Xxxxx Corp. ATTN: XXX XXXXX ------------------------------------------------------------ Contact Person For District 0000 XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX, XXXXX 000 XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX, XX 00000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Business Address (000) 000-0000 ------------------------------------------------------------ Telephone Number Prepare and deliver a Certificate of Election to those candidates receiving the highest number of votes. Deposit one copy with the Clerk and Recorder of each county in which the special district is located. Send one copy to: Division of Local Government 0000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Room 521 Denver, CO 80203 JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION RETURNS 1-7-601, C.R.S. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED by the undersigned, who conducted the election held in the XXXXXX RIDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1, (by mail ballot), in the county of Xxxxxxx, and state of Colorado, on the 7th day of November, in the year 1995, that after qualifying by swearing and subscribing to their Oaths of Office they opened the polls at 7:00 A.M., and that they kept the polls open continuously until the hour of 7:00 P.M. on said date, after which they counted the ballots cast for directors of said District and for any ballot issues and ballot questions submitted. THAT THE VOTES CAST FOR AND AGAINST EACH BALLOT ISSUE AND BALLOT QUESTION SUBMITTED WERE AS FOLLOWS: YES NO Question A 2 two 0 zero ------------------- ------------------- YES NO Question B 2 two 0 zero ------------------- ------------------- YES NO Question C 2 two 0 zero ------------------- ------------------- YES NO Question D 2 two 0 zero ------------------- ------------------- YES NO Question E 2 two 0 zero ------------------- ------------------- JUDGE'S CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION RETURNS CONTINUED 1-7-601, C.R.S. It is hereby identified and specified that: Numeric
Xxxxx Corp. 753 F.3d 718, 721 (7th Cir. 2014) (criticizing binding of single class despite adversity of subclasses, provision allowing reduction in attorney’s fee award to revert back to defendant, and failure to quantify benefits to class members, among other problematic features). Nothing in the history of this litigation or in the terms of the settlement suggests that the agreement was the product of collusion.
Xxxxx Corp. (DE 1:00-cv-00478 filed 05/12/2000). Antitrust litigation concerning management of the plaintiffs’ hotel. The plaintiffs alleged that the de- fendant received undisclosed kickbacks from vendors. The parties settled and submitted a con- sent order of dismissal to the court incorporating by reference the settlement agreement. The court sealed the settlement agreement, granted the con- sent order of dismissal, and closed the case, re- taining jurisdiction to enforce the terms and pro- visions of the settlement agreement.
Xxxxx Corp and Pella Windows and Doors, Inc., Case No. 06 C 4481.
Xxxxx Corp. 211 Ill. 2d 18, 22 (2004) (a plaintiff’s lack of standing negates his cause of action and requires dismissal of the proceedings). Deutsche Bank could not cure this defect by “joining” the suit as a proper party at a later date.
Xxxxx Corp. Mt. Xxxxxx Corporation Xxxxxxx Trading Corp. BRL Hardy Investments (USA) Inc. BRL Hardy (USA) Inc. Pacific Wine Partners LLC. Nobilo Holdings, and Constellation Trading Company, Inc. as Guarantors AND BNY MIDWEST TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee ------------------- INDENTURE Dated as of __________________ __, 2004 ------------------- ================================================================================ CONSTELLATION BRANDS, INC. Reconciliation and Tie between Indenture and Trust Indenture Act of 1939
Xxxxx Corp and Sky Box International Inc., each a wholly owned Subsidiary of the Borrower.
Xxxxx Corp and Mt. Xxxxxx Corporation, each a California corporation, Canandaigua Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales, and Canandaigua B.V., a corporation organized under the laws of The Netherlands (collectively, the "Guarantors") and Chase Securities Inc., Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx ---------- Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. (the "Initial Purchasers") ------------------ This Agreement is entered into in connection with the Purchase Agreement, dated as of February 15, 2001 (the "Purchase Agreement"), by and ------------------ among the Company, the Guarantors and the Initial Purchasers, which provides for the sale by the Company to the Initial Purchasers of an aggregate of $200,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Company's 8% Senior Notes due 2008 (the "Notes"). The Notes are being issued pursuant to the Indenture, dated ----- as of February 21, 2001, (the "Indenture"), among the Company, Guarantors and --------- The Bank of New York, as trustee (the "Trustee"). The Notes are guaranteed ------- (the "Guarantees") by the Guarantors. The Notes and the Guarantees are ---------- collectively referred to herein as the "Securities". ---------- In order to induce the Initial Purchasers to enter into the Purchase Agreement, the Company and the Guarantors have agreed to provide the registration rights set forth in this Agreement for the benefit of the Initial Purchasers and any subsequent holder or holders of the Securities. The execution and delivery of this Agreement is a condition to the Initial Purchasers' obligation to purchase the Securities under the Purchase Agreement. The parties hereby agree as follows:
Xxxxx Corp. S TRADEMARKS. Buyer and Seller hereby acknowledge, and Xxxxx X. Xxxxx Corp., by and through its Trustee, Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx, hereby agrees to sell, assign, transfer and set over, all of its right, title and interest in those trademarks set forth on Schedule 1.1.
Xxxxx Corp. 215 F.3d 219 (2nd Ct. of Appeals, 2000). Facts: Bayway Refining and Oxygenated Marketing and Trading A.G. (OMT) were both in the business of buying and selling petroleum products. Xxxxxx agreed to sell OMT 60,000 barrels of gasoline, and OMT faxed a confirmation letter stating that it represented the full understanding of the parties. The next day, Bayway faxed its own confirmation letter, which stated that the document canceled and superceded any other correspondence. Bayway’s fax incorporated by reference Xxxxxx’s own “General Terms and Conditions.” Those general terms were not sent with the fax, but were available for OMT to examine if it wished. One of those terms stated that the buyer would be responsible for any federal taxes. OMT, which never objected to the “general terms,” received the gasoline but refused to reimburse Bayway for the federal taxes, which amounted to $464,035. Bayway sued. XXX claimed that the tax clause materially altered the contract and, under section 2-207, never became part of the agreement. The District Court gave summary judgment for Bayway, and OMT appealed Issue: Was the tax clause a material alteration of the contract? Holding: Affirmed. The tax clause was not a material alteration, and therefore its terms were included in the contract. OMT, the buyer, was obligated to pay the federal taxes. The party claiming “material alteration” has the burden of proof. A material alteration is one that would result in surprise or hardship if incorporated without express awareness by the other party. Surprise has both the subjective element of what a party actually knew and the objective element of what a party should have known. It is not enough merely to claim surprise. Conclusory statements are insufficient. Here, OMT could show no objective evidence that a reasonable merchant would be surprised by the tax clause. Instead, Bayway demonstrated that it was normal trade custom for the buyer to pay the taxes. Further, OMT cannot demonstrate hardship. Mere loss of revenue is not hardship. Without objective evidence of surprise or hardship, OMT must lose. Affirmed for Bayway.
