alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1







                                   EXHIBIT 18


                              ARTHUR ANDERSON LLP




To: Management of Zenith Electronics Corporation

Re: Form 10-K Report for the year ended December 31, 1996.

Gentlemen:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

As of January 1, 1996, the Zenith Electronics Corporation (the Company) changed
from the LIFO method of accounting for its internally manufactured picture tube
inventories to the FIFO method.  According to the management of the Company,
this change was made because the Company believes that the FIFO method will
provide a more appropriate and consistent matching of costs against revenue due
to LIFO liquidations which would be anticipated to occur were the Company to
continue to account for the tube inventories on a LIFO basis.  Management
believes such liqudations would occur due to the Company's strategic shift
toward selling large screen television sets which occurred in fiscal 1996.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principals among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession.  Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method.  However, we
have reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial
reporting, in this particular case on a subjective basis, and out opinion
stated below is based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to
an acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under
the circumstances in this particular case.  In arriving at this opinion, we
have relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.


Very truly yours,



/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
_________________________
Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois
February 26, 1997




                                     107
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           | By:    | /s/ George      Paz                             |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   | George      Paz                                      |   |
|                           |   | Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                           |   | Express      Scripts, Inc.                           |
|                           |   |                                                 |   |
| Date:       July 30, 2008 |   |                                                 |   |
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Under
Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 8, 2006
    
    /s/ GREGORY B. KENNYGregory B. KennyChief Executive OfficerDate: November 8, 2006
    
    /s/ CHRISTOPHER F. VIRGULAKChristopher F. VirgulakChief Financial Officer
  72
Exhibit 32

                Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer and the chief financial
officer of Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., each hereby certifies that, to the best
of his knowledge,  the accompanying  Form 10-Q of the issuer fully complies with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
1934,  and that  information  contained in the report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
issuer.

August 12, 2009

                                                      s/R. Riggie Ridgeway
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      R. Riggie Ridgeway
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                                      s/Robert E. Dye, Jr.
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Robert E. Dye, Jr.
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JOHN
NUVEEN COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,595
<SECURITIES>                                    58,117
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,977
<PP&E>                                          40,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,733)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 416,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           45,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           387
<OTHER-SE>                                     287,021
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   416,704
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,469
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,014
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,653
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,379
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,274
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 24, 2001

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 00-3020

JAMES KERSTING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC., #6025, a/k/a

WAL-MART DISTRIBUTION CENTER

and WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of

Wisconsin.

No. 99 C 0785

Stephen Crocker, Magistrate Judge.

ORDER

The Opinion of this court issued on May 18, 2001 should be amended as follows:

Page 8, second paragraph, line 2, “material” should be changed 

to “materially.”
Exhibit 32.0

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 City National Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Russell Goldsmith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Christopher J. Carey, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge, based on a
review of the Report of the Company, and except as corrected or supplemented in a subsequent report:



|DATE:February 27, 2008 |  | /s/ RUSSELLGOLDSMITHRUSSELL GOLDSMITH Chief Executive Officer      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|DATE:February 27, 2008 |  | /s/ CHRISTOPHERJ. CAREYCHRISTOPHER J. CAREY Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 In connection with the quarterly report on Form10-Q of Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period endedSeptember 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Daniel E. Geffken, Senior VicePresident, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

 (1)  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   |              |                                     | /s/ Daniel E. Geffken |
|--------|-------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| Dated: | November 14, 2002 | Daniel E. Geffken                        |
|   |              | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief |
|   |              | Financial Officer                        |

 

----
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00355-CV

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Appellant

v.

SAM ROUND,

Appellee

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 88611

ORDER

William M. Windsor’s Motion to Reduce Cost of Record is denied. Windsor 

states that some of the documents are not necessary to his appeal. Windsor, as the 

appellant, can designate those documents necessary to his appeal. But it is the 

appellant’s burden to present a record sufficient to show reversible error without 

omitting anything which could be presumed to be in support of the trial court’s 

judgment. See e.g. Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 230 (Tex. 2002). We also note, 
Windsor v. Round Page 2

based on our own experience with Windsor, the filing of voluminous exhibits of 

questionable relevance is a problem of his own making.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed June 18, 2015
<PAGE>

                                           EXHIBIT 21


ZENITH NATIONAL INSURANCE CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(As of March 8, 1999)

Zenith National Insurance Corp.
           Perma-Bilt, A Nevada Corporation
           Zenith National Insurance Capital Trust I
           Zenith Development Corp.

           CalFarm Insurance Agency
                Cal-Ag Insurance Services, Inc.

           Zenith Insurance Company
                CalFarm Insurance Company
                CalRehab Services, Inc.
                Zenith Star Insurance Company
                ZNAT Insurance Company
                Zenith Risk Management, Inc.
                Zenith Insurance Management Services, Inc.
                1390 Main Street LLC

           Each subsidiary shown is wholly-owned by the subsidiary shown in 
the tier above it.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF INCOME AND STATEMENT OF CASHFLOW AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,450
<INVENTORY>                                      3,086
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,382
<PP&E>                                         201,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,240
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,909
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                    (46,820)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,221
<SALES>                                          7,904
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,044
<CGS>                                            6,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   897
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,911)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (163)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,748)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,748)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Rodney R. SCHOEMANN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. F. Douglas MURRELL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-30646

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 20, 2012.

Todd Slack, Huber, Slack, Houghtaling, Pandit & Thomas, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*281Roy C. Cheatwood, Erin E. Pelleteri, Matthew Aaron Woolf, Esq., Baker, Donel-son, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The district court granted summary judgment for the Defendant-Appellee, F. Douglas Murrell, on the ground that Plaintiff-Appellant Rodney R. Schoemann, Sr.’s negligent misrepresentation claim against Murrell was prescribed by Louisiana’s one-year statute of limitations. Schoe-mann appeals, arguing that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he knew or should have known of Murrell’s alleged misrepresentation more than one year before he filed suit against Murrell.

The alleged misrepresentation was made in connection with Murrell’s sale of stock to Schoemann in 2004. Schoemann alleged that Murrell negligently misrepresented that Murrell’s son ran the company, that Murrell was not affiliated with the company, and that the stock was, therefore, “freely tradable.” Schoemann sought to recover from Murrell over $400,000 in attorneys’ fees that he incurred during a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation and administrative proceeding.

In opposition to Murrell’s motion for summary judgment, Schoemann contended that he first discovered the alleged misrepresentation on February 7, 2008, when he read the SEC’s complaint against Murrell, and that his complaint, filed on January 29, 2009, was therefore timely filed.

The district court held that the prescriptive period commenced in 2007, when Schoemann first sustained the damages that he claims (attorneys’ fees). The district court concluded that Schoemann knew, or could with reasonable diligence have learned, about the alleged misrepresentation more than one year before he filed his complaint. As the district court noted, on August 16, 2007, in a document filed with the SEC, Schoemann argued that the stock he purchased from Murrell, and later sold, was freely tradable because Murrell was not affiliated with the company and Murrell’s son independently ran the company. The district court concluded that it was thus evident that Schoemann knew, as of August 2007, that the SEC questioned Murrell’s representations regarding his relationship to the company.

Based on our review of the record and briefs, we hold that the district court did not err by concluding that Schoemann knew or should have known about his cause of action in 2007, and that his claims were prescribed by the time he filed suit against Murrell in 2009. Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of Murrell is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit
(10)(tt)
 EXECUTION VERSION
  
 First Amendment to Reimbursement Agreement
  Reimbursement Agreement Company Bank
  Amendments
 
 Expiration Date
  Schedule 1
 Confirmation
 Effectiveness
 Reference in Other Documents




---



##### 



EXECUTION VERSION
 Miscellaneous
 Counterparts
 Governing
Law




---



##### 



THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIABy:
    
    /s/ Thane RattewName:
    
    Thane RattewTitle:
    
    Managing Director
 Signature Page to
Consumers First Amendment
 S-1




---



##### 



CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANYBy:
    
    /s/ Laura L. MountcastleName:
    
    Laura L. MountcastleTitle:
    
    Vice President and Treasurer
 Signature Page to
Consumers First Amendment
 S-2




---



##### 



Table 1: Applicable until November 30, 2008:
 Commitment Fee
    
    LC Commission FeeSpecified Rating
    
    Rate (per annum)
    
    Rate (per annum)Level 1
    
    A-/A-/A3
    
    6.0 bps
    
    25.0 bpsLevel 2
    
    BBB+/BBB+/Baal
    
    7.0 bps
    
    30.0 bpsLevel 3
    
    BBB/BBB/Baa2
    
    9.0 bps
    
    37.5 bpsLevel 4
    
    BBB-/BBB-/Baa3
    
    12.5 bps
    
    55.0 bpsLevel 5
    
    BB+/BB+/Bal
    
    17.5 bps
    
    82.5 bpsLevel 6
    
    <BB/BB/Ba2
    
    22.5 bps
    
    122.5 bps
 Table 2: Applicable thereafter:
 Commitment Fee
    
    LC Commission FeeSpecified Rating
    
    Rate (per annum)
    
    Rate (per annum)Level 1
    
    A-/A-/A3
    
    21.0 bps
    
    103.0 bpsLevel 2
    
    BBB+/BBB+/Baal
    
    29.0 bps
    
    115.0 bpsLevel 3
    
    BBB/BBB/Baa2
    
    32.0 bps
    
    130.0 bpsLevel 4
    
    BBB-/BBB-/Baa3
    
    39.0 bps
    
    157.5 bpsLevel 5
    
    <BB+/BB+/Bal
    
    50.0 bps
    
    200.0 bps
      Schedule 1 to
First Amendment to
Reimbursement Agreement
 Schedule 1 - 1
HOLLYER BRADY BARRETT & HINES LLP
                                551 Fifth Avenue
                               New York, NY 10176

                               Tel: (212) 818-1110
                               FAX: (212) 818-0494




                                 April 29, 2005






To the Trustees of The Churchill Tax-Free Fund of Kentucky

     We consent to the incorporation by reference into post-effective amendment
No. 26 under the 1933 Act and No. 27 under the 1940 Act of our opinion dated
April 28, 1998.


                                         Hollyer Brady Barrett & Hines LLP



                                             /s/William L.D. Barrett
                                         by------------------------------
                                                 Partner
Exhibit
      32.2














CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AND
      EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)





In
      connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Express Scripts,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2006, I, Edward Stiften,
      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      to
      the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) 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.











BY: /s/
      Edward
      Stiften


Edward
      Stiften


Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Express
      Scripts, Inc.





Date: 
      October 24, 2006
EXHIBIT 11
                                ----------

            COMMERCE GROUP CORP. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

              SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE


                                              Years Ended March 31
                                       1999          1998        1997
                                   ____________  ___________  ___________
BASIC
-----

Net income for primary income per
 common share                      $   (90,266)  $   118,603  $   (5,141)
                                   ===========   ===========  ==========

Weighted average number of common
 shares outstanding during the
 year - basic                       11,165,127    10,358,132   8,136,286
                                   ===========   ===========  ==========

Income (loss) per common
 share - basic                     $    (.0081)  $     .0115  $   (.0006)
                                   ===========   ===========  ==========

DILUTED
_______

Net income for basic and diluted
 income per common share           $   (90,266)  $   118,603  $   (5,141)
                                   ===========   ===========  ==========


Weighted average number of common
 shares used in calculating
  income per common share           11,165,127    10,358,132   8,136,286

Add incremental shares representing:
  Shares issuable upon exercise of
  stock options                        977,400     1,327,400   1,591,360

Shares issuable upon payment of
 stock loans interest and other         45,606        98,000           0

Stock rights                           625,235             0           0
                                   ___________   ___________  __________

Weighted average number of shares
 used in calculation of fully
 diluted income per share           12,813,368    11,783,532   9,727,646
                                   ===========   ===========  ==========

Fully diluted income (loss) per
 common share                      $    (.0070)  $     .0100  $   (.0005)
                                   ===========   ===========  ==========