Document:

FULLER, TUBB, POMEROY & STOKES
                           A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
                                ATTORNEYS AT LAW
                      201 ROBERT S. KERR AVENUE, SUITE 1000
                             OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102

G. M. FULLER (1920-1999)                                 TELEPHONE 405-235-2575
JERRY TUBB                                               FACSIMILE 405-232-8384
DAVID POMEROY
TERRY STOKES

     -----

OF COUNSEL:
MICHAEL A. BICKFORD
THOMAS J. KENAN
ROLAND TAGUE
BRADLEY D. AVEY

                                 April 24, 2002

Ms. Suzanne Peterson
424 NW 21 Street
Oklahoma City, OK   73103

Dear Ms. Peterson:

               Re:  SuperCorp Inc. and Engineering and Materials Technology
                    Corporation merger-spinoff

         I earlier advised you of a proposed merger-spinoff transaction pursuant
to an agreement that SuperCorp has entered into with Engineering & Materials
Technology Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation that provides an array of
engineering and consulting services related to equipment failure analysis,
accident investigation, and quality-control assurance testing and monitoring.

         We shall soon be filing the necessary registration statements with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

         There is a requirement that I must address at this time. It concerns
the possibility - which is not the probability - that the interest owners of
Engineering and Materials Technology Corporation should vote to disapprove the
                                                                ----------
merger-spinoff proposal.

         I enclose several pages of the present draft of the registration
statements being prepared for filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. You will see a section entitled "Consequences Should the Merger Not
Occur." Described in this section is a rather complex arrangement which is
required by Rule 419 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such rule
relates to companies known as "blank check companies." While the company created
by SuperCorp (referred to in the enclosed draft as "the Company") is not a
classic "blank check company" as envisioned by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, I do believe that the

<PAGE>

Suzanne Peterson                      2                          April 24, 2002

Company, prior to the merger, falls under the requirements of Rule 419.
Accordingly, it will be necessary to comply with such rule, and the rule
requires that if the Company does not acquire a business or assets that would
constitute a business within eighteen months after the registration statement
becomes effective, the shares of stock of the Company are not to be let loose
into the public market. I believe that a satisfactory way of complying with the
rule is to have the holders of the majority of the Company's common stock agree
at this time that they will vote to dissolve the Company (remember: the Company
is not SuperCorp but a company created by SuperCorp) if no merger or business
acquisition occurs within eighteen months after the effective date of the
registration statement.

         I believe that the enclosed materials explain this matter. A letter
identical to this letter is being sent to persons whose shareholdings of
SuperCorp aggregate more than 50 percent of its outstanding shares and who will
receive more than 50 percent of the shares of the Company whose shares are being
spun off.

         I ask that you and each of such persons execute where indicated below a
copy of this letter and return it to me, indicating thereby that, should the
proposed merger between Engineering and Materials Technology Corporation and
EMTC International, Inc. not be effected, and should EMTC International, Inc.
not acquire a business or assets that would constitute a business within
eighteen months after the effective date of the registration statement to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, you will vote to cause a
dissolution of EMTC International, Inc. or comply with any similar alternative
requirement that might be proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission to
effect compliance with its Rule 419.

         I appreciate your cooperation. Should you not agree to the matters set
forth herein, it is likely that the transaction with Engineering and Materials
Technology Corporation will have to be abandoned.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   /s/ Thomas J. Kenan

                                   Thomas J. Kenan

Enclosures

         The undersigned agrees to the matters set forth in the above letter.

-----------------------------------
Suzanne Peterson<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 4(g)

    STATE OF DELAWARE
    SECRETARY OF STATE
 DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
 FILED 03:30 PM 09/03/1998
    981345503 - 0772570

                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                     OF

                        CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                        ----------------------------

          K-V PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing
     under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
     Delaware (the "Corporation"),

          DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

          FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the
     Corporation resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed
     amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation,
     declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling for a vote on the
     amendment at the annual meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation.
     The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

          RESOLVED, that the first paragraph of Article 4 of the
     Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation be amended in its entirety
     to read as follows:

          4. The aggregate number, class and par value of shares which the
     Corporation shall have authority to issue shall be Two Hundred and
     Thirty Million (230,000,000), which shall be divided among the
     following classes:

                                        Par Value                  Number
     Class of Stock                     Per Share                of Shares
     --------------                     ---------                ---------

     Preferred Stock                      $ .01                    5,000,000

     Class A Common Stock                 $ .01                  150,000,000

     Class B Common Stock                 $ .01                   75,000,000
                                                                 -----------
          Total                                                  230,000,000

<PAGE>
<PAGE>

          SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of
     Directors, the annual meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation
     was duly called and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of
     the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting
     the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in
     favor of the amendment.

          THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
     provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
     of Delaware.

          FOURTH: That the capital of the Corporation shall not be reduced
     under or by reason of said amendment.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said K-V Pharmaceutical Company caused this
     Certificate of Amendment to be signed by Marc S. Hermelin, its Vice
     Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and attested by Alan
     G. Johnson, its Secretary, this 31st day of August, 1998.
                                     ----

                                         K-V PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY

                                         By: /s/ Marc S. Hermelin
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Marc S. Hermelin, Vice Chairman
                                            of the Board and Chief Executive
                                            Officer

ATTEST:

/s/ Alan G. Johnson
---------------------------
Alan G. Johnson, Secretary<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 4(i)

AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON JULY 2, 1984
-------------------------------------------------

Amendment of Bylaws
-------------------

WHEREAS, the Bylaws of the Corporation provide for a board of directors of
five persons; and

WHEREAS, the terms for two directors expire in 1984; and

WHEREAS, the directors consider it in the best interest of the Corporation
to nominate only one candidate for election as a director at the 1984 annual
meeting of shareholders and, simultaneously with such meeting, to reduce the
total authorized number of directors from five to four:

RESOLVED, that Article III, Section I of the Bylaws be, and hereby is,
amended to read as follows in its entirety, effective August 6, 1984:

     Section 1. The number of directors which shall constitute the whole
     board shall be four (4). The directors shall be elected at the annual
     meeting of the shareholders, except as provided in Section 2 of this
     Article, and each director elected shall hold office until his
     successor is elected and qualified. Directors need not be shareholders.<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 4(j)

                            AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS
                    AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                              December 4, 1986

NOW, RESOLVED, that ARTICLE IX, entitled "INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS,
OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS," be and hereby is amended and restated in
its entirety as follows:

                                 ARTICLE IX

                  INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS,
                            EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS

     Section 1. (a) The corporation shall indemnify any person who was or is
     a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending
     or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal,
     administrative, or investigative (other than an action by or in the
     right of the corporation) by reason of the fact that he is or was a
     director, officer, employee, or agent of the corporation, or is or was
     serving at the request of the corporation as a director, officer,
     employee, or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture,
     trust, or other enterprise, against expenses (including attorneys'
     fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and
     reasonably incurred by him in connection with such action, suit, or
     proceeding if he acted in good faith and in a manner he reasonably
     believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the
     corporation, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding,
     had no reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful. The
     termination of any action, suit, or proceeding by judgment, order,
     settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nolo contendere or its
     equivalent, shall not, of itself, create a presumption that the person
     did not act in good faith and in a manner which he reasonably believed
     to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation, and,
     with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had reasonable cause
     to believe that his conduct was unlawful.

Source: [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00038-of-00352.parquet"}, [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00038-of-00352.parquet"}], [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00038-of-00352.parquet"}], [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00038-of-00352.parquet"}]]