alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex1010.htm


Exhibit 10.10


 


 


 








 


AMENDMENT TO


 


PURCHASE AND PATENT ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT


 


BETWEEN:


 


VALENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC


 


(“Valent”)


 


AND:


 


DEL MAR PHARMACEUTICALS (BC) LTD.


 


(“DelMar”)


 


WHEREAS:


 



	
A.  

	
DelMar has entered into a letter of intent with Berry Only, Inc. (BRRY), a public company, and engaged the services of an investment banker to undertake a Reverse Take-Over and financing that will result in DelMar becoming a publicly traded company under which BRRY shall change its name to DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;







 



	
B.  

	
The investment banker has requested that the Parties amend the Agreement and the Parties have agreed to enter into this Amendment to record the terms on which the Agreement shall be amended, in accordance with Article 11.8 of the Agreement; and







 



	
C.  

	
All capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Purchase and Patent Assignment Agreement dated September 20, 2010.







 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged) the Parties agree as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
The Royalty under Article 4.1 of the Agreement shall be reduced to 5%.  For clarity, Article 4.1 shall read: “On a Product-by-Product and country-by-country basis, during the applicable Royalty Term, Del Mar will pay Valent royalties based upon the Net Sales by Del Mar and its Affiliates for each product.  Subject to Section 4.4, the royalty rate for each Product and on a Product-by-Product basis for Net Sales made by Del Mar and its Affiliates will be 5%.







 



	
2.  

	
The reduction in the royalty under Article 4.1 of the Agreement shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:







 



	
A.

	
The Closing of the financing and Reverse Take Over transaction.







 



	
B.  

	
The issuance of 1,150,000 shares of Berry Only, Inc. (or DelMar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. following the name change) to Valent.







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the 21st day of January, 2013, by their duly authorized representatives.




	 	 	 	 	 
	VALENT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC     	 	 	DEL MAR PHARMACEUTICALS (BC) LTD.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
/s/ Dennis Brown   

	 	 	
/s/ Jeffrey Bacha

	 
	
Dennis Brown  

	 	 	
Jeffrey Bacha, President & CEO
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed June 2 , 2016.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14 - 16 - 00373 - CV

IN RE DIOGU KALU DIO GU II , Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14 - DCV - 214343 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 9, 2016, relator Diogu Kalu Diogu II filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Chad Bridges, presiding judge of the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County , to2

vacate his September 23, 2015 order t hat sets aside the default judgment and grants a new trial
. Mandamus review is not available for an order that sets aside a default judgment when there has been no jury trial. See In re Cort , No. 14

– 14

– 00646

– CV, 2014 WL 4416074, at *2 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 9, 2014, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ; In re Abrokwa , No. 05

– 15

– 01239

– CV, 2015 WL 6520083, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Oct. 28, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); and In re Procesos Especializados en Metal, S.A. de C.V ., No. 04

– 14

– 00543

– CV, 2014 WL 4347724, at *3 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Sept. 3, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op
. ). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown.
Exhibit 10.22



 Exhibit 10.22 

 
 



 
 February 9, 2012 
 Andrew Day 
 C/O Primus Canada 

 

	Re:	Amendment to Employment Letter by and between Andrew Day and Primus Telecommunications Canada Incorporated (the “Company”) dated February 24, 2011
(“Employment Letter”) 

 Dear Andrew: 
 The following constitutes an amendment to your Employment Letter. You and the Company agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Paragraphs 6 and 7 will be deleted. As a result the following will replace the paragraphs: 


If your employment is terminated without cause by the Company, you will be entitled to twelve (12) months of separation pay based on
your Annual Base Salary, a payment equaling 100% of your performance level bonus target payout which equates to 60% of your annual base salary and twelve (12) months continued current medical benefits at the time of your termination. In
addition, you will be entitled to any previous years’ Board of Directors approved earned bonus payment while you were employed by the Company. 
 The payments set forth herein shall be paid in a lump sum payment and subject to the appropriate tax withholding and the signing of a Separation and General Release. Payment shall be made within 30 days
of your signing of the Separation and General Release and if necessary, within 30 days from the previous year’s bonus being approved by the Board of Directors of the Company. 

 

	 	2.	All other provisions, terms and conditions of the Employment Letter will remain in full force and effect. Any discrepancies between this Amendment and the Employment
Letter will be resolved pursuant to the terms of the Employment Letter. 

  

	 	3.	This Amendment constitutes the full amendment between the parties and there does not exist any other oral or written agreements of whatsoever kind or nature between the
parties. 

  

	
	Yours very truly,
	
	/s/ Peter Aquino
	Peter Aquino
	Chairman, President and CEO

  
 



 








	Cc:	John Filipowicz, Chief Administration Officer 

 Maureen Merkler, Vice President, Human Resources, Primus Canada 
 Agreed and Accepted by:

  

									
	Signature:	  	 /s/ Andrew Day
	  		 	Date:	 	 Feb 9, 2012

		  	Andrew Day
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 192 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 25
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 192

                          [Report No. 108-73]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2003

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of April 11, 2003, providing 
for consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany 
the bill (H.R. 1559) making emergency wartime supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for 
other purposes.

                                                  House Calendar No. 25

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 192

                          [Report No. 108-73]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 10, 2003

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
EXHIBIT 4.5


 


January 16, 2013


 


To


 


Mikroman Madencilik Mining


 


Hisarardi Koyo


 


Yatagan Mugla


 


Turkey


 


Dear Murat, Serhat, Karabay,


 


Following our discussions, and in continuation
with the Agreement entered between us on September 27, 2010 (the “2010 Agreement”) here is a summary of our agreement
re supply during 2013.


 


1.      Estimated Quantities 


 


Caesarstone’s working plan for year
2013 is as follows:


 


	Product	Quantity 2013
	1	*	*
	2	*	*
	3	*	*
	4	*	*
	5	*	*
	6	*	*
	7	*	*
	8	*	*


 


The above is Caesarstone’s working
plan with a purchases non-binding projection for year 2013 (the “Estimated Quantities”). Caesarstone’s actual
orders may significantly differ from the Estimated Quantities. As always, Caesarstone will deliver to Mikroman a binding Purchase
Order on a monthly basis, and Mikroman shall supply to Caesarstone all such Purchase Orders (in accordance with the specifications
set in writing by Caesarstone) up to the Estimated Quantities.


 


2.      Prices - For quantities of
the Products that shall be ordered by Caesarstone during year 2013, Mikroman will charge from Caesarstone per each * of the Products
US$* (* US Dollar), FOB Izmir.


 


Payment terms shall be as applied during
2012.


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


This summary serves as an addendum to the
2010 Agreement and constitutes an integral part thereof.


 


If the foregoing meets with your approval
and acceptance, please so indicate by signing both counterparts of this Letter Agreement as provided below and return one fully
executed copy to us.


 


/s/ Yosef Shiran


 


Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd


 


By: Yosef Shiran


 


Chief Executive Officer


 


We hereby approve our consent to all of
the above.


 


	/s/ Mikroman Madencilik Mining	      January 16, 2013      
	Mikroman Madencilik Mining	Date




 


By:   Murat Necmi SARAN            


 




 






    	2
EXHIBIT 23.2

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

On April 17, 2002, we filed a Current Report on Form 8-K reporting that on April 12, 2002, we discontinued the engagement of
Arthur Andersen LLP as our independent auditors. On May 14, 2002, we filed a Current Report on Form 8-K reporting that on May 8, 2002, we engaged Deloitte &
Touche LLP as our independent auditors for fiscal year 2002. This Annual Report on Form 10-K, which includes the report of Arthur Andersen on our consolidated balance sheets as of
December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' investment and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2001, is incorporated by reference into our previously filed Registration Statements, File Nos. 333-52408 and 333-66244 on Form S-8
(collectively, the "Registration Statements"). After reasonable efforts, we have been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's consent to incorporate by reference into the Registration Statements its audit
report with respect to the financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2001 and the three years then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437(a) under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, permits us to file this Form 10-K without such consent from Arthur Andersen. However, as a result, the absence of such consent may limit recovery by investors on
certain claims, including the inability of investors to assert claims against Arthur Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for any untrue statements of a material
fact contained, or any omissions to state a material fact required to be stated, in those audited financial statements. In addition, the ability of Arthur Andersen to satisfy any claims (including
claims arising from Arthur Andersen's provision of auditing and other services to us) may be limited as a practical matter due to recent events regarding Arthur Andersen.

---

QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41506

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JEROMY SHAWN HAMILTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-106-2

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeromy Shawn Hamilton appeals the sentence that he received

after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to

possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 846. Hamilton argues that

the method used by the Drug Enforcement Agency’s chemist for

testing the purity level of the mixtures of methamphetamine was

not sufficiently reliable. Hamilton’s reliance on the chemist’s

testimony in another case is unavailing. Hamilton has failed to
No. 03-41506

-2-

show that the district court erred when it attributed 255.7 

grams of Methamphetamine (actual) and 27.2 grams of “ice” to him. 

See United States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867, 876 (5th Cir. 1998);

United States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 1998). 

AFFIRMED.
#### David Griffith, Plaintiff, and Coreen Griffith, Respondent, v Michael Gallagher et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[852 NYS2d 864]

*1298Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by David Griffith (plaintiff) when his pickup truck collided with a delivery truck operated by Michael Gallagher (defendant) and owned by defendant The Salvation Army. Following a trial, the jury found that plaintiff and defendant were each negligent, apportioned liability and awarded damages to plaintiff on the negligence cause of action and to plaintiffs wife on the derivative cause of action. In appeal No. 1, defendants appeal from a judgment awarding damages to plaintiffs wife and, in appeal No. 2, they appeal from a judgment awarding damages to plaintiff.

The record does not support the contention of defendants that they were unfairly prejudiced by plaintiffs’ alleged untimely disclosure of information concerning plaintiffs receipt of disability insurance benefits. Contrary to defendants’ further contention, Supreme Court properly permitted plaintiffs wife to testify, in support of the cause of action for loss of consortium, that the accident contributed to the breakdown of plaintiffs’ marriage *(see generally Millington v Southeastern El. Co.,*22 NY2d 498, 504-505 [1968]). Finally, defendants failed to preserve for our review their contention that during summation, plaintiffs’ attorney improperly referred to their concession that plaintiff sustained a serious injury in the accident *(see generally Dailey v Keith,*306 AD2d 815, 816 [2003], *affd*1 NY3d 586 [2004]). Present-Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6929

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. KANTON TALLEY, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00207-1)

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kanton Talley, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Kanton Talley seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). In crimi nal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v.

Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order granting the motion for reduction of sentence on May 2, 2008. Talley filed the notice of appeal, at earliest, on May 20, 2008, * after the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Talley has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the

* Because Talley was not then represented by counsel, this filing date is determined pursuant to Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

23 ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. We deny Talley’s motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal.

REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, FOR ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES,
INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 3NET SYSTEMS, INC.) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000885520
<NAME> ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          25,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  147,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               234,308
<PP&E>                                         568,387
<DEPRECIATION>                                 538,364
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,184,280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,225,002
<COMMON>                                       254,901
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,438,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,064
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               933,143
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,424,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               126,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             122,971
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (618,153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (618,153)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (618,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000404 30-NOV-2015 09:02 AM
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 124 

Electing Members and Delegates to certain standing committees of the House 

of Representatives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2003 

Ms. DELAURO submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Electing Members and Delegates to certain standing 

committees of the House of Representatives. 

1 Resolved, That the following named Members and 

2 Delegates be, and they are hereby, elected to the following 

3 standing committees of the House of Representatives: 

4 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Ryan of Ohio 

5 (to rank immediately after Mr. Alexander). 

6 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE: 

7 Mr. Bishop of New York (to rank immediately after Mr. 

8 Ryan of Ohio). 

9 COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Sanders 

10 (to rank immediately after Ms. Waters). 


erjones on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 124 ATH 

1 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Sanders 

2 (to rank immediately after Mr. Kanjorski) and Mr. Cooper 

3 (to rank immediately after Ms. Norton). 

4 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES: Mr. George Miller of 

5 California, Mr. Markey, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. 

6 Baca, and Ms. McCollum. 

7 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE: Mr. Cardoza (to rank im8 mediately after Mr. Matheson), Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas 

9 (to rank immediately after Mr. Davis of Tennessee), and 

10 Ms. Lofgren (to rank immediately after Ms. Jackson-Lee 

11 of Texas). 

12 COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. 

13 Faleomavaega (to rank immediately after Mr. Ballance) 

14 and Ms. Linda T. Sa ́nchez. 

Æ 


erjones on PROD1PC70 with BILLS