING CORP.,

as a Purchaser
	 
	By: /s/ Andrew L. Stidd
	Name: Andrew L. Stidd
	Title: President
	 
	 
	THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,

as a Purchaser Agent
	 
	By: /s/ Alan Edwards
	Name: Alan Edwards
	Title: Managing Director





S-1







 



	 	 	 
	 	 	
FIFTH THIRD BANK,

as a Purchaser Agent and as a Purchaser
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 By: Robert O. Finley
	 	 	 Name: Robert O. Finley
	 	 	 Title: Vice President
	 	 	 





ACKNOWLEDGED as of the date

first written above:


 



	 
	WORTHINGTON RECEIVABLES CORPORATION

as Seller
	 
	By: /s/ Randal I. Rombeiro
	Name: Randal I. Rombeiro
	Title: Treasurer





S-2
#### Marguerite Gaitan, Respondent, v Regional Maintenance Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[774 NYS2d 416]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Regional Maintenance Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered June 18, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on a combination of ice, water, and snow in the parking lot of her employer. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the appellant Regional Maintenance Corp., which had a snow removal maintenance contract with the plaintiffs employer.

The Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion since the appellant “assumed no duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its contractual duty to remove snow from the subject premises” *(DeCurtis v T.H. Assoc.,*241 AD2d 536, 537 [1997]; *see Pavlovich v Wade Assoc.,*274 AD2d 382 [2000]). The contract between the appellant and the plaintiffs employer was not a comprehensive and exclusive contract which displaced the employer’s duty as a landowner to maintain the premises in a *496reasonably safe condition *(see Palka v Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp.,*83 NY2d 579 [1994]; *Eidlisz v Village of Kiryas Joel,*302 AD2d 558 [2003]). Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiffs assertion, there was no evidence that the appellant “launched a force or instrument of harm” and thus created or exacerbated a hazardous condition *(Moch Co. v Rensselaer Water Co.,*247 NY 160, 168 [1928]; *see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 139 [2002]; *Cochrane v Warwick Assoc.,*282 AD2d 567, 568 [2001]; *Murphy v M.B. Real Estate Dev. Corp.,*280 AD2d 457 [2001]; *Phillips v Young Men’s Christian Assn.,*215 AD2d 825 [1995] ).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contention. Goldstein, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Tonka HAYNES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1159.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Haynes, Tonka; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 97-2095; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-1002.

Denied.
#### E. M. Tillman v. Wm. J. McDonough.

(No. 1488.)

Appeal from Rusk County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 52, *Execution; when returnable.*An execution is returnable to the first day of the next term of the court after its issuance, or in thirty, sixty or ninety days, if so directed by the plaintiff, his agent or attorney. [R. S. art. 2282.] If no return day is specified in the execution, it is returnable on the first day of the next term of the court from whence it issued.

§ 58. *Same; is functus officio, when.*After the return day the execution is *functus officio,*and not valid for the purpose of a levy. The officer attempting to further execute it is entirely without justification, and is liable for his acts precisely as he would be if he had. no writ in *46his possession. Except for the purpose of justifying the detention and sale of property previously levied upon, the writ is of no force, and does not even authorize the officer holding it to receive payment of it. [Freeman on Executions, § 106; Harris v. Ellis, 30 Tex. 4.]

November 28, 1883.

§ 54. *Trial of right of property; claimant may plead that the process levied is void.*In a trial of the right of property, the claimant, if the property was levied upon in his possession, may show that the process under which the levy was made was void, or was such as did not authorize a disturbance of his possession; and where the process is void it may be attacked after issue joined, at any stage of the trial. [Latham v. Selkirk, 11 Tex. 314; Webb v. Mallard, 27 Tex. 80.]

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         381,274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,855,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                   391,492
<INVENTORY>                                    309,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,791,309
<PP&E>                                       3,756,849
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,111,176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,162,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,650,693
<BONDS>                                        375,052
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    18,860,934
<OTHER-SE>                                (14,249,831)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,162,848
<SALES>                                      2,200,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,547,950
<CGS>                                          762,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,143,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,190,767
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (811,409)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (811,409)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (811,409)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
AGREEMENT

Exhibit 4.11


PARTIES:

A. Teena Martin(Consultant)


B. ProCoreGroup Inc.
2250 Warrensville Center Road
University Hts. Ohio 44118(Company)


SUBJECT MATTER:

Structure and design an administrative support and filing system for the company

TERMS:

1.00
Consultant agrees to provide consulting services as indicated in the
above-referenced subject matter, and other related task as requested by Company.
Consultant agrees to design and implement an administrative support system for
the Company. Consultant agrees to design and implement a Human Resources manual
and procedure manual. Consultant agrees to design and implement a virtual and
hard copy filing systems for companies documents.
2.00
Consultant agrees to direct business opportunities to company whenever possible.

3.00
Company agrees to compensate Consultant with a sum of money equal to One Hundred
Thousand Shares of free trading company stock plus other compensation as
companies management determines.

4.00
Both Company and Consultant agree to re-negotiate this agreement as Company
achieves more success.


Agreed and accepted:




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

an authorized representative for ProCoreGroup INC.


Agreed and accepted:




--------------------------------------------------
Teen Martin-Smith


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          13,421
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,150
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     52,912
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,083
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,069
<LOANS>                                        192,472
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 304,942
<DEPOSITS>                                     255,061
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,158
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,269
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,293
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 304,942
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,994
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,978
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   453
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,425
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,836
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,367
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,058
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      523
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,783
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,783
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,723
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.46
<LOANS-NON>                                        975
<LOANS-PAST>                                       205
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,961
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      351
<RECOVERIES>                                       175
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,308
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,308
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 24, 2013

Order 

Clerk

October 24, 2013

145988(79)(81)

MAJESTIC GOLF, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellee, SC: 145988

v COA: 300140

Livingston CC: 09-024146-CZ

LAKE WALDEN COUNTRY CLUB, INC.,

Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee for leave to file a 

supplemental brief after oral argument is GRANTED. The brief submitted on October 

15, 2013, is accepted for filing. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of 

defendant-appellant to file a brief in response to plaintiff-appellee’s supplemental brief 

after oral argument is GRANTED. The brief submitted on October 22, 2013, is accepted 

for filing.
583 A.2d 323

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD E. DAVIS.

February 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Fisher
Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Hassan N. Natha, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 8, 2011



/s/ Hassan N. NathaHassan N. NathaVice President andChief Financial Officer
1420 Alabama |Houston | Texas | 77004 

p. 713.522.7400 f. 713.522.7410 

www.TexasLegalMalpractice.com 

April 22, 2015 

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING 

Christopher A. Prine 

CLERK, FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 

301 Fannin, Room 245 

Houston, Texas 77002 

 

Re: Cause No. 01-14-00138-CV; Rolando Acevedo, et al. v. The O’Quinn 

Law Firm, et al.; In the First Court of Appeals, at Houston; Trial Court 

Cause No. 392,247-416, Rolando Acevedo, et al. v. The O’Quinn Law 

Firm, et al.; In the Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County Texas. 

Dear Mr. Prine, 

 This letter is sent to the Court pursuant to the Court’s Order dated March 26, 2015, 

requesting monthly status updates and abating this case until June 22, 2015. 

We are happy to report that since the last update set forth in the Unopposed Third Motion 

to Abate, the Parties have agreed on the terms of the formal release. The releases along with the 

settlement packages have been sent out to Appellants as well as all other clients connected to this 

suit (approximately 1075 clients). Once the releases are executed by Appellants and forwarded to 

Appellees, Appellants expect to dismiss this appeal. It is expected to take approximately fortyfive days before all the releases will be received back. 

 We respectfully request a copy of this letter to be distributed amongst the Justices hearing 

this matter. 

 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. 

 Sincerely, 

THE KASSAB LAW FIRM 

 

 Lance Christopher Kassab 

 Attorney for Intervenor-Appellants 

 Rolando Acevedo, et al. 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00138-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/22/2015 3:48:23 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/22/2015 3:48:23 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Christopher A. Prine

April 22, 2015

Page 2 of 2

cc.

Dale Jefferson (Via Electronic Filing/Email/Facsimile)

Jim Peacock (Via Electronic Filing/Email/Facsimile)

Kevin Dubose (Via Electronic Filing/Email/Facsimile)

Wallace B. Jefferson (Via Electronic Filing/Email/Facsimile)

Douglas W. Alexander (Via Electronic Filing/Email/Facsimile)
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the use of our report dated October 2, 2001 (except for Note 23,
as to which the date is April 1, 2002), included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Blue Rhino Corporation for the year ended July 31, 2001, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule, as amended, included in this
Form 10-K/A and we consent to the incorporation by reference of said report into
the following:

         Form S-8 (No. 333-80909) pertaining to the Company's Amended and
         Restated Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors;

         Form S-8 (No. 333-60366) pertaining to the Company's Amended and
         Restated Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended;

         Form S-8 (No. 333-80907) pertaining to the Company's 1994 Stock
         Incentive Plan;

         Form S-8 (No. 333-80911) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock
         Incentive Plan;

         Form S-8 (No. 333-60368) pertaining to the Company's 1998 Stock
         Incentive Plan, as amended; and

         Form S-8 (No. 333-94039) pertaining to the Company's Employee Stock
         Purchase Plan.


/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Greensboro, North Carolina
April 3, 2002
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kuantau REEDER.

No. 2011-KK-0195.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 366-001; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1369.

Denied.

GUIDRY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.
EXHIBIT 10.34
-------------

                                  (Letterhead)
                               XYNERGY CORPORATION

Via Facsimile: 0118675526684257
-------------------------------

September 26, 2003

John Jones
Intervest Group, Ltd.
5025 Pine Drive
Jackson, Michigan 49201

Dear John:

This is a non-binding letter of intent between Intervest Group, Ltd. and Xynergy
Corporation. The terms outlined below are negotiable and merely intend to
initiate dialogue for the commencement of merger negotiations between Intervest
Group, Ltd. ("IGRP") and Xynergy Corporation ("XYNY").

1.   IGRP is to acquire controlling interest in XYNY via stock purchase which is
     in the control of CEO, Raquel Zepeda;

2.   A joint venture between IGRP and Raquel of Beverly Hills, Inc., for the
     purposes of setting up distribution of its products in China will also
     commence;

3.   Raquel Zepeda will retain approximately 4.9% [non-dilutable] interest in
     IGRP/XYNY;

4.   Current XYNY subsidiaries will spin-off as separate public company via an
     Information Statement filed and issued to the SEC, giving all IGRP/XYNY
     shareholders stock in new entity (comprised of subsidiaries Raquel of
     Beverly Hills and Machinations);

5.   Both parties are to comply with all due diligence requirements.



John Jones
September 26, 2003
Page Two


If the above terms are agreeable to you, please sign below and fax back to us at
(310) 274-0161.

In the interim, I should have a shareholder list, a DTC list, and NOBO list for
your records by next week. Our financial information is available on the
internet via the Edgar database. We would also like to request that you provide
us with a shareholder list and audited financials at your earliest convenience.

 I believe that once we are all in possession of the appropriate documentation,
we can reach a mutually beneficial arrangement. Please call me at (310) 858-4995
with your comments and questions .

Sincerely,

/s/

Raquel Zepeda
President

cc:           Don Davis, Esq.
              Fred Bishop, Esq.

                                                                              11

<PAGE>

Understood & Agreed:

                             INTERVEST GROUP, LTD.


By:   /s/                                Date:     September 27, 2003
     ---------------                                         ---
     John Jones, CEO

                                                                              12