RELEVANT FACTS. Landlord plans to construct an office building (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Building) on its real property. Tenant desires to lease a portion of the Building from Landlord and Landlord desires to lease such premises to Tenant.
RELEVANT FACTS. The property in dispute includes two parcels of land in Lāʻie, Oʻahu; the first is referred to as Parcel 33 and the second is referenced by the parties as a piece of Kuleana land (collectively Property). Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (Xxxxxxx) and Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (Peni) (collectively, the Teisinas) acquired their interest in Parcel 33, on July 24, 1991, by quitclaim deed from Xxxxx X. Xxx for $25,000.1 The deed indicated that it conveyed “title, equity & [i]nterest to all 10,000 [s]quare ft.” within Parcel 33 (10,000-square-foot parcel). The quitclaim deed was recorded on March 17, 1997. According to a certificate of title submitted by Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxx as Trustee under the Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxx Trust (Xxxxxxx), the Teisinas’ interest can be traced to Xxxxxxxx X. Lua, who received an undivided ½ interest in Xxxxxx 33 from his brother and shared his undivided ½ interest with Xxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxxxx. In 1991, the Teisinas erected a house (a single-story structure consisting of three bedrooms, 1½ baths, and a living room) on the 10,000-square-foot parcel, where they raised their children and lived continuously until the partition sale of the Property in 2012. During the period in which they lived at their home, the Teisinas expanded the house into a 5,840-square- foot, two-story structure, consisting of eight bedrooms and 5½ 1 The $25,000 amount is stated in a declaration submitted by Xxxx. Attached to the declaration were copies of checks totaling approximately $11,000 issued by Xxxx to Xxxxx X. Xxx from August 1991 to October 1992. Xxxxx X. Xxx averred in his affidavit, attached by Xxxx to his declaration opposing Xxxxxxx’x summary judgment motion, that he “obtained money for the sale of [the property] from [the] Teisina[s],” although he did not state the specific amount that he received. bathrooms, with plumbing, electric connection, and running water, so as to accommodate their children, including ten adopted children. In 2010, the house was valued at $393,200. In March 1997, Xxxx conveyed 0.023 acres of his interest in the 10,000-square-foot parcel to Etuate and Xxxxxxx Xx (collectively, the Fas) as tenants by the entirety by quitclaim deed. Also by quitclaim deed, recorded in April 1997, Xxxx conveyed 0.012 acres of his interest in Parcel 33 to Xxxx X.X. Xxxxxx (Xxxxxx).
RELEVANT FACTS. Except as described below, Eagle will not engage in any activities other than its ownership of all of the stock of the Subsidiaries. The Subsidiaries will own and operate a fleet of vessels which will transport dry bulk commodities along worldwide shipping routes. Each of the Subsidiaries has elected to be disregarded as an entity separate from Eagle for United States federal income tax purposes. Therefore, Eagle is the only entity in the Eagle Group which will file a United States federal income tax return. Prior to and after the Offering, the Shares of Eagle will be publicly traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. A separate Subsidiary will own and operate each of the 16 Handymax dry bulk carriers. For purposes of this opinion, all of the carriers currently operated, and that are expected to be operated in the future, by the Subsidiaries are collectively referred to herein as the “Vessels.” After the Offering, the Vessels will be chartered (or continue to be chartered) under time charters1 or under voyage charters2 to unrelated third parties (the “Charterers”).
1 A time charter is a contract for the use of space in a vessel for a fixed period of time. Under such a charter, the owner of the vessel remains in control over the navigation and management of the vessel, paying and being responsible for the crew, supplies, repairs and maintenance, provisions, insurance, fees, etc. The time charterer is in control of where the vessel is to go, the cargo to be transported on the vessel, and is subject to charges for fuel, port charges, commissions and expenses connected with the cargo. Under a time charter, Subsidiaries will typically receive a basic hire rate determined on a per day basis, which will be payable monthly in advance and, in the case of a long-term charter, will increase annually. Under a voyage charter, the Subsidiaries will typically receive a basic hire rate determined on a per voyage basis, which will be payable in advance (the time and voyage charter fees, collective, the “Charter Fees”). As of the date of this opinion, none of the Vessels are subject to bareboat charters.3 Eagle currently charters the Vessels in the period charter market. The period charter market consists of time charters which last for a long period of time, often up to several years. After the Offering, Eagle intends to deploy all of its vessels under period charters lasting for periods of one year to three years.4 V.Ships (“VS”), a company unaffiliated with Eagle, curre...
RELEVANT FACTS. I understand that as CBA assists with preparing my case, CBA can only counsel me based on the information that I provide to the attorney. The CBA attorney will not do an independent investigation into the facts of my case. I am solely responsible for providing the CBA attorney all the relevant facts.
RELEVANT FACTS. I understand that as FLAP assists with my Scheduled Hearing, the FLAP attorney can only counsel me based on the information that I provide to the attorney. The FLAP attorney will not do an independent investigation into the facts of my case. I am solely responsible for providing the FLAP attorney all of the relevant facts.
RELEVANT FACTS. In rendering this opinion, we have considered the following relevant facts, based upon the representations of CWE and Pulaski Financial as set forth in the Agreement:
(a) CWE is a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Missouri, and is registered with the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”) as a savings and loan holding company. CWE has all requisite corporate power and authority to own, lease and operate its properties and to conduct the business currently being conducted by it. CWE Bancorp, Inc. January 23, 2006
(b) CWE has one subsidiary, Central West End Bank, A Federal Savings Bank (the “Bank”). The Bank is not incorporated in any state, but rather exists by virtue of a Charter issued by OTS. The Bank has all requisite corporate power and authority to own, lease and operate its properties and to conduct the business currently being conducted by it.
(c) CWE has authorized capital stock of 3,000,000 shares of Common Stock, of which 881,516 shares are issued and outstanding.
(d) CWE has all requisite corporate power and authority to enter into the Agreement, to perform its obligations thereunder and to consummate the transactions contemplated by the Agreement. The execution and delivery of the Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on the part of CWE’s board of directors, and no other corporate proceedings on the part of CWE are necessary to authorize the Agreement or to consummate the transaction contemplated by the Agreement other than the approval and adoption of the Agreement by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding shares of CWE Common Stock.
(e) Pulaski Financial is a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Missouri and is registered with the OTS as a savings and loan holding company. Acquisition is a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Missouri. Pulaski Financial has all requisite corporate power and authority to own, lease and operate its properties and to conduct the business currently being conducted by it.
(f) Pulaski Financial’s capital consists of 18,000,000 shares of Common Stock and 1,000,000 shares of preferred stock. As of September 30, 2005, 8,439,163 shares of Pulaski Financial Common Stock were issued and outstandin...
RELEVANT FACTS. Na základe rozsudku č. k. 22Cb/63/2019- 648, zo dňa 20.12.2021, vydaným Okresným súdom Trenčín (Príloha č. 1) má Veriteľ voči Dlžníkovi ku dňu uzatvorenia tejto Dohody peňažné pohľadávky v nasledovnej špecifikácii: i. istina vo výške 5.218.440,531 EUR (slovom: päť miliónov dvestoosemnásťtisícštyristoštyridsať eur päťdesiattri eurocentov); ii. príslušenstvo tvorené úrokmi z omeškania nasledovne: a. úroky z omeškania z nezaplatenej istiny pohľadávok podľa bodu (i) ods. 2.1 odo dňa nasledujúceho po splatnosti jednotlivých pohľadávok do 30.5.2022, kapitalizované vo výške 2.936.344,16 EUR; b. úrokmi z omeškania z nezaplatenej istiny pohľadávok podľa bodu (i) ods. 2.1, odo dňa 31.5.2022 do jej zaplatenia (x.x. xxxx z omeškania naďalej nabieha); c. úrokmi z omeškania k pohľadávkam, ktorých istina vo výške 55.203,86 EUR bola Dlžníkom uhradená pred podaním žaloby na súd, a vo vzťahu ku ktorej boli Veriteľovi rozsudkom č. k. 22Cb/63/2019-648 zo dňa 20.12.2021, vydaným Okresným súdom Trenčín, právoplatne priznané úroky z omeškania, kapitalizované spolu vo výške 13.536,16 EUR; 2.1 On the basis of the judgement file No. 22Cb/63/2019-648, dated 20.12.2021, issued by the District Court Trenčín (Annex No. 1) the Creditor possesses monetary receivables towards the Debtor as of the date of conclusion of this Agreement in the following specification: i. principal in the total amount of EUR 5.218.440,531 (in words: five million two hundred eighteen thousand four hundred forty euros and fifty-three eurocents); ii. accessories made up of interest on late payment as follows: a. late payment interest from unpaid principal of receivables under point (i) of par. 2.1, since the day following the maturity of these receivables until 30.5.2022, capitalized, in the sum of EUR 2.936.344,16; b. late payment interest from unpaid principal of receivables under point (i) of par. 2.1, since 31.5.2022 until its payment (i.e. the interest is still accruing); c. interest on late payment of receivables, the from the principal of EUR 55.203,86, which was paid before submission of lawsuit to the court and in respect of which the late payment interes was finally adjudicated to the Creditor by the judgement file No. 22Cb/63/2019- 648 , dated , issued by the District Court Trenčín, capitalized in the amount of 13.536,16 EUR; 1 V rozsudku chybne uvedených 5.218.440,53 EUR./ The judgment erroneously stated EUR 5,218,440.53.
RELEVANT FACTS. The Plan issued the enrollee in this matter a PPO product with an infertility rider that is detailed in the Evidence of Coverage (EOC) stating in relevant part: “The Member is entitled to Benefits under this Infertility Benefit. Covered Services for Infertility include all professional, Hospital . . . and ancillary services and injectable drugs administered or prescribed . . . to a Member . . . to diagnose and treat the cause of Infertility [¶] . . . [¶] Benefits are provided for a Member who has a current diagnosis of Infertility for a medically appropriate diagnostic work-up ” (EOC at p. 138.) The enrollee’s participating provider prescribed a hospital based diagnostic procedure for conditions that could cause infertility and scheduled the procedure for January 16, 2019. When she called the Plan on January 15, 2019, the customer service representative she spoke to confirmed that her policy had an infertility rider and the procedure would be covered “under your infertility benefit.” Enforcement Matter Number.:19-909 Document Number.: 375132
RELEVANT FACTS. The following salient facts are not materially in dispute, unless noted otherwise. They are presented in chronological order where practicable. Xxxxxxxx was appointed to the Department as a Police Officer on November 17, 2008. In late 2009 or early 2010, while at work Xxxxxxxx met PPD Police Officer X X , Xx. (“father”, “spouse”, “P/X X X , Xx.”, or “Boo”), who was appointed and retired . They married in , and separated in . Their divorce became final in . At all relevant times, they were separated, living in separate residences a few minutes driving time away from each other.
RELEVANT FACTS. Upon information and belief, in or about March of 2005, the plaintiff entered into a unsecured loan agreement with Big Bank One, and thereafter borrowed the amount of $5,000 under such agreement.
