alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex102.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2







ROYALTY AGREEMENT







Solar Park Initiatives, Inc. hereby agrees to compensate Solar Energy Initiatives, Inc. an amount equal to 10% of Adjusted Gross Profit (Adjusted Gross Profit to include, but not limited to, costs of School Teachers, Commissions for Selling Class-time, Depreciation and Course Materials) derived from the operation of education programs to the Seller for a period of 3 years, ending as of February 14, 2014.   Said Royalty Fee will be calculated quarterly beginning with the 3 month period ending May 30, 2011 and continuing for each subsequent three month period of time. Said Royalty Fee is payable ten (10) business days after the end of each quarter. This royalty fee is associated with the Rights of Use for licensing and non-compete as follows:







Rights Of Use:


Solar Park has the license and Rights of Use in the following states without competition from Solar Energy Initiatives, Inc:


-South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, New Mexico, Arizona & Tennessee







Solar Park will not open a school where Solar Energy Initiatives, Inc. already has one open and running, as of the Close Date.







If these rights or non-compete agreements are breached then the non-compete language is void.







Solar Energy Initiatives, Inc.












___________________________


David Fann, CEO







Solar Park Initiatives, Inc.












___________________________


David J. Surette, CEO
#### In re DBSD NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Debtor. Dish Network Corporation, Creditor-Appellant, v. DBSD North America, Incorporated, Debtor-Appellee, Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Noteholders, Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Creditors-Appellees. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Appellant, v. DBSD North America, Inc., Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Noteholders, Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Appellees.

Docket Nos. 10-1175, 10-1201, 10-1352.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued in tandem: Aug. 5, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 6, 2010.

Martin N. Flics, Lawrence Byrne, Paul S. Hessler, Linklaters LLP, New York, NY, for Dish Network Corporation.

Lee Ann Stevenson, Marc Jason Carmel, Yosef J. Riemer, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, for DBSD North America, Incorporated.

Andrew M. Leblanc, Risa M. Rosenberg, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Washington, DC, for Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Noteholders.

Theresa A. Foudy, Maryann Gallagher, Steven J. Reisman, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, New York, NY, for Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

Jennifer Taylor, Evan Jones, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Loan Syndications and Trading Association.

John Handy Culver, III, Eric Moser, Felton E. Parrish, K&L Gates LLP, Charlotte, NC, for Sprint Nextel Corporation.

Before: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART. The emergency stay is VACATED as moot, and the motion to lift that stay is DENIED as moot.

These consolidated appeals arise out of the bankruptcy of DBSD North America, Incorporated and its various subsidiaries. *497The bankruptcy court confirmed a plan of reorganization for DBSD over the objections of the two appellants here, Sprint Nextel Corporation (“Sprint”) and DISH Network Corporation (“DISH”). The district court affirmed.

On Sprint’s appeal, we conclude that (1) Sprint has standing to appeal, and (2) that the plan violated the absolute priority rule. On DISH’s appeal we find no error, and conclude (1) that the bankruptcy court did not err in designating DISH’s vote, (2) that, after designating DISH’s vote, the bankruptcy court properly disregarded DISH’s class for voting purposes, and (3) that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding the reorganization feasible. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

An opinion will follow in due course.

Judge POOLER dissents from this order insofar as it reverses the judgment of the district court on Sprint’s appeal.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, JohnEdmunds, the Chief Financial Officer of Trident Microsystems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), dohereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the period ended June 30, 2006, towhich this certification is attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.        Dated: August 6, 2007 /s/ John S. Edmunds   *John S. Edmunds*   Chief Financial Officer
Information
Communication R&D Business Contract

Total ICT Industry 4.0(Shipbuilding & Maritime) R&D


 


Project:
SMART Remote Maintenance System Software Development


Price:
3,600,000,000 Won


Period:
October 1st 2016 ~ December 31st 2019 (39 Months)


Payment
Terms


 


	First Year	 	₩	400,000,000	 
	Second Year	 	₩	1,000,000,000	 
	Third Year	 	₩	1,200,000,000	 
	Fourth Year	 	₩	1,000,000,000	 



 


Customer:
National IT Industry Promotion Agency


Project
Leader: Min Sik Park (e-MARINE CTO)


Participants


 


	 	●	e-MARINE
    Inc. (the leader)
	 	 	 
	 	●	GMT
    Co, Ltd.
	 	 	 
	 	●	Ulsan
    University
	 	 	 
	 	●	A-dic
    Inc. 
	 	 	 
	 	●	Medium-Small
    Shipbuilding Research Institution


 


National
IT Industry Promotion Agency (“The Customer”) and e-MARINE (“The Leader”) and four participants agree
to execute all matters for [Total ICT Industry 4.0(Shipbuilding & Maritime) R&D ]


 


September
29th 2016
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

STEVE E. EVANS, DC #C12118, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D18-751 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 18, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christopher C. Nash, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and James Dickson Crock, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE and SALARIO, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DIGITAL LIGHTWAVE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          36,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,726
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,281
<PP&E>                                           3,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                     630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,958
<SALES>                                          5,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,310
<CGS>                                            1,590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,922
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (539)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,337
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
UNAUDITED  CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S  SEPT 30,
2000,  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM  10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>         0001016069
<NAME>       Cyberbotanical, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                        16,260
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              16,260
<PP&E>                                        538,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                554,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         17,095
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      19,492
<OTHER-SE>                                    518,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  554,639
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              27,264
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 26,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               1090
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           1090
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  1090
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.00)


</TABLE>
#### A. B. DICK CO. v. WICKELMAN.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

December 31, 1896.)

Equity — Interlocutory Decree — Setting Aside.

A motion to set aside an interlocutory decree will be denied, if based only on grounds considered on tlie bearing.

D. H, Driscoll, for plaintiff.

Frederick A. Wickelman, pro se.

WHEELER, District Judge.

This cause has now been beard upon a motion by the defendant to set aside the interlocutory decree. The principal ground of the motion is the alleged wrongful use of Potts & Co. v. Greager, 155 U. S. 597, 15 Sup. Ct. 194, and 70 O. G. 494. Rut that case was noticed and considered by the court before, and, if any error arose in the use made of it, such error was an error of the court, and not a misuse of counsel. Nothing is made to appear now that was not shown before; no error is pointed out or perceived that should set aside the decree as the case is now here viewed; and if such error is still supposed to exist it can be corrected on appeal, if found. Motion denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET - UNAUDITED AND CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF
INCOME  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>        0000859360
<NAME>       LEGATO SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                                      29,832
<SECURITIES>                                                19,694
<RECEIVABLES>                                                5,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  (667)
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            47,181
<PP&E>                                                       3,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (2,117)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              58,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        8,285
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         2
<OTHER-SE>                                                  50,542
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                58,827
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            29,777
<CGS>                                                        3,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               22,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              8,560
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 2,729
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 5,831
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.39



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Karl F. Storrie, President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer) and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act oF 2002, 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 result of
              operations of the Company.



/s/ Karl F. Storrie
-------------------
Karl F. Storrie
President,
Chief Executive Officer and
Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
November 14, 2002
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### G. J. Hopkins, Inc. v. *C*& O Development Co.

September 27, 1978

Case No. (Law) L-77-1959

By JUDGE JOHN W. WINSTON

Hopkins seeks to recover from C & O Development the expenses incurred by witness Leslie C. Foster who in responding to a subpoena, traveled from Roanoke, Virginia, to Norfolk, Virginia, to attend trial here and thereafter returned to Roanoke when it concluded.

The expenses claimed by Hopkins include round trip air transportation between Roanoke and Norfolk (twice) and lodging and meals in Norfolk.

C & O Development, while not contesting the legitimacy of Foster’s listed expenses, says that it is obligated only for her round trip transportation cost and then only for her initial trip to and from Norfolk.

Hopkins necessarily relies upon the provisions of Virginia statutes to establish its claim. Such statutes include §§ 14.1-190, 14.1-5, and 14.1-5.2. The Court notes that § 19.2-329 also is involved. (Both §§ 14.1-190 and 19.2-329 were amended by the 1977 session of the Virginia legislature. See attached copies of 1977 Acts of Assembly, Chapter 483.)

Based upon a close reading of all of the applicable Virginia statutes, this Court is of the opinion that the taxable expenses of an in-state, non-expert witness attending a civil trial are limited to daily mileage (or the cost of public transportation if applicable), and toll expenses incurred en route. Compensation for *547other expenses en route and attendance at trial are authorized only for out-of-state witnesses.

The remaining point concerns Foster’s public transportation cost for her second trip to Norfolk. Without fault on her part, the trial was in recess from July 26 to August 1, 1978. She could not reasonably have been expected to remain in Norfolk for that period and indeed went back to Roanoke. She was still under subpoena and was not excused from its obligations. For these reasons, the second transportation expense is taxable.

No order taxing the two $92.00 items will be entered unless one of [counsel] requests that it be done.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                    LIFEQUEST MEDICAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            Year Ended December 31,
                                                                         ----------------------------
                                                                             1996             1997
                                                                         -----------      -----------
<S>                                                                        <C>              <C>
Computation of basic loss per share:
     Net loss                                                            $(1,958,476)     $(2,997,127)
                                                                         ===========      ===========

Weighted average shares of common stock
     outstanding used for computation                                      4,941,771        6,299,592
                                                                         ===========      ===========

Basic loss per share of common stock                                     $      (.40)     $      (.48)
                                                                         ===========      ===========


Computation of diluted loss per share:
     Net loss                                                            $(1,958,476)     $(2,997,127)
     Interest on convertible debentures                                           --            9,616
                                                                         -----------      -----------
         Net loss used for computation                                   $(1,958,476)     $(2,987,511)
                                                                         ===========      ===========

Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding                        4,941,771        6,299,592
Weighted average incremental shares outstanding upon assumed
     conversion of options and other dilutive securities                     290,155          455,862
Weighted average incremental shares outstanding upon assumed
     conversion of Convertible Debentures                                         --           26,712
                                                                         -----------      -----------

Weighted average shares of common stock and common stock
equivalents outstanding used for computation                               5,231,926        6,782,166
                                                                         ===========      ===========

Diluted loss per common share and common share equivalents (a)           $      (.37)     $      (.44)
                                                                         ===========      ===========
</TABLE>

     (a) This calculation is submitted in accordance with Item 601(b)(11) of
Regulation S-B although it is not required by SFAS No. 128 because it is
antidilutive
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1000

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              1,396
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       7,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    11,233
<PP&E>                                              6,299
<DEPRECIATION>                                      4,954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      19,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               7,491
<BONDS>                                             144
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                          11,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        19,857
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    19,304
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       14,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    5,876
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,350)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (526)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (823)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (823)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.15)



</TABLE>