Xxxxxxxxx vs. Lion Oil Company, et al. Cause No. XXX-0000-000, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx. This litigation has been pending for almost ten years. It involves a claim for environmental damage to real property from the crude oil operations that were conducted on the property. Lion’s sole involvement with the litigation is as the first purchaser of the crude oil production. The judge has denied Lion’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Xxxxxxxxx vs. Prolong International Corporation et al. Case Number SA03-928 CJC (ANX), filed June 4, 2003. Xx. Xxxxxxxxx has filed suit against, among others, Parent alleging copyright infringement, breach of contract, conversion, fraud and a shareholder derivative cause of action relating to ownership of the International Hot Rod Association logo and related matters. Parent believes there is no merit to Xx. Xxxxxxxxx’x claims, is vigorously defending against the claims and does not believe the outcome will have a material adverse effect on Parent’s financial position or results of operations. Schedule 5.8
Xxxxxxxxx vs. Xxxxxxxx Rule: When the property sold on execution is registered under Torrens, registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien on the land, and a purchaser on execution sale is not required to go behind the registry to determine the conditions of the property. Exception: Where the purchaser had knowledge, prior to or at the time of the levy, of such previous lien or encumbrance, his knowledge is equivalent to registration. CONDITION
Xxxxxxxxx vs. Cocoa PRC II, et al. Case No. CGC-18-567026 09615.6509615.7 1 HPSF Holdings VII, LLC 2 By: Duly Authorized Representative 3 Dated: July , 2020 4 5 6 Cocoa Residential Owners Association 7 By: Duly Authorized Representative Dated: July , 2020 9 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 10 11 XXXXXXXXX LAW GROUP Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 00 000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx 0 San Francisco, CA 94105 13 14 By: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff XXXXXXX X. XXXXXXXXX 16 and the Proposed Class 17 Dated: July 31, 2020 18 XXXXXX XXXXXX X’XXXXXXX 19 Xxxx X. Xxxxxx 000 Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, 00xx Floor 20 San Francisco, CA 94104 21 By 22 JMA Ventures, LLC By: Duly Authorized Repesentative Dated: July , 2020 XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX LLP Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxx X. Xxxxxx 000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, 00xx Xxxxx Xxx Xxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 By: Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxx X. Xxxxxx Attorneys for Defendants COCOA PRC II, HPSF HOLDINGS VII, COCOA RESIDENTIAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION Dated: June , 2020 Xxxx X. Xxxxxx 23 Attorneys for Defendant JMA VENTURES, LLC 24 Dated: August 11, 2020 25 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS
Xxxxxxxxx vs. Cocoa PRC II, et al. Case No. CGC-18-567026
Xxxxxxxxx vs. XXXXXXX X. XXXXXXXXX Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx (appellee) operates the Claparol’s Steel and Nail Plant in Talisay, Occidental Negros. Due to losses, Xxxxxxxxx was compelled to look for someone to finance his imports of raw material (nail wire). At first, Xxx Xx agreed to finance but eventually introduced Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (appellant) to Claparols recommending the former to be the latter’s financier. Xxxxxxxxx agreed and on the same date, a contract was perfected between them whereby Xxxxxxxxx undertook to finance and put up the funds required for the importation of the nail wire, which Claparols bound himself to convert into nails at his plant. Sometime in 1953, Xxxxxxxxx executed in favor of Xxxxxxxxx at the latter’s behest, a special power of attorney to open and negotiate letters of credit, to sign contracts, bills of lading, invoices and papers covering transactions, to represent appellee and the nail factory and the acceptance of payments and cash advances from dealers and distributors. Around mid-November 1956, Claparols learned from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) that Xxxxxxxxx wrote the bank trying to discredit him, causing the bank to issue an alias writ of execution. Behind Xxxxxxxx’s back, Xxxxxxxxx wrote the bank alleging that Xxxxxxxxx was not serious in meeting his financial obligations by selling the machines. Xxxxxxxxx was able to settle the matter with the bank but because of this, he revoked the SPA. Xxxxxxxxx denies the allegations and claims that the revocation of the SPA was illegal and that he was entitled to the share of the profits as well as moral damages. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx had the legal power to revoke the power of attorney?
