Mediaboss Marketing

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement

On October 26, 2020, the Company entered into a Fifth Amendment to CreditAgreement (the "Fifth Amendment") which amends its existing Credit Agreement,dated as of February 2, 2017, as amended by the First Amendment thereto, datedas of September 18, 2019, the Second Amendment thereto, dated as of March 27,2020, the Third Amendment thereto, dated as of May 7, 2020 (the "ThirdAmendment"), and the Fourth Amendment thereto, dated as of May 18, 2020, withcertain direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company as guarantors, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent, and the lenders andother agents party thereto.

The Fifth Amendment extended the term of the agreement by one year to February2, 2023, reduced the revolving credit facility to $120.0 million, adjusted themonthly liquidity covenant, added a provision to allow for non-maintenancecapital expenditures based on quarterly EBITDA performance and added provisionsto the Credit Agreement to address the contemplated phase out of LIBOR. Aftergiving effect to the Fifth Amendment, the credit facility will continue toprovide for a $5.0 million subfacility of letters of credit and a $5.0 millionsubfacility for swingline loans. The Fifth Amendment did not change theConsolidated Leverage Ratio and Fixed Coverage Charge Ratio requirements. TheConsolidated Leverage Ratio and Fixed Coverage Charge Ratio requirements fromthe Third Amendment remain in effect through February 2, 2023.

The Fifth Amendment requires the Company and its subsidiaries to meet minimumaggregate cash holding requirements through March 2021 in an amount equal to thefollowing amount for each month set forth below:

The Fifth Amendment also removes the requirement that the Company use 50% of theaggregate net cash proceeds from equity issuances after May 7, 2020 in excess of$30.0 million to repay loans outstanding until the Company could demonstratecompliance with certain financial covenants.

The Fifth Amendment now allows for non-maintenance capital expenditures when theLeverage Ratio is 2.50 to 1.0 or greater with 75% of consolidated EBITDA earnedduring a fiscal quarter in excess of $7.5 million ("Excess EBITDA"). The Companyand its subsidiaries may make non-maintenance capital expenditures with ExcessEBITDA at any time after such Excess EBITDA is earned until the Leverage Ratiohas been reduced to less than 2.50 to 1.0. Prior to the Fifth Amendment, theCredit Agreement had prohibited all non-maintenance capital expenditures whenthe Leverage Ratio was 2.50 to 1.0 or greater. As was also the case before theFifth Amendment, the credit agreement provides that the Company and itssubsidiaries may make capital expenditures in any fiscal year in an amount equalto 75% of consolidated EBITDA for the immediately preceding fiscal year when theLeverage Ratio is equal to or greater than 1.50 to 1.0 but less than 2.50 to1.0. When the Leverage Ratio is less than 1.50 to 1.0, the Company and itssubsidiaries may make capital expenditures in an unlimited amount.

In connection with the closing of the Fifth Amendment, the Company repaid $20.2million in loans so that a total of $115.0 million (excluding $4.8 million inletters of credit) is currently outstanding under the credit facility. Thecurrent interest rate for borrowings under the revolving credit facility is3.75%.

Item 2.03. Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff- Balance Sheet Arrangement of a

Registrant

The discussion of the Fifth Amendment to Credit Agreement set forth underItem 1.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K is incorporated herein by referencein this Item 2.03.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read more from the original source:
RUTHS HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an...

SUNNYVALE, Calif., Oct. 26, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --Mike R. Galli is being recognized by Continental Who's Who as a Top Attorney for his outstanding contributions in the field of Law in acknowledgment for his commitment as Prosecutor Deputy District Attorney with the Office of the District San Jose California.

Having accrued 38 years of vast knowledge and professional experience in the field of criminal law, Attorney Galli has also garnered a well-deserving reputation for his contributions. To prepare for his career, he obtained his Doctor of Juris Prudence degree from Santa Clara University and is passionate about continuing education. He is devoted to educating attorneys and police officers on the practice of criminal law, especially search and seizure issues.

Since 1984, Mr. Galli has excelled as a deputy district attorney for the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney, where he currently reviews police reports from eight different police agencies, files felony and misdemeanor criminal charges, reviews non-narcotic misdemeanor citations to determine eligibility for a pre-filing diversion program, and answers legal questions regarding search and seizure issues from police officers and other deputy district attorneys throughout the State of California. Additionally, he serves as a unit member of the Criminal Complaint Unit at the District Attorney's Office and for the last 15 years as an instructor at the Peace Officer's Standards and Training (POST) Robert Presley Institute of Criminal Investigation.

Over the years, Mr. Galli has also worked within numerous units as a unit member and supervisor. He has been assigned to the misdemeanor DUI unit, juvenile unit, felony narcotics, asset forfeiture, economic crimes, preliminary examinations and motions, writs and appeals units. He has been the assistant supervisor of the narcotics unit twice, was the first supervisor of the narcotics asset forfeiture unit, and supervised the welfare fraud and restitution services units before his current assignment.

Throughout his extensive career, Mr. Galli is proud to have remained at the forefront of his field. He is the creator and sole author of the California District Attorney's (CDAA) Search Warrant Law and Practice Manual, now in its fifth edition, and has written it since 2009. He has also authored many articles and works on search and seizure law. These have included an article on the California Electronic Communication Privacy Act published by Police Technical in 2016, a 2014 book entitled Warrantless Searches, also published by Police Technical, a 2012 article for CDAA'S Firewall (High-Technology Crimes Newsletter) entitled People v. Diaz: Right Result, but Wrong Rationale, a 2009 article entitled Cell Phone Searches for CDAA'S Firewall, Chapter II, Search and Seizure, in CDAA'S High Technology Crimes Manual published in 2008, an article entitled Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment, for CDAA'S Firewall 2008, Search Warrant sections of the Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge's Duty Manual in 1994 and updated in 2007, Chapter IV, Search Warrants, in the first & second editions of CDAA's Hate Crime Monograph (1999 and 2006 editions), and an article on Drafting Narcotics Search Warrants, for CDAA'S Prosecutor's Brief in 1988. Mr. Galli has also served as the editor for the book High-Technology Crime, by Kenneth S. Rosenblatt (KSK Publications, 1995).

In recognition of his professional excellence, Mr. Galli was presented with a Commendation Letter from the San Jose Police Department (SJPD) Burglary Prevention Unit and a Commendation Letter from the SJPD Narcotics Unit in 1989, the Santa Clara County Employee of the Month Award in 1990, an SJPD Excellence Award in 1992 and the CDAA Author of the Year Award in 2009. More recently, he accepted the California Narcotics Officers Association (CNOA) Region One Prosecutor of the Year Award in 2016.

Contact: Katherine Green, 516-825-5634, [emailprotected]

SOURCE Continental Who's Who

http://www.continentalwhoswho.com

Read more from the original source:
Mike R. Galli is recognized by Continental Who's Who - PRNewswire

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has recently gained approval to start recording the aerial footage captured by its helicopters. The police say that being able to record video surveillance of protests will help increase operational readiness. The hardware to make this possible was donated to the LAPD by the Los Angeles Police Foundation a philanthropic organization that specializes in getting the LAPD access to gear that law enforcement are unable to spend taxpayer dollars on. Black Lives Matter Los Angeles co-founder Melina Abdullah told the LA Times:

This is the height of state repression and surveillance. Its criminalizing our right to protest.

Recent Black Lives Matter protests around the country have sparked aerial surveillance at a federal and state level in multiple cities. So much so, that several Congressional members sent a letter to the National Guard, the FBI, the DEA, and the CBP demanding an end to surveillance on protests. This was after it was revealed that the Department of Justice explicitly gave the DEA open writ to surveill protestors. All this highlights that aerial surveillance now has a second impact. The days of planes and helicopters flying over head and recording just video are long gone. In the LA area, local police departments have been using aircraft mounted Stingray devices since 2009 at least.

A Stingray is essentially a fake cell tower that can be used as a vector of attack on the phones that unwittingly connect to the Stingray instead of a real cell tower. Plane mounted Stingrays are also called Dirtboxes and can be used to surveill and even intercept cellular communications below the plane. The same way that video recordings of a protest could reveal video evidence that somebody was at a protest, the data siphoned up by the Dirtboxes includes unique identifiers from the phones in protestors pockets.

Mohammad Tajsar, a senior attorney with ACLU of Southern California commented to the LA Times:

Its bad enough that Angelenos in overpoliced neighborhoods have to deal with constant surveillance and harassment from the skies, but the LAPDs plans to keep that footage forever adds insult to injury.

Tajsar went as far to call this type of surveillance and longterm storage of surveillance information an intimidation tactic, to try to prevent people from exercising their right to free speech.

Hes right. The fact of the matter is, these protests and other domestic surveillance programs are mostly used against Americans that have a Fourth Amendment right that is violated by these planes and helicopters. What is also clear is this: Those that attend protests in LA, and other cities around the world, should properly obfuscate their biometrics and probably leave their phone at home.

See the original post:
Urban surveillance in The City of Angels: Watch out for the eyes in the sky - Privacy News Online

The US Supreme Court Monday granted petitions for writs of certiorari in three cases: Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, Lange v. California, and Trump v. Sierra Club. The certiorari order came after the Courts October 16 conference to vote on new petitions and discuss previous oral arguments.

Two of the newly-accepted cases involve the Trump administrations efforts to halt immigration along the US-Mexico border. In Trump v. Sierra Club, the Court will tackle the long-awaited issue of funding for the promised border wall. Specifically, the Court will examine two separate issues surrounding the legality of the secretary of defenses $2.5 billion transfer to fund the border-wall in 2019. Although this money was initially allocated as military-personnel funds, it was redirected through an internal transfer.

The second case invokes both federal immigration law and international law in its dispute over the Trump administrations so-called Migrant Protection Protocols, often referred to as the remain in Mexico policy. Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab, which originated early in 2019, will force the Court to confront whether the proposed efficacy of the policy is justified given the dangers asylum-seekers face when they are forced to return.

The final case taken Monday, Lange v. California, deals with the Fourth Amendment issue of whether a police officer can enter a persons home without a search warrant under specific circumstances. While officers are not required to obtain search warrants in emergency situations, this case seeks to expand the exception to situations where a suspect is believed to have committed a misdemeanor.

The three cases are not yet set for argument, but they are expected to be scheduled in February 2021.

Read more:
Supreme Court to hear immigration and Fourth Amendment cases - JURIST

The long waited Fourth Amendment of the Chinese Patent Law was eventually passed into law by the Standing Committee of the People's Congress on October 17, 2020. The newly amended Patent Law will take effect as of June 1, 2021.

The main points of the amendment are as follows:

1. Strengthening patent protection

In the recent years, there has been a clear trend towards stronger protection in the Chinese practice of the patent enforcement. That trend is evidently reflected in the amendment. There are quite a few changes concerning strengthening patent protection, which include:

1) The term (protection period) for design patent is extended from 10 years in the current law to 15 years. This is believed to make China ready to join The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs.

2) Patent term compensation is available where the patent grant occurs beyond 4 (four) years from the filing date and beyond 3 (three) years from the date of requesting substantive examination, with the exception of any unreasonable delay caused by the applicant's side. This provision is considered as echoing the voice of domestic patent filers for quicker grant of patent rights.

3) So as to make up the time period taken by the regulatory process of a new drug, patent term compensation of up to 5 (five) years is available for a patent concerning the new drug for which marketing authorization has been obtained, provided that the total protection period after the approval of marketing for the new drug is no longer than 14 (fourteen) years. This is the very first time for the Chinese law to make patent term extension available for pharmaceutical patents.

4) The Patent Office (China National Intellectual Property Administration, CNIPA) is empowered to handle patent infringement disputes which are influential country-wide, at the request of an involved party or an interested party. It is noted as the first time for the law to entrust the Patent Office to handle disputes over patent infringement, which handling is supposed to be more speedy and efficient as compared to the judicial track of patent infringement.

5) The acts of willful, serious infringement of a patent right are subject to punitive damages of up to 5 times of regular damages. This provision has been attracting attention of the public ever since it was initially proposed. In fact, 3 (instead of 5) times of regular damages was put forward when the amendment was initially drafted. Notably, the punitive damages provided in the law (5 times of regular damages) are even harsher than in the US practice. Doubtlessly, the amendment makes it possible for patentees to collect relatively high damages when facing willful, severe infringement. However, it is yet to be tested in the future court practice how the legal provisions are applied.

6) The upper limit of the "statutory damages" (meaning the damages awarded at the handling court's discretion) is lifted to amounting 5 million RMB (equivalent to about USD 745,000) from 1 million RMB, which is currently applied. This is obviously another embodiment of the idea of strengthening patent protection.

7) Limitation of actions for patent infringement actions is extended to 3 (three) years from 2 years, which is currently applied. Also, the starting point of the limitation of actions is now the date on which the patentee or an interested party obtains knowledge of the act of infringement and of the identity of the infringer(s). This change makes it possible to avail patentees assertion of legal rights more practically.

2. Introduction of patent linkage system for pharmaceutical patents

There are new provisions in the amendment that are believed to set forth the framework of Chinas patent linkage system for pharmaceutical patents. Again, this is the very first time for the Chinese law to adopt such a system.

1) In the case where, in the regulatory process for drug evaluation and approval, any dispute arises between the applicant for drug marketing authorization and concerned patentee or an interested party over a patent right related to the drug for which regulatory registration is applied for, an involved party may institute legal proceedings in the people's court for requesting a verdict on whether the technical solution related to the drug, for which regulatory registration is applied for, falls with the protection scope of a pharmaceutical patent right owned by a third party. The regulatory authority (National Medical Products Administration, NMPA) may, within prescribed time limit, make a decision on whether to suspend the approval of marketing of the concerned drug in accordance with an effective ruling of the people's court.

2) The applicant for drug marketing authorization and concerned patentee or an interested party may also request the Patent Office (China National Intellectual Property Administration, CNIPA) for an administrative ruling on the dispute over a patent right related to the drug for which regulatory registration is applied.

3) Detailed measures for matters relevant to patent linkage are to be enacted by the regulatory authority (NMPA) in collaboration with the Patent Office.

3. Patentability

1) "Partial design" (meaning a design of a part of a concrete product, but not of the entire product) becomes patentable, in contrast with the current law in which a design application must be for an entire product. This change makes the law more lenient to designers who intend to have the patent protection right on the gist of their designs.

2) The so-called "grace period" (meaning a six-month period during which certain scenarios of disclosure do not constitute novelty-destroying disclosure) is now applicable to the case where the disclosure is for the first time at a time of national emergency state or exceptional circumstances and for the purpose of public interest. This new provision is believed to have been prompted by the current coronavirus pandemic and is aimed at encouraging early publication of technologies needed for the handling of social crisis such as the pandemic.

3) Statutorily unpatentable subject matters now include processes for nuclear transformation in addition to substances obtained by means of such processes, which are already prohibited in the current law. This is merely a confirmation of the current practice.

4. Open license of patents

As part of the effort of to promote commercialization of patents, an open license mechanism is introduced in the amendment. A patentee may declare to the Patent Office that his patent is licensed to any entities at indicated royalties. Then any parties who are interested in the license may obtain it simply by notifying the patentee and paying the required royalties without any further negotiations with the patentee.

5. Domestic priority for designs

Domestic priority for design applications is newly introduced. An applicant for a design patent may claim priority from his earlier Chinese application on the same design within 6 months from the filing date of the latter. This is to give the same leniency to domestic design filers as foreigners, who can enjoy conventional priority.

More:
Main Points of the 4th Amendment of Chinese Patent Law - Lexology