In Re Marty Berry and Axis Midstream Holdings, LLC v. the State of Texas

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00016-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/13/2025 11:16 AM No. 15-25-00016-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE IN RE MARTY BERRY AND AXIS MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS, LLC, Clerk Relators.

Original Proceeding from the Business Court 11A Cause No. 24-BC11A-0025 Hon. Sofia Adrogué, Presiding

RESPONSE TO RELATORS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF

TO THE HONORABLE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

INTRODUCTION

Over the past several months, Relator Marty Berry (“Marty”)1 has engaged in

a coordinated scheme to usurp control of a billion-dollar crude oil terminal project

from Real Party in Interest Albert Theodore Powers (“Ted”). Ted filed an

application for a temporary injunction seeking to halt these efforts and preserve the

status quo during litigation. After two days of hearings in late January, a temporary

injunction hearing is set to conclude on Friday. Appendix 48. Marty’s “emergency”

request for a stay is simply a blatant attempt to avoid any ruling on the application

1 Because several of the parties in this litigation share a last name, this Response refers to all parties using their first name to avoid any confusion.

2

for temporary injunction so he can continue his unlawful conduct undeterred—and

render Ted powerless to stop it.

The Court should not indulge this gamesmanship. Relators’ Emergency

Motion for Temporary Relief (the “Motion”) should be denied, for two reasons.

First, after a two-hour hearing, the trial court took Relators’ request for a stay

under advisement, deciding to conduct the temporary injunction hearing first before

it ruled on the request for a stay. Exhibit 1.2 This Court should permit the trial court

to move forward as planned and prohibit Relators’ attempt to circumvent the logical

course of proceedings. If a stay were issued before the trial court has an opportunity

to rule on the application for temporary injunction, it would undoubtedly prejudice

Ted and upend the status quo.

Second, the crux of the Motion (and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, for

that matter) is that dominant jurisdiction over this litigation exists in Nueces County.

Not so. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Relators’ Plea in

Abatement and Motion to Transfer Venue. The “first filed” lawsuit Relators

repeatedly point to involves different claims and different parties. Ted is not a party

to that action. Moreover, the contract at issue in this case—which is not at issue in

2 When possible, this Response cites to the Appendix filed by Relators in support of their Petition for Writ of Mandamus. For documents Relators did not include in that appendix, Ted has attached additional exhibits to this Response.

3

the Nueces County case—includes a forum selection clause requiring that suit be

brought in Harris County. Exhibit 2 at § 5(a).

For these reasons, Ted respectfully requests that the Court summarily deny

both the Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief, as well as the Petition for Writ

of Mandamus without calling for a response.3 In the alternative, the Court should

defer ruling on the Motion until after the trial court rules on the application for

temporary injunction and rules on the request for a stay.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ted has spent years working on behalf of Marty, Lawrence Berry

(“Lawrence”), and Bonnie Berry (“Bonnie”)4 to develop and obtain funding for a

crude oil delivery system and terminal project known as the Lone Star Ports Project

(the “Project”). The Project will result in the construction of an oil export terminal

on Harbor Island in the Port of Corpus Christi.

In exchange for his work, Ted and Real Party in Interest Allied Ports, LLC

(“Allied Ports”) received management rights and ownership interests in the Project

(and in an entity known as Lone Star Port Holdings, LLC). This arrangement is

3 If the Court requires a response on the merits of the Mandamus Petition, Ted will respond promptly. 4 Although Lawrence and Bonnie are both Defendants in this lawsuit, they have not joined Relators in filing this mandamus action. Additionally, Bonnie Berry obtained her interest in the Project at issue in this case via Dennis Berry, who is now deceased.

4

memorialized in two contracts: an Investment Agreement and a separate

compensation Agreement. See Exhibit 2 (containing the Investment Agreement).

However, since “Relator”5 Axis Midstream Holdings, LLC (“Axis”) received

a valuable permit to allow construction on the Project to commence, Marty and

Bonnie have engaged in coordinated efforts to circumvent those contracts and

wrestle ownership and management of the Project away from Ted and Allied Ports.

These efforts began last fall, when Marty and Bonnie noticed a meeting, improperly

and without authority, to change the manager and officers of Axis.

To put a stop to this conduct, Ted and Allied Ports filed an Application for

Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Temporary Injunction. On October 31,

2024, Judge Lauren Reeder, sitting as ancillary judge, entered a TRO prohibiting

Marty and Bonnie from moving forward with the meeting. Appendix 25. A hearing

on the application for temporary injunction was set for November 12, 2024 in the

215th Judicial District Court of Harris County.

On November 8, 2024, Marty and Bonnie filed their Plea in Abatement.

Appendix 26. On November 12, 2024, Real Parties in Interest responded. Appendix

27. That same day, the district court held a hearing. The parties ultimately agreed

5 Counsel for Marty purports to also represent and file this original proceeding on behalf of Axis Midstream Holdings, LLC. Marty does not have authority to engage counsel on behalf of Axis and does not manage that entity. However, that issue is not relevant for purposes of determining the Motion and thus Ted will not address it here.

5

to extend the TRO until November 28, 2024, and the hearing on the temporary

injunction was re-scheduled for November 18, 2024. The action was subsequently

removed to the 11th Division of the Business Court (the “trial court”) on November

15, 2024.

After removal, Marty and Bonnie filed a Motion to Remand, Dismiss, or

Transfer the Case, asserting the same “dominant jurisdiction” arguments they

asserted in their Plea in Abatement (and assert in this original proceeding). Exhibit

3. A Response and a Reply were filed. Exhibit 4, Appendix 28. The parties

eventually agreed again to extend the TRO until December 6, 2024.

That day, the trial court held a three-hour hearing on the Plea in Abatement

and Motions to Transfer Venue, Remand, and Dismiss. Appendix 31. On December

31, 2024, the Court ordered that all Parties prepare and file supplemental briefs,

which were filed on January 9, 2025. Appendix 32, 33, 34, 35. The temporary

injunction hearing was then re-set for January 29 and 30, 2025.

On January 17, 2025, the trial court denied the Plea in Abatement. Appendix

36. On January 27, 2025 (two days before the injunction hearing), Marty and Bonnie

filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Ruling on the Plea in Abatement and a

Motion to Stay Pending Mandamus. Exhibit 5. The Court held a two-hour hearing

on the Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Stay. After the hearing, the Court denied

6

the Motion to Reconsider and took the Motion to Stay under advisement, allowing

the temporary injunction hearing to move forward first. Exhibit 1, Exhibit 6.

On January 29 and 30, the Court held the temporary injunction hearing, and

the hearing is set to conclude—by agreement of all parties—on Friday, February

14. Appendix 48. In an attempt to circumvent the conclusion of that hearing and

any subsequent ruling, Relators have filed their “emergency” motion. For the

reasons set forth below, it should be denied.

ARGUMENT

I. Entering a stay before the trial court has an opportunity to rule on the application for temporary injunction would upend the status quo.

First, this Court should decline to enter a stay, given that the trial court has

not yet concluded the temporary injunction hearing and entered an order. The trial

court carefully considered Relators’ request for a stay and decided to take the request

under advisement and move forward with the temporary injunction hearing. Exhibit

1. The only reason to seek a stay from this Court now on an “emergency” basis is

to try to avoid a ruling on the application for temporary injunction—and that is

exactly what Relators are trying to do.

The real emergency will arise if there is a delay of the temporary injunction

proceedings, as Real Parties in Interest are at risk of losing valuable management

and ownership rights in the Project. The TRO expired on December 6, 2024. There

is nothing in place to prevent Marty and Bonnie from restarting their attempts to

7

seize control of the Project. The issuance of a stay would thus undoubtedly prejudice

Ted and Allied Ports, as the temporary injunction aims to preserve the status quo and

prevent Relators from interfering with the ownership and control of the Project while

suit is pending.

Accordingly, the Court should deny the Motion so that the trial court may

continue with the temporary injunction hearing, enter an order, and then rule on the

stay at the appropriate time.

II. Dominant jurisdiction does not exist in Nueces County.

Next, the Motion—as well as the Mandamus Petition—rests on the argument

that dominant jurisdiction over this lawsuit exists in Nueces County.6 This argument

is wrong, on both the facts and the law, and thus the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motions that were based on Marty’s dominant jurisdiction

arguments.

The Investment Agreement contains a forum selection clause7 that provides

for exclusive jurisdiction in Harris County:

6 The case Relators claim mandates dominant jurisdiction is Cause No. 2024DCV-0045-C, Lawrence Berry, et. al v. Marty Berry et. al., in the 94th Judicial District Court, Nueces County, Texas. 7 At the time the Investment Agreement was signed, Ted was a resident of New York, New York and the other parties to the contract were residents of Texas. Hence, Section 5(a) of the Investment Agreement is a forum selection clause. Exhibit 2 at § 5(a).

8

Exhibit 2 at § 5(a).

Under Texas law, forum selection clauses are “presumptively valid.” See,

e.g., In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010). Notably, the “burden of

proof is heavy for the party challenging enforcement.” Id.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the forum selection

clause. Relators did not provide the trial court with any evidence to meet their

“heavy” burden of proof to “clearly show” that the clause should not be enforced.

See id. Moreover, Marty and Dennis (now Bonnie) agreed to “irrevocably waive[],

to the fullest extent permitted by relevant law, any objection that it may now or

hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such suit, action, or proceeding in

any such court or that any such suit, action, or proceeding which is brought in any

such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.” Exhibit 2 at § 5(a). The

Supreme Court of Texas has enforced such waivers. In re Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc.,

257 S.W.3d 228, 230–31 (Tex. 2008).

9

If for some reason this Court determines that section 5(a) of the Investment

Agreement is not a mandatory forum selection clause, then it is clearly a mandatory

venue provision, which provides that any dispute related to the contract “shall be

brought in the state or federal courts in Harris County, Texas[.]” Exhibit 2 at § 5(a).

Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.020, if any party to an agreement is

to receive greater than $1 million, which constitutes a “major transaction,” then

venue is mandatory in the county selected by the parties to the agreement. Id. at

15.020(a). Venue is thus mandatory in Harris County, as the Investment Agreement

qualifies as a “major transaction.”8 Mandatory venue under the major transaction

statute trumps all other mandatory venue provisions (though no other mandatory

venue provisions apply here). See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.020(c)(2); In

re Fisher, 433 S.W.3d 523, 534 (Tex. 2014).

For dominant jurisdiction to exist, venue over the second-filed case must be

proper in the county of the first-filed case. Gonzalez v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 159

S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. 2005). That is not the situation here. As set forth above,

pursuant to the forum selection clause (or venue selection clause), mandatory

exclusive venue over this case is in Harris County. Stated differently, the claims in

8 Relators stipulated that the Business Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case, thereby stipulating that the amount in controversy in this case is at least $5 million. Exhibit 7.

10

this case cannot be adjudicated in Nueces County. For that reason alone, dominant

jurisdiction does not exist. See Gonzalez, 159 S.W.3d at 622.

Furthermore, no “inherent interrelation” exists between this case and the

Nueces County case, so dominant jurisdiction is not applicable. See, e.g., In re J.B.

Hunt Transp., Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 292 (Tex. 2016). This case involves different

parties and different claims—Real Parties in Interest are not parties in the Nueces

County case, and Relators have not attempted to join them as parties, either.

To determine whether an inherent interrelationship exists, courts look to the

compulsory counterclaim rule to determine if the claims in the second action would

be compulsory counterclaims in the first action. See id. at 292 (citing Tex. R. Civ.

P. 97(a)). Three elements of the compulsory counterclaim rule are missing here.

First, the Nueces County court would not have jurisdiction over the claims in

this case, as required by the compulsory counterclaim rule, because the forum

selection clause (or mandatory venue provision) in the Investment Agreement

requires the case be brought in Harris County. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 97(a); Exhibit 2

at § 5(a).

Second, Real Parties in Interest’s claims are not against an “opposing party”

in the Nueces County lawsuit, because Real Parties in Interest are not parties to that

lawsuit, nor should they be. See id.; Tex. R. Civ. P. 97(a). “The compulsory

counterclaim rule contemplates situations where the primary parties…are already

11

before the court as parties to the action.” 2 McDonald & Carlson Tex. Civ. Prac. §

9:79 (2d. ed.). “It does not contemplate a situation where no cross-defendant is a

party to the action and one can be brought in only with leave of the court and for

such purposes only as the court may permit.” Id. In sum, Rule 97(a) does not require

anyone who is not already a party to a lawsuit to intervene in the lawsuit and bring

forth related claims, particularly, as in this case, when doing so would violate an

enforceable forum selection clause. See Ruebbling v. Foremost Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.,

No. 08-23-00054-CV, 2024 WL 339114 at *6 (Tex. App.—El Paso Jan. 29, 2024,

no pet.).

Lastly, the two actions do not arise out of the “same transaction or

occurrence.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 97(a). To determine whether a claim “arises out of the

transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claims,”

courts “apply a logical relationship test.” Id.; Encore Enter., Inc. v. Borderplex

Realty Tr., 583 S.W.3d 713, 722 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.). This test is

only met when the same facts, which may or may not be disputed, are significant

and logically related to both claims. Id. Claims are logically related where separate

trials on each claim “would involve a substantial duplication of effort and time by

the parties and courts.” White v. Rupard, 788 S.W.2d 175, 178 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied).

12

The cases here are not logically related. This lawsuit is a breach of contract

case involving two contracts between Ted, Lawrence, Dennis (now Bonnie), and

Marty, related to Real Parties in Interest’s ownership of, compensation for, and

control over the Project. By contrast, the Nueces County lawsuit involves

allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, improper loans, and self-dealing between

members of the Berry family and various owners of various Berry family entities.

Tellingly, the pleadings in the Nueces County lawsuit do not even mention the

contracts at issue in this case.

In an apparent attempt to provide support for their dominant jurisdiction

claim, Relators allege that Real Parties in Interest and Lawrence “teamed up” against

Relators to obtain a TRO. Though irrelevant to the Motion, it is worth noting that

this is not true. Lawrence is a named defendant in this lawsuit and Real Parties in

Interest are seeking relief that would have a substantial adverse financial effect on

him. In reality, Relators’ complaint stems from the fact that Lawrence gave

testimony on a key issue that was helpful to Real Parties in Interest, even though it

was not in Lawrence’s best interest to do so. That does not mean that Lawrence and

Real Parties in Interest have “teamed up” against Relators. It just means Lawrence

testified truthfully.

Despite the distinction between this case and the Nueces County case,

Relators have improperly attempted to manufacture dominant jurisdiction in Nueces

13

County. Just four days after the trial court denied Relators’ Motion to Abate, Berry

GP, an entity represented by the same counsel as Relators, filed an application for a

TRO and temporary injunction in the Nueces County lawsuit. In that application,

Berry GP actually sought (among other things) to prohibit Lawrence from truthfully

testifying about the ownership of Axis—a direct attempt to try to limit Real Parties

in Interest from obtaining necessary testimony at the temporary injunction hearing

in this case. Appendix 37. The court in Nueces County denied the TRO on January

27, 2025. Appendix 39.

After losing that battle, on January 28, Berry GP filed a Supplemental and

Third-Party Petition in the Nueces County lawsuit adding Lone Star Ports

Enterprises, LLC, another Project entity, as a party in the Nueces County case.

Appendix 41. Additionally, on February 5, after the first two days of the temporary

injunction hearings in this case, Redfish Bay Terminals, Inc. and Canada Project

Holdings Inc. filed a Petition in Intervention in the Nueces County lawsuit to

adjudicate ownership interests in various Berry-related entities, including Lone Star

Ports Enterprises, LLC. Appendix 49.

All of these actions were attempts by Relators to manufacture dominant

jurisdiction in Nueces County out of thin air after the trial court had already ruled

against them on the issue twice. But dominant jurisdiction cannot be acquired by

subsequent pleadings that do not relate back to the original transaction or occurrence.

14

See Warren v. Weiner, 462 S.W.3d 140, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015,

no pet.) (“But a pleading does not relate back if ‘the amendment or supplement is

wholly based on a new, distinct, or different transaction or occurrence.’”). As a

result, Relators’ efforts to create dominant jurisdiction fail. Because dominant

jurisdiction does not exist, the Motion (and Mandamus Petition, for that matter)

should be denied.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should summarily deny Relators’

Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

In the alternative, the Court should (1) defer ruling on the Motion until after

the trial court rules on the application for temporary injunction and considers the

request for a stay, and (2) enter a deadline for Real Parties in Interest to respond to

the Mandamus Petition.

Respectfully submitted,

BECK REDDEN LLP

By: /s/ Alistair B. Dawson Alistair B. Dawson State Bar No. 05596100 adawson@beckredden.com Mary Kate Raffetto State Bar No. 24098296 mkraffetto@beckredden.com M. Jake McClellan State Bar No. 24109525 jmcclellan@beckredden.com

15

Madeline E. Gay State Bar No. 24138681 mgay@beckredden.com 1221 McKinney, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 (713) 951-3700 (713) 951-3720 (Fax)

Attorneys for Real Party In Interest, Albert Theodore Powers

16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 13, 2025, a true and correct copy of the foregoing response has been electronically filed and served on all counsel below. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(c)(1), 9.5(b)(1).

Douglas A. Allison Vanessa D. Gilmore LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS ALLISON ROBERTS MARKLAND LLP doug@dallisonlaw.com 2555 N. MacGregor Way 403 N. Tancahua Street Houston, TX 77004 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Counsel for All Relators

Roland Garcia Barrett H. Reasoner GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Michael R. Absmeier 1000 Louisiana Street, Ste. 6700 L. Bruce Baldree Houston, TX 77002 Sydney G. Ballestros Attorneys for Real Party In Interest, GIBBS & BRUNS, LLP Allied Ports, LLC 1100 Louisiana Street, Ste. 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Attorneys for Real Party In Interest, Allen Lawrence Berry

The Honorable Sofia Adrogué 11A Texas Business Court BCDivision11A@txcourts.gov Respondent

/s/ Alistair B. Dawson Alistair B. Dawson

EXHIBIT 1

THE BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS ELEVENTH DIVISION

Albert Theodore Powers; Allied Ports § LLC, § § Plaintiffs, § § V. § § Cause No. 24-BC11A-0025 Axis Midstream Holdings, LLC; Allen § Lawrence Berry; Marvin Glenn Berry; § and Bonnie Berry as successor in § interest to Dennis Wayne Berry, § § Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court is Marvin Glenn Berry, Bonnie Berry, and Axis Midstream Holdings

LLC's Motion to Stay Pending Mandamus ("Motion to Stay"). At this juncture, having

considered the Motion to Stay; Alistair B. Dawson's January 28, 2025 Correspondence;

Barrett H. Reasoner's January 28, 2025 Correspondence; the evidence presented; the

arguments of counsel; and the current status of the law, the Court is taking the Motion to

Stay under advisement.

SO ORDERED. ...."-

VC SIGNED: January 28, 2025 dro e exa Business Court, Eleventh Division

EXHIBIT 2

56

INVESTMENT AGREEMENT

THIS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the 1'1 day of November, 20 18 by and among Marvin Glen Berry, Dennis Wayne Berry, and Allen Lawrence Be1Ty (colJe.ctively, the "Bcrrys"), and Albert Theodore Powers ("Powers") (each of the Berrys and Powers being referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties").

RECITALS:

'WHEREAS, the Berrys have devised a plan to develop, construct, own, and operate a system to allow hydrocarbon shippers maximum optionality to deliver hydrocarbons to local refinery markets in the vicinity of Corpus Christi, Texas and to export hydrocarbons via a premier United States Gulf Coast deep-water exporting faci li ty, including without limitation shipping, reception, collection, consolidation, storage, staging, delivery, and exporting faci lities, including a deep-water expo1t terminal on Harbor Island, Texas, related tankage and pipelines, and other associated infrastructure, assets, facilities, and businesses, including without limitation certain real property and improvements currently owned, leased, optioned, or otherwise controlled by the Berrys and others at Redfish Bay, Midway Junction, and Harbor Island, Texas and additional properties and facil ities to be acquired, leased, optioned, developed, or otherwise controlled by the Berrys and others (collectively, the "Project"); and

WHEREAS, simultaneously with this Agreement, the Parties are entering into another Agreement, pursuant to which the Berrys are appointing Powers as their representative and chief negotiator and adviser for the financing of the Project including without limitation negotiations with The Carlyle Group, and to pe1form due diligence, advice, and assistance regarding the sourcing of capital, develop strategy, and provide financial management and structuring advice and services. It is understood that Powers shall investigate various alternatives for financing all or portions of the Project, discuss with the Berrys various financing alternatives, assist the Berrys in formulating and interpreting financial projections for the Project and various potential transactions relating to the Project, assist the Berrys in fo1mulating strategies to arrange the most favorable forms of financing for the Project, make financing recommendations to the Berrys, assist the Berrys in formulating strategies for achieving the most favorable terms for financing the Project, assist the Berrys in formulating business and holding structures for the Project, and negotiate terms and conditions of financing for the Project on behalf of the Berrys with various potential finance providers, including without limitation The Carlyle Group; and

WHEREAS, the Berrys and Powers wish to cooperate to (a) devise an ownership structure for directly and indirectly holding the Project and each of its major components, (b) secure third party financing for the Project, and (c) own and hold a portion of all interests in the Project, upon and subject to the terms and conditions of th is Agreement;

NO\¥, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which hereby are acknowledged, the Berrys and Powers hereby agree as follows:

BERRY-POWERS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT_l 101 18.00CX

57

1. Creation of Holding Structure and Contribution of Project and Project Interests. On or before May 31, 2019 (a) the Berrys and all other owners of interests in the Project and its major components or their respective designees will form one or more corporations, limited liability companies, or other tax efficient limited liability entities (each a "Project Company" and, collectively, the "Project Companies) to collectively own and hold one hundred percent ( I00%) of all equity interests in the Project and its major components, (b) the Berrys will transfer to the Project Companies one hundred percent (100%) of their interests in the Project and each of its major components in exchange for one hundred percent (I 00%) of the equity interests in the Project Companies, (c) the Berrys will form a limited liability company or other tax efficient limited liability entity ("Holding Company") to hold all equity interests in the Project Companies, (d) the Berrys will contribute to Holding Company all equity interests in the Project Companies in exchange for one hundred percent ( I 00%) of the equity interests in Holding Company, (e) the Berrys will form a limited liability company or other tax efficient limited liability entity ("Investment Company") to hold all equity interests in Holding Company, and (f) the Berrys will contribute to Investment Company all equity interests in Holding Company in exchange for one hundred percent (100%) of the equity interests in Investment Company.

2. Investment By Manager in Investment Companv. Within fifteen (15)

days after (a) the Berrys an.d all other owners of interests in the Proj ect and its major components or their respective designees have formed the Project Companies and transferred one hundred percent (I 00%) of their interests in the Project and each of its major components to the Project Companies, (b) all equity interests in the Project Companies have been contributed to Holding Company, (c) all equity interests in Holding Company have been contributed to Investment Company, and (d) the Berrys or their designees have received all equity interests in Investment Company (i) Powers wi ll form a limited liability company or other tax efficient limited liability entity that is wholly owned by, or for the benefit of, Powers or his designees ("Manager"), (ii) Powers will contribute Five Thousand United States Dollars (US$5,000.00) to Manager in exchange for one hundred percent (100%) of Manager's operating interests and other ownership rights and interests, and (iii) Manager will contribute Five Thousand United States Dollars ($5,000) to Investment Company in exchange for a twenty percent (20%) overall carried interest and future profits interest in Investment Company after priority distributions to the Berrys or their designees of Two Hundred Fifty Million United States Dollars ($250,000,000) plus a ten percent (10%) cumulative preferred return on the outstanding balance of such amount. Except for the Five Thousand United States Dollar ($5,000) contribution to Manager and Investment Company described above, none of Manager, Powers, or any of their respective designees shall have any other obligation to contribute any other amounts to investment Company, Holding Company, or any Project Company. The governing documents of Investment Company will reflect the respective interests of the Berrys, including their entitlement to priority distributions and preferred returns, and Investment Manager's twenty percent (20%) overall carried interest and future profits interest in Investment Company. Until the Berrys receive a priority return from Investment Company, Holding Company, and/or the Project Companies of Two

2

BERRY-POWERS INVESTMENT AGREEM~NT_ l 101 18.DOCX

58

Hundred Fifty Million United States Dollars ($250,000,000) plus a ten percent (10%) cumulative preferred return on the outstanding balance of such amount, all gross amounts received by, or distributions made to, or on behalf of, Investment Company, Holding Company, and the Project Companies, including without limitation all earnings, proceeds, dividends, refinancing proceeds, disposition proceeds, incentive units or payments, or other receipts of any type or nature, shall be distributed to and paid to or on behalf of the Berrys or their designees and none of such amounts shall be paid or payable to or for the benefit of Manager or its designees. After the Berrys or their designees have received their priority distributions of Two Hundred Fifty Million United States Dollars plus a ten percent ( I0%) cumulative preferred return on the outstanding balance of such amount and Manager has received catch-up distributions from the Investment Company, eighty percent (80%) of all gross amounts received by, or distributions made to, or on behalf of Investment Company, Holding Company, and the Project Companies, including without limitation a.II earnings, proceeds, dividends, refinancing proceeds, disposition proceeds, incentive units or payments, or other receipts of any type or nature, shall be distributed to and paid to or on behalf of the Berrys or their designees and twenty percent (20%) of such amounts shall be paid or payable to or for the benefit of Manager or its designees. It is intended that the interests of Manager in Investment Company will qualify (i) as a carried interest within the meaning of Section 1061 of the United States Internal Revenue Code, and (ii) as a future profits interest within the meaning of Revenue Procedure 93-27, and that the governing documents of Investment Company will be drafted to reflect this intent. It is also intended that the capital accounts to be established and maintened by Investment Company will comply with the requirements of Treasury Regulations §1.704-J(b)(2)(iv) or any successor provision, and that such provisions will be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with such Treasury Regulations or successor provisions and that the targeted allocations to be made to such capital accounts will reflect the Members' interests in the Company and have substantial economic effect. On or before the fifth (5 th) day of each month, the Berrys shall provide to Manager a statement setting forth the total amounts of preferred return and priority distributions, if any, that have been received by them from Investment Company, Holding Company, and the Project Companies. Manager shall review each such statement and either confirm its agreement with the amounts shown on such statement or provide an alternative calculation of such amounts. If the Berrys and Manager do not agree on such calculation, they shall meet and attempt to reconcile their differences in the calculation of such amounts before resorting to any other remedy.

3. Financing of Project. To finance the development of the Pro_ject, it is anticipated that Investment Company will transfer its equity interests in Holding Company and/or one or more Project Companies to one or more other corporations, limited liability companies, or other tax efficient limited liability entities (each, a "Project Entity" and. collectively, the "Project Entities") that will be jointly owned by Investment Company and other investors that will contribute equity capital for the development of the Project. In exchange for contributing its interests in Holding Company and/or one or more of the Project Companies to such Project Entities, it is anticipated that Investment Company will receive (a) shares, operating interests, or other equity interests in the Project Entities, (b) other rights and interests, including incentive

3

BERRY·l'OWERS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT_ l 101 18.DOCX

59

interests, incentive units, or other benefits in or from the Project Entities, and (c) other amounts directly or indirectly received, or distributions made, in respect of the Project Entities, including without limitation earnings, proceeds, dividends, refinancing proceeds, disposition proceeds, incentive units or payments, and other receipts of any type or nature in respect ofor relating to the Project or any Project Company (collectively, "Project Interests").

4. Distributions From Project Entities. All (a) shares, operating interests, or other equity interests in the Project Entities, (b) other rights and interests, including incentive interests, incentive units, or other benefits in or from the Project Entities, and (c) Project Interests shall be distributed to and held by Investment Company. Distributions shall be made from Investment Company in accordance with the governing documents oflnvestment Company, which shall reflect the interests of the Berrys, including their entitlement to priority distributions and preferred returns, and the twenty percent (20%) carried interest and future profits interest of Manager.

5. Miscellaneous Provisions.

(a) Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue. This Agreement and all issues and questions concerning its application, construction, validity, interpretation, and enforcement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State ofTexas, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of laws provisions or rules (whether of the State of Texas or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of laws of any jurisdiction other than those of the State of Texas. Powers and each of the Berrys hereby agrees that any suit, action, or proceeding seeking to enforce any provision of, or based on any matter arising out of or in connection with, this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, shall be brought in the state or federal courts in Harris County, Texas, so long as one of such comts shall have subject-matter jurisdiction over such suit, action, or proceeding, and that any cause of action arising out of this Agreement shall be deemed to have arisen from a transaction of business in the State of Texas. Powers and each of the Berrys hereby irrevocably consents to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts and of the appropriate appellate courts tl1erefrom in any such suit, action, or proceeding and irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by relevant law, any objection that it may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such suit, action, or proceeding in any such court or that any such suit, action, or proceeding which is brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.

(b) Notices. All notices and other communications given or made pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed effectively given upon the earlier of (i) actual receipt, (ii) the time of personal delivery to the party to be notified, (iii) when sent, if sent by electronic mail during normal business hours of the recipient, and if not sent during normal business hours, then on the recipient's next business day, (iv) five (5) days after

4

BERRY-POWERS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT_! IOI JS.DOCX

60

having been sent by registered or certified United States Post Office ai r mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or (v) one (I) business day after deposit with a nationally recognized overnight air courier, freight prepaid, specifying next business day delivery, with written verification of receipt. All commw1ications shall be sent to the respective Parties at their addresses as set forth in this section or to such addresses as subsequently modified by written notice given in accordance with this section. Each Party to this Agreement agrees to promptly 11otify the other Parties of any change in its address or electronic mail address, and any failure to do so shall not affect the foregoing.

Mailing and delivery address for Marvin Glen Berry, Dennis Wayne Berry, Allen Lawrence Berry, Bay Ltd, and all Berry entities:

Berry Group 5005 Riverway Suite 440 Houston, Texas 77056

Email address for Allen Lawrence Berry: al b@riverway.us

Email address for Marvin Glen Berry: captberry@aol.com

Email address for Dennis Wayne Berry: herryd(@.bayltd.com

Mailing and delivery address for Albert Theodore Powers and Manager:

Albert Theodore Powers 205 West 57 th Street Apartment 4C New York, New York 10019

Email address for Albert Theodore Powers atpowers@alliecl-pacific-group.com

(c) Delavs or Omissions. No delay or omission to exercise any right, power, or remedy accruing to any Party under this Agreement, upon any breach or default of any other Party under this Agreement, shall impair any such right, power, or remedy of such non-breaching or non-defaulting Party nor shall it be construed to be a waiver of any such breach or default, or an acquiescence therein, or of or in any similar breach or default thereafter occurring; nor shall any waiver of any single breach or default be deemed a waiver of any other breach or default theretofore or thereafter occurring. Any

5

BERRY-POWERS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT_I IOI 13.00CX

61

waiver, permit, consent, or approval of any kind or character on the part of any Party of any breach or default under this Agreement, or any waiver on the part of any Party of any provisions or conditions of this Agreement, must be in writing and shall be effective only to the extent specUically set forth in such writibg. All remedies, either under this Agreement or by law or otherwise afforded to any Party, sha.11 be cumulative and not alternative.

(d) Amendment, Waiver, and Termination. This Agreement may be amended, modified, or terminated and the observance of any term hereof may be waived (either generally or in a particular instance and either retroactively or prospectively) only by a written instrnment executed by all Parties. Any amendment, modification, termination, or waiver so effected shall be binding upon the Parties and all of their respective successors and permitted assigns whether or not such Party, successor, assignee, or other individual or entity entered into or approved such amendment, modification, termination, or waiver. No waivers of or exceptions to any term, condition, or provision of this Agreement, in any one or more instances, shall be deemed to be, or construed as, a fmt her or continuing waiver of any such term, condition, or provision or any other term, condition, or provision.

(e) Assignment of Rights. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon any individual or entity other than the Parties hereto or their respective successors and permitted assigns any rights, remedies, obligations, or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement, except as expressly provided in this Agreement. Any successor or permitted assignee of any of the Berry Interests, including without limitation any prospective transferee who purchases any direct or indirect interest in the Project and/or any inter vivos or testamentary donee or transferee of any such interest, shall deliver to Powers, as a condition to any transfer or assignment, a counterpart signature page hereto pursuant to which such successor or permitted assignee shall confirm his or its agreement to be subject to and bound by all of the provisions set forth in this Agreement that were applicable to the predecessor or assignor of such successor or permitted assignee.

(f) Severability. The invalidity or unenforceabili ty of any provision of this Agreement shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision.

(g) Titles and Subtitles. The titles and subtitles used in this Agreement are used for convenience only and are not to be considered in construing or interpreting this Agreement.

(h) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which

6

BERJ\Y-POWERS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT_ ! 101IS.DOCX

62

together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Counterpa1ts may be delivered via electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with the United States Federal ESION Act of 2000, i.e., www.docusign.com) or other transmission method and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.

(i) Specific Performance. In addition to any and all other remedies that may be available at law in the event of any breach of this Agreement, each Party shall be entitled to specific performance of the agreements and obligations of the other Parties hereunder and to such other injunctive or other equitable relief as may be granted by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(j) No Partnersliip. This Agreement does not create or constitute any partnership, joint venture, or other similar relationship among the Parties, no such relationship shall be implied, and no Party shall make any representation to the contrary.

(k) Advice of Counsel. Each Patty hereby acknowledges that he has sought and obtained the advice of legal counsel before entering into this Agreement and has fully read and understands the meaning and import of all terms in this Agreement.

(I) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes and expresses the entire agreement and understanding among the Parties in reference to all matters referred to; all previous discussions, promises, representations, and understandings relative thereto, if any, among the Parties, being herein merged. No modification of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of all Parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, intending to be bound, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

ALLEN LAWRENCE B

7

BERRY·J'OWERS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT_! 101 IS.DOCX

63

CZ> "'k)~ DENNIS WAYNE BERR~ he~ 7f L..___.

ALBERT THEODORE POWERS

8

RERRY-POWERS INVESTMENT AGREEMENT_ I I O118.DOCX

EXHIBIT 3 €‚ƒ„†ÿƒˆÿ‰Š ÿ‹‚‚ƒŒÿ‚ÿ‰Š ÿŽ„ÿ ‘’“ÿ•–—ÿ˜™š›œ—ššÿ’™“•ÿ’‘ÿž—Ÿš ¡¡¢£¤¢£¤£¥ÿ§¥̈£ÿ©ª «¬¬­®¯­°ÿ²³ÿ́µ­¶­·³̧ÿ¹·º»¸­³ ¼½¾¿ÿÁÂÃÄ¿ÅÆÿÇÈÉʼËËÌÉÍÍÇÎ 01234ÿ678ÿ9 0 19ÿ ÿ 1 4ÿ4774ÿ743ÿ ÿÿ 6ÿ4ÿ236433ÿ072ÿ 14ÿ73ÿ0ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ !!"ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ #8ÿÿ ÿÿ 1ÿ$ÿ314ÿ7%ÿ4&13ÿ ÿ ÿ 1&3ÿ'341'ÿ76(3ÿ0ÿ ÿ 146ÿ14604ÿ4)ÿÿ ÿ '1*6ÿ(466ÿ4)ÿ+,-ÿÿ ÿ 7664ÿ4)ÿ+.ÿ./001..23ÿ4,ÿÿ ÿ 4,5131.5ÿ52ÿ4663ÿ1)64ÿ4)ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 67!78"9ÿÿÿ ÿÿ 7671 4ÿ37%1ÿ17(24ÿÿ ÿ '7*163;ÿ'776ÿ7ÿ4'16ÿ3'33ÿ+,-<23ÿ163%4ÿ*4624ÿ =>/3./+,5ÿ52ÿ1?+.ÿ(2#13,@1,5ÿ02-1ÿ0A+>513ÿ91Bÿ ÿ DEFÿGEHIJÿHKLMNOÿPQROOÿSRLLTÿUVHKLMTWXÿKOYÿSZOONRÿSRLLTÿUVSZOONRWX[ÿ\R]ROYKOM^ÿ _RQZ`ÿKOYÿ^ZaRMNaR^ÿMZbRMcRLÿLR]RLLRYÿMZÿK^ÿdHZeKOM^[WÿKOYÿaKfRÿKOYÿgQRÿMcN^ÿHZeKOM^hÿ HZMNZOÿMZÿiRaKOY[ÿ\N^aN^^[ÿKOYjZLÿkLKO^]RLÿlROmRÿUnmL^mKOMÿMZÿkRoK^ÿPZeRLOaROMÿGZYR[ÿ GcKnMRLÿpqrX[ÿKOYÿNOÿ^mnnZLMÿZ]ÿ^KaRÿ̀ZmQYÿ^cZ`sÿÿÿ 8ÿ 3201-/3+tÿ35+5/.ÿ ÿ IuRvMNeRÿK^ÿZ]ÿJRnMRa_RLÿw[ÿpxpy[ÿkRoK^ÿPZeRLOaROMÿGZYRÿGcKnMRLÿpqrÿ^RM^ÿ]ZLMcÿ McRÿ^MKMmMZLTÿ]LKaR`ZLfÿ]ZLÿKQQÿkRoK^ÿSm^NOR^^ÿGZmLM^zÿÿkRoK^ÿSm^NOR^^ÿGZmLM[ÿIQReROMcÿ \NeN^NZO[ÿvZaaROvRYÿZnRLKMNZO^ÿRuRvMNeRÿJRnMRa_RLÿw[ÿpxp{ÿ|ÿ̀NMcÿ^mvcÿIQReROMcÿ\NeN^NZOÿ _RNObÿNOvQm^NeRÿZ]ÿ}KLLN^ÿGZmOMT[ÿkRoK^zÿJm_~RvMÿMZÿMcRÿnLZeN^NZO^ÿZ]ÿkRoK^ÿPZeRLOaROMÿGZYRÿ GcKnMRLÿpqr[ÿK`LROvRÿSRLLTÿUVK`LROvRWXÿcK^ÿgQRYÿKÿDZMNvRÿZ]ÿiRaZeKQÿMZÿSm^NOR^^ÿGZmLMÿ 23456789ÿ5ÿ9 5ÿÿ5ÿ459 9ÿÿ11ÿÿ56ÿ9986ÿ5!ÿ"5 ÿ6"6ÿ # 989$ÿ456789ÿ5ÿ 9 5ÿ7ÿ!998679ÿ!ÿ6"ÿ6"9ÿ 669ÿ 6ÿ9ÿ9 !9!ÿ !7 79!ÿ5ÿ699!ÿ65ÿ4989ÿ%56ÿ&9'ÿ26"9ÿ856ÿ5ÿ!65ÿ99ÿÿÿ (()ÿ +,-./01234ÿ 56789:8;<=ÿ?66@A7:8B9<ÿCÿÿ Dÿ6"9ÿ766ÿ 669ÿE767F$Gÿ967675ÿ99Hÿ65ÿ356986ÿ6"97ÿ I9 96ÿ7I"6ÿ !ÿ1Jÿ76996ÿ7ÿÿ8!9ÿ57ÿ!979ÿ69 ÿ!ÿ69 7ÿ5K986Lÿ7ÿ4989ÿ%56ÿ &9'Mÿÿ&5ÿ!5ÿ5ÿE767Fÿ9!ÿ5ÿ!ÿ989!ÿÿ&9 5ÿ9677IÿN!9ÿ23& Nÿ 9K577Iÿ56ÿ5 ÿ3ÿÿÿÿ697Iÿ7ÿÿÿ6"9ÿ5 9"7ÿO5Pÿ596ÿÿÿÿ7I"6ÿ5ÿ ÿ9676ÿ58769!ÿ 76"ÿ6"9ÿE5K986QÿÿE767Fÿ9!ÿ6"6ÿ3O6P"9ÿ6"99ÿR9ÿR56"9ÿ O6ÿS97ÿ279!ÿÿ"7ÿ79ÿR579ÿ!ÿ# 989Pÿ9699!ÿ765ÿI99 96ÿ76"ÿ E5 9ÿO96767IÿE767Fÿ65Pÿ3ÿ1Jÿ5 9"7ÿ76996ÿ7ÿÿ85 ÿ89!ÿ#59ÿT6ÿE56ÿ U5!7Iÿ##%ÿO#TEUPÿ7ÿ8598675ÿ76"ÿ"6ÿ7ÿ999!ÿ65ÿÿ6"9ÿ#59ÿT6ÿE56ÿE5K986Vÿ 26"9ÿ3E5K986ÿE767Fÿ9!ÿ6"6ÿE767F$ÿ35 9"7ÿ76996ÿ7ÿ#TEUÿ859!ÿ76"ÿ6"9ÿ #TEUÿN967IÿWI99 96ÿ5 ÿ5ÿE767F$ÿ I9 96ÿ!ÿ59ÿ8565ÿ5ÿW'7ÿ 7!69 ÿU5!7Iÿ##%ÿ23W'7XÿYÿ6"9ÿ85 ÿ"5!7Iÿ6"9ÿ3ÿÿÿÿ9 7667Iÿ7I"6ÿ ÿ Z ÿ\]^_`a_bcÿ^deÿf]]_egÿ\hdacÿiijÿ^`gÿf]kedaÿlmehghdeÿ\hnedcoÿÿ p ÿqeeÿ\]^_`a_bcrÿsed_tegÿqeuh`gÿfve`gegÿ\ea_a_h`ÿ^`gÿfww]_u^a_h`ÿxhdÿlevwhd^dyÿzecad^_`_`{ÿ|dgedÿ^`gÿ l†evwhd^dyÿ}`~`ua_h`ÿ€\]^_`a_bcrÿqeuh`gÿfve`gegÿ\ea_a_h`‚ƒ„ÿ^aÿwoÿoÿÿ ÿqeeÿfb_g^‡_aÿhxÿˆ_um^e]ÿ‰vve]]„ÿh`ÿt]eoÿÿÿ Šÿ ÿ qeeÿ‹Œm_k_aÿÿ€lz|ƒoÿÿÿ qeeÿ\]^_`a_bcrÿqeuh`gÿfve`gegÿ\ea_a_h`„ÿ^aÿwoÿÿ€dexedd_`{ÿahÿ^`ÿ}`‡ecave`aÿf{deeve`a‚ÿ̀e‡edÿc_{`egÿkyÿ ˆ^ ÿ dayÿŽeddy„ÿe``_cÿŽeddy„ÿhdÿŽh``_eÿŽeddyƒoÿÿ qeeÿ\]^_`a_bcrÿqeuh`gÿfve`gegÿ\ea_a_h`„ÿ^aÿwoÿ‘„ÿxhha`haeÿ’ÿ€\]^_`a_bcÿ^cceda“ÿ”ih`eÿqa^dÿ\hdacÿ‹`aedwd_cecÿ iij•ÿiq\‹rcÿch]eÿˆevkedÿ^`gÿˆ^`^{edÿ_cÿih`eÿqa^dÿ\hdacÿse`adec„ÿiijÿ€iq\s‚ƒoÿÿiq\srcÿch]eÿˆevkedÿ^`gÿ v^`^{edÿ_cÿih`eÿqa^dÿ\hdacÿ‰h]g_`{c„ÿiijÿ€iq\‰‚ƒoÿÿiq\‰ÿm^cÿt‡eÿˆevkedc„ÿe^umÿhn`_`{ÿ–—˜ÿhxÿameÿ vevkedcm_wÿ`_acoÿÿ\]^_`a_bcÿf]]_egÿ\hdacÿiijÿ_cÿiq\‰rcÿch]eÿˆ^`^{edo‚ƒoÿÿ‹Œm_k_aÿ–ÿ€|d{^`_™^a_h`^]ÿjm^daƒÿ g_^{d^vcÿ\]^_`a_bcrÿ^]]e{^a_h`cÿhxÿhn`edcm_wÿ^`gÿch]eÿuh`adh]ÿhxÿfŒ_cÿˆ_gcade^vÿ‰h]g_`{cÿiijÿ€m_{m]_{maegÿ_`ÿ ÿ 1ÿ 2334562789ÿ 67ÿ988487ÿ4ÿ78ÿ4857ÿ8ÿÿ 4 ÿ4 89ÿÿ27ÿÿ 4682 858ÿ 26ÿ! ÿ!989ÿ78ÿ683787ÿ24"6278ÿ#$%ÿ664&''(ÿÿÿ 2676)3ÿ5426*ÿ+,ÿ27ÿ29ÿ468ÿ28ÿ24 89ÿ74ÿ45889ÿ74ÿ7238ÿ4 836ÿ 22887ÿ29ÿ5474ÿ4ÿ-"63ÿ74ÿ7838 83ÿ2676)3ÿ6ÿ8ÿ98689ÿ4ÿ786ÿ2889ÿ74ÿ 29ÿ22689ÿ4ÿ22887ÿ6 73ÿ29ÿ$./ÿ678837ÿ6ÿ78ÿ4857(0ÿÿ163ÿ2 3!67ÿ63ÿ2ÿ 24!7ÿ4 836ÿ5474ÿ29ÿ487ÿ82789ÿ74ÿ78ÿ4857ÿ7!3ÿ96857ÿ64 6ÿ27ÿ 468ÿ8ÿÿ-"63ÿ29ÿ478ÿ82382789ÿ442683ÿ4ÿ78ÿ48ÿ 295ÿ29ÿ 4 83- 689ÿ473ÿ4ÿ2 858ÿ29ÿ786ÿ54 85764ÿ4ÿ542683ÿ4ÿ78ÿ478ÿ29'(ÿÿÿ 67879:;9<=ÿ?@;A<Bÿ;9:ÿCD99E7FÿGHH7I;<ED9=ÿJÿÿ 2676)3ÿ545898ÿ727ÿ+K88927ÿ- 8ÿ2 858ÿ8ÿ+2 858'ÿ25L4 8983ÿ 2676)3Mÿ678837NOÿP7!3ÿ63ÿ2ÿ689ÿK88927Qÿ29ÿ2676)3ÿ!78ÿ829ÿ727ÿ+26ÿ 8ÿ8ÿ+27'ÿ29ÿ468ÿ8ÿ23ÿ3!558334ÿ6ÿ678837ÿ74ÿK863ÿR28ÿ8ÿ +468'ÿ28ÿ298ÿ582ÿ78ÿ6ÿ47ÿ44ÿ786ÿ288873ÿ4ÿ25L4 898ÿ- 689M3ÿ 4 836ÿ678837ÿ6ÿ48ÿS72ÿ473ÿT4963ÿ4ÿ(ÿ(ÿ(ÿ(NNÿÿ27ÿ468ÿ98ÿ2676)3Mÿ 2889ÿ6 7ÿ4ÿ4 836ÿ29ÿ5474ÿ4ÿ78ÿ4857ÿ29ÿ673ÿ487ÿ852!38*ÿU'ÿ

ÿ VWXYZÿÿ\]^_`a_bcdÿeWfg`XÿhiW`XWXÿ\Wa_a_g`ÿfgij]^_`cÿgkÿl^Vamnog``_Wÿ^aaWija_`pÿagÿa^qWÿrfg`aVg]sÿgkÿht_cÿ W_puaÿvwYÿa_iWcÿxÿ_aÿ_cÿauWÿfW`aV^]ÿauWiWÿgkÿ\]^_`a_bcdÿfgij]^_`aZÿÿÿ yÿ |ÿ eWWÿ\]^_`a_bcdÿeWfg`XÿhiW`XWXÿ\Wa_a_g`zÿ^aÿjZÿ{Zÿÿÿ ÿ eWWÿ}tu_~_aÿÿv^€^_]^~]Wÿ_`ÿf^iWV^YZÿÿÿ eWWÿ\]^_`a_bcdÿeWfg`XÿhiW`XWXÿ\Wa_a_g`zÿ^aÿjZÿ‚‚Zÿÿÿ ƒ„ÿ ƒƒÿ eWWÿ\]^_`a_bcdÿeWfg`XÿhiW`XWXÿ\Wa_a_g`zÿ^aÿjZÿ‚Zÿÿÿ eWWÿ\]^_`a_bcdÿeWfg`XÿhiW`XWXÿ\Wa_a_g`zÿ^aÿjZÿ‚Zÿÿÿ ÿ 1ÿ 23456789 ÿ 4ÿ ÿ5 ÿ 5 5ÿ4  5ÿ94ÿ3 6ÿ9 5ÿ9 ÿÿ 3 5ÿ46ÿ!94ÿ5 4ÿ3ÿ"#$ÿ9 4ÿ545ÿ3 ÿ%23 34&ÿ9 549'959 (ÿ3 ÿ )"*ÿ8 446ÿ+ÿÿ5 ÿ9 6ÿ),##$*ÿ2 - 4ÿ3 ÿ9ÿ23 34ÿ9!ÿ.ÿ2543ÿ/9 ÿ00123ÿÿ 456ÿ89:;<=69ÿ>=ÿ?@A<ÿBCDDEÿ>F;69<5AGHÿ8>ÿI699JÿKLMÿ:;Nÿ;:OA;Pÿ>=ÿI699JÿKLÿ:<ÿ<>Q6ÿ R:;:P69MÿA<ÿ856ÿQ:<8ÿS:QANÿ89:;<=69ÿ>=ÿ?@A<ÿ8>ÿ:;J>;6ÿ>9ÿ:;JÿQ6P:Qÿ6;8A8JTÿÿU9ÿ- ÿ34ÿ5 4ÿ ÿ3ÿ4945ÿ-V 5ÿ543 !4ÿ9!ÿ.ÿ!49ÿ8 446ÿ+ÿ59ÿW Xÿ836ÿU4 3ÿ2ÿ )%W8U&*Yÿ-5ÿ5ÿ4945ÿ543 !4ÿ 4ÿ4 ÿ3Z9456ÿ3493ÿ!49ÿ8 446ÿ+ÿ8934ÿ 9!ÿ[4594ÿ)3ÿ4V4ÿ-6ÿU.3ÿ3ÿ3 ÿ8 446ÿ+ÿ-6'3*2\ÿU 4ÿÿ3 95 4ÿ4945ÿ -V 5ÿ543 !4ÿ9!ÿ.ÿ!49ÿW8Uÿ)3ÿ93 6ÿ96ÿ9 ÿ-6ÿ8 446ÿ+*ÿ59ÿ0]/^ÿ-5ÿ _ÿ33 ÿ_ÿ5ÿ4945ÿ543 !4ÿ 4ÿ4 ÿ3Z9456ÿ3493ÿ!49ÿW8Uÿ8934ÿ9!ÿ [4594ÿ)3ÿ4V4ÿ-6ÿU.3ÿ3ÿ3 ÿW8Uÿ-6'3*2`ÿÿ034 ÿ ÿ5 ÿ8 446ÿ+'59' W8Uÿ543 !4ÿ9!ÿ545ÿÿ.ÿ-5ÿ3ÿ9 6ÿ9 ÿ),*ÿ9!ÿ54 ÿ)a*ÿ4594ÿ)95ÿ3ÿ3Z9456ÿ3 ÿ ÿ bc ÿeffÿghijkljmnoÿefpqkrÿstfkrfrÿgfljljqkuÿvwxjyjlÿzÿ{lxjnÿ|}q|qnfrÿ~k€fnltfklÿs}fftfkl‚ÿ{ƒxjpxÿjnÿlxfÿ yinjnÿ„q}ÿgqƒf}noÿphijtÿlqÿ~lƒfklÿ{z†‡ˆÿq€f}ihhÿpi}}jfrÿjklf}fnl‚ÿikrÿphijtÿlqÿyfÿnqhfÿ~‰ikif}‚ˆÿƒinÿr}i„lfrÿ lqÿyfÿ~yÿikrÿitqkÿ‰i}€jkÿŠhfkÿ‹f}}uÿŒfkkjnÿikfÿ‹f}}uÿikrÿshhfkÿŽiƒ}fkpfÿ‹f}}ÿ{pqhhfplj€fhuÿlxfÿ ~‘‘’“‚ˆuÿikrÿshyf}lÿ”xfqrq}fÿgqƒf}nÿ{~•–—‘“‚ˆ‚ÿ{||˜ÿ™šzˆ˜ÿÿ›qƒf€f}uÿlxjnÿ|}q|qnfrœr}i„lÿrqptfklÿƒinÿ kf€f}ÿnjkfrÿyÿ‰i}ljkÿ‹f}}uÿikrÿkf€f}ÿnjkfrÿyÿŒfkkjnÿ‹f}}ÿ{yqlxÿq„ÿƒxqtÿ}fžfplfrÿlf}tnÿq„ÿlxfÿ|}q|qnfrÿ ib¡}fftfklˆÿŸÿyluÿinÿihƒinuÿnjkfrÿyÿŽiƒ}fkpfÿ‹f}}ÿ{ƒjlxqlÿ}f j}frÿilxq}jlˆ˜ÿÿÿ ÿeffÿihhffrÿŽeg›ÿstfkrfrÿikrÿ¢fnlilfrÿ£|f}iljkÿs}fftfklÿ{}f„f}}frÿlqÿinÿvwxjyjlÿ¤ÿlqÿghijkljmonÿ¥f}j¦frÿ £}jjkihÿgfljljqkÿikrÿs||hjpiljqkÿ„q}ÿ”ft|q}i}ÿ¢fnl}ijkjkÿ£}rf}ÿikrÿ”ft|q}i}ÿkžkpljqkÿŸÿnpxÿvwxjyjlÿ¤ÿ qtjllfrÿ„}qtÿghijkljmnoÿefpqkrÿstfkrfrÿgfljljqkuÿflÿi€ijhiyhfÿ„q}ÿjkÿpitf}iÿ}f€jfƒˆuÿnliljkÿ~~‰ikif}‚ÿ tfiknÿshhjfrÿgq}lnuÿŽŽ§ÿ˜ÿ˜ÿ˜ÿ˜‚ÿikrÿ~”xfÿ§qt|ikÿ̈Žeg›©ÿnxihhÿyfÿtikifrÿyÿlxfÿ‰ikif}uÿshhjfrÿgq}lnuÿŽŽ§ÿ˜ÿ ˜ÿ˜ÿ˜‚ÿÿª£”v«ÿÿlÿti¬fnÿiynqhlfhÿkqÿnfknfÿƒxilnqf€f}ÿlxilÿ‹f}}ÿŠgÿ{lxfkšpqkl}qhhfrÿyÿtižq}jlÿ€qlfÿ‰i}luÿ ŒfkkjnuÿikrÿŽiƒ}fkpfˆÿƒqhrÿf€f}ÿn|fkrÿ­z®ÿtjhhjqkÿlqÿrf€fhq|ÿlxfÿg}qžfpluÿikrÿnjt|hÿj€fÿnqhfÿpqkl}qhÿq„ÿ lxfÿg}qžfplÿlqÿghijkljmn˜ÿÿ”xjnÿƒqhrÿkf€f}uÿkf€f}uÿkf€f}ÿxi||fkÿŸÿikrÿrjrÿkqlÿxi||fk˜ÿÿ‰i}lÿkf€f}ÿnjkfrÿlxfÿ ihhffrÿŽeg›ÿq|f}iljkÿi}fftfkl˜ÿÿŒfkkjnÿ{kqƒÿ‹qkkjfˆÿkf€f}ÿnjkfrÿlxfÿihhffrÿŽeg›ÿq|f}iljkÿ ib¯}fftfkl˜ÿÿsnÿihƒinuÿŽiƒ}fkpfÿ‹f}}ÿnjkfrÿjlÿ{ƒjlxqlÿ}f j}frÿilxq}jlˆ˜ÿÿ ÿeffÿsŽ‹ÿ†††¤®°±ÿ{l}ikn„f}ÿq„ÿ™††‡ÿqƒkf}nxj|ÿikrÿ™††‡ÿpqkl}qhÿq„ÿswjnÿ‰jrnl}fitÿ›qhrjknÿŽŽ§ÿ„}qtÿ Šiknf€qq}lÿk€fnltfklnÿŽŽ§ÿ{iÿ‹f}}š¢fhilfrÿ§qt|ikˆÿlqÿ‹f}}ÿŠgÿkp˜ÿ{~‹f}}ÿŠgu‚ÿiÿ‹f}}š¢fhilfrÿ §q b³ÿ t|ikˆÿŸÿiÿl}ikn„f}ÿlxilÿihhÿ|i}ljfnÿ}fpqkj²fÿinÿ€ihjr˜ÿÿ b´ÿ effÿsŽ‹ÿ†††™†®¤ÿnyžfplÿlqÿg}qlfplj€fÿ£}rf}˜ÿÿÿ b¶ÿ effÿvwxjyjlÿµÿ{‹šhiƒnÿq„ÿ‹f}}ÿŠguÿkp˜uÿi€ijhiyhfÿjkÿpitf}iˆ˜ÿÿ b·ÿ effÿsŽ‹ÿ†††™†°™ÿnyžfplÿlqÿg}qlfplj€fÿ£}rf}˜ÿÿÿ effÿvwxjyjlÿ®ÿ{‹šhiƒnÿq„ÿ¢fr¦nxÿ‹iÿ”f}tjkihnuÿkp˜uÿi€ijhiyhfÿjkÿpitf}iˆ˜ÿÿÿ ÿ 1ÿ 2345ÿ236ÿ2789567ÿ8 6ÿ842372ÿÿ8769 6ÿ596ÿ236ÿ2ÿ2789567ÿÿ9267652ÿ9ÿ 5ÿ!42ÿ8769 6ÿ85ÿ2369ÿ9ÿ96ÿ"#ÿÿ47ÿ"$ÿ76275ÿ"92ÿ8ÿ%8&72ÿ89ÿ2345ÿ236ÿ 2789567ÿ8 6ÿ842372ÿÿ'6%952782(6ÿ236ÿ%52ÿ7669292%6ÿ2789567ÿÿ5ÿ )52768%ÿ95ÿ*ÿ5ÿ7%ÿ+8956(72ÿ,9(652%6925ÿ*ÿ"-+8956(72.ÿ2ÿ677ÿ+ÿ "%89ÿ677ÿ+ÿ967ÿÿ#//0ÿÿ236ÿ%6%!67531ÿ4925ÿÿ5ÿ89ÿ56ÿ)89867ÿÿ 523ÿÿÿ 456768ÿ:;5<=>ÿ?@A85B=ÿCÿÿ D9ÿ7ÿ8!42ÿE(6%!67ÿFGÿF/FHÿ"8ÿ687ÿ8ÿ8769 6ÿ546ÿ)872ÿ677ÿ+ÿ89ÿ 2367ÿ6776826ÿ*%18965ÿ"9ÿ8775ÿ*492ÿ685IJÿÿ,9ÿ235ÿKLMNOKPQRÿ8542ÿ 8769 6ÿ17 476ÿ89ÿ618726ÿ6%1787ÿ6527899ÿD767ÿ"-D.ÿ89ÿ%696ÿDÿ "-D.I2ÿÿÿ8766%692ÿÿ236ÿ187265ÿ"(69ÿ768ÿ171672ÿ85ÿ9ÿ5546ÿ236ÿ8542ÿ85ÿ 278956776ÿ7%ÿ8775ÿ*492ÿ685ÿ2ÿE4665ÿ*492ÿ685IIÿ"235ÿ8542ÿ9ÿ766776ÿ 2ÿ85ÿ236ÿ-E4665ÿ*492ÿ8542.ÿ,9ÿ236ÿE4665ÿ*492ÿ8542ÿ8769 6ÿ1686ÿ2382Sÿ "#ÿ677ÿ+ÿ,9ÿ5ÿ-%8&72ÿ96ÿ9ÿ6T48ÿ538765ÿ!ÿ892Uÿ8769 6ÿ677ÿ89ÿ35ÿ2ÿ !723675ÿ)872ÿ677ÿ"-)872.ÿ89ÿ'6995ÿ677ÿ"-'6995.V.IWÿÿ"Fÿ)872ÿ677ÿ+ÿ89ÿ 23675ÿ-38(6ÿ!649ÿ56762ÿ8226%129ÿ2ÿ56ÿ236ÿ%189X5ÿ768ÿ171672ÿÿÿÿ2342ÿ926ÿ 2ÿ7ÿ84237Y829ÿ7%ÿ236ÿZ677ÿ+[ÿ87ÿÿ'76275V.I\ÿ-967531ÿ89ÿ17%87ÿ927ÿ ÿZ677ÿ+[ÿ5ÿ(6526ÿ23ÿ8769 6ÿ89ÿ35ÿ2ÿ!723675ÿZ)872ÿ89ÿ'6995[V.I]ÿ236ÿ-677ÿ

ÿ ÿabbÿcdeÿfffghijÿklmnbopÿpqÿrsqpboptubÿvswbsxÿÿÿ ^_ ÿabbÿ{|}tmtpÿiÿ~d€sbob‚kÿƒskp„ƒbwÿ†bptptq‡xÿÿÿ yz ÿabbÿ{|}tmtpkÿˆÿwÿgÿ~‰Švÿwÿc‰Šv‡xÿÿ y^ ÿabbÿ{|}tmtpÿ‹ÿ~Œsbbwÿvswbsÿpqÿ‰skbsÿŽblb‡xÿÿÿ yy ÿabbÿ{|}tmtpÿiÿpÿ†xÿ‘xÿÿÿ y ÿabbÿ{|}tmtpÿiÿpÿ†xÿ‘„jxÿÿÿ y’ ÿabbÿ{|}tmtpÿiÿpÿ†xÿgxÿÿÿ y“

ÿ 1ÿ 23454567ÿ896ÿ95 895ÿ6936ÿÿ46ÿ89ÿÿ596497ÿÿ699ÿÿ3ÿ46ÿ89ÿ53ÿ 89836ÿ!54ÿ46ÿ 8!7ÿÿ699ÿÿ3"#$ÿ46ÿ89ÿ375747ÿÿ596497ÿ%8!9636ÿ &894ÿ83ÿ63357"#'ÿ83ÿ484ÿ&894ÿ9686ÿ()589ÿ)4567ÿ!54)4ÿ553ÿ3456ÿ4ÿ9ÿ 485353ÿ46ÿ37634ÿ9ÿ8 98ÿÿ699ÿÿ3*7ÿ89#+ÿ,6 53ÿ) 3ÿ57ÿ68537ÿ484ÿ 8453ÿ48-63ÿ!54)4ÿ8 98ÿÿ46ÿ699ÿÿ89ÿÿ596497ÿ!87ÿ968ÿÿ()589ÿ )4ÿ%8!9636ÿ96.)6746ÿ9656ÿÿ/,0ÿ83ÿ/6 989ÿ31)3453ÿ6315353ÿ&894ÿ699ÿ83ÿ 699ÿÿ264ÿ83ÿ9 ÿ7653ÿ94853ÿ9ÿ469!576ÿ63) 6953ÿ83ÿÿ46ÿ699ÿ23454567*ÿ 968ÿ9 694ÿ!54)4ÿ%8!9636*7ÿ76ÿ8 98#4ÿÿ3ÿ457ÿ567895:;<ÿ8!7)54ÿ%8!9636ÿ 535458 ÿ48536ÿ9656ÿÿ/,0ÿ484ÿ&894ÿ699ÿ83ÿ699ÿÿ64ÿ8 ÿ896ÿ967498536ÿ9 ÿ 7653ÿ83ÿÿ46ÿ699ÿ23454567*ÿ968ÿ9 694=>ÿ83ÿ48536ÿ)9469ÿ9656ÿÿ/,0ÿ484ÿ&894ÿ 699ÿ83ÿ699ÿÿ64ÿ8 ÿ896ÿ967498536ÿ9 ÿ 553ÿ46ÿ 75453ÿÿ46ÿ89ÿÿ 596497ÿÿ46ÿ699ÿ23454567=?ÿÿ@469ÿ4966ÿAÿ) ÿ87ÿÿ46745 3B65636ÿ53ÿ 375698453ÿÿ%8!9636*7ÿ8 58453ÿ9ÿ46 989ÿ531)3453ÿ46ÿC3986ÿD)6ÿ ,694ÿ883ÿ9696Eÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ Fÿ46ÿG)94ÿ87ÿ689ÿ65636ÿ69ÿ8ÿ4966H8ÿ ÿ 695Eÿ/6 989ÿ531)3453ÿ96.)6746ÿÿ 8!7ÿ956ÿÿ ÿ 9ÿ46ÿ96 8ÿ83ÿ8 534 634ÿÿ8ÿ89ÿÿ59649ÿÿ ÿ 7ÿ* ÿ34ÿ338ÿ53469696ÿ!54ÿ484ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ I54ÿ9689ÿ4ÿ46ÿ763ÿ577)6ÿ46ÿG)94ÿÿ ÿ !5ÿ89458 ÿ9834ÿ9ÿ83ÿ786ÿÿ968ÿ9 694ÿ ÿ ÿMNNÿOPQRSRTÿUVÿWTÿXYÿZYÿÿÿ JK ÿMNNÿOPQRSRTÿUVÿWTÿXYÿZYÿÿÿ J[ ÿMNNÿOPQRSRTÿUVÿWTÿXYÿ]^Yÿÿÿ J\ ÿMNNÿOPQRSRTÿUVÿWTÿXYÿ]`Yÿÿÿ J_ ÿMNNÿOPQRSRTcÿ]ÿWdeÿZÿfghiÿWdeÿjghikYÿÿÿ ab ÿMNNÿOPQRSRTÿZVÿjghiÿWTÿXmYÿ al

ÿ 1ÿ ÿ 23454ÿ6782ÿ94ÿ ÿ3 758ÿ 24ÿ2ÿÿ 5ÿÿ ÿ 6469458ÿ3 445ÿ234ÿ6ÿ94ÿ2ÿ234ÿ264ÿ ÿ234ÿ7448ÿ 72ÿ872!ÿ234ÿ"  594ÿ#7$4ÿ% 9452ÿ&ÿ38ÿ54ÿ574ÿ232ÿ 23454ÿÿ94ÿ ÿ'724ÿ544(ÿ232ÿ4'8ÿ)52ÿ455ÿ5ÿ455ÿ&*ÿ+5ÿ455ÿ 252$ÿ*!ÿ 5ÿ455ÿ,-452$ÿ 6-ÿ !ÿ5ÿ2345ÿ455.%424ÿ 6-48/ÿ(56ÿ3$$ÿ5ÿ 6 ($ÿ3 ÿ8ÿÿ646945ÿ(ÿ23484ÿ578ÿ9 58ÿ(ÿ54258!ÿÿ232ÿ258(45ÿ(ÿ54ÿ -5-452ÿ8ÿ 2ÿ4'4ÿ+879'42ÿ2ÿ ÿ3 758ÿ 24ÿ2ÿ43ÿ646945ÿ(ÿ234ÿ 5ÿ(ÿ 054258ÿ+33ÿ9 5ÿ6782ÿ24ÿ2ÿ214ÿ2ÿÿ 54ÿ23ÿ28ÿ9.8//ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ234ÿ7448ÿ 72ÿ872!ÿ)52ÿÿ455ÿ&*ÿ+42ÿ/ÿ 724564ÿ$82ÿ 544ÿÿ234ÿ24ÿ544ÿ455ÿ+3441/ÿ55782ÿÿÿ234ÿ+)528ÿ6ÿ455ÿ&*8/ÿ 7245. -422ÿ74ÿÿ2-5ÿ89!ÿ343 !ÿ)52ÿ6ÿ455ÿ&*ÿ474ÿ:455.%424ÿ 6-48ÿ2ÿ54(45ÿ 2ÿ242.4ÿ+3;/ÿ64ÿ 6-48ÿ:ÿ5424ÿ42248<ÿÿ455ÿ&*ÿÿ&84 52ÿ 4826428ÿ ÿ54ÿ4=-5488ÿ64ÿÿ)528ÿ6ÿ455ÿ&*8ÿ 7245.-422ÿ74ÿ2-5ÿ89!ÿ 343 ÿ+ÿ7448ÿ 72/ÿÿÿ,(ÿ 7584!ÿ2=8ÿ8ÿ4ÿ9ÿ&84 52ÿÿ3481ÿÿ8ÿ4ÿ 9ÿ455ÿ&*ÿ84ÿ3481!ÿÿ2378ÿ8ÿ4ÿ(ÿ234ÿ:455.%424ÿ 6-48>ÿÿ538ÿ78ÿ (ÿ2=8ÿÿ234ÿ7448ÿ 72ÿ872ÿ8ÿ(752345ÿ4574ÿ9ÿ)528ÿ6ÿ455ÿ&*8ÿ4$ÿ8 45ÿ -5- 74ÿ2ÿ544ÿÿ234ÿ24ÿ544ÿ455ÿ+3441/ÿ55782ÿ+9 23ÿ-5478ÿ458ÿ (ÿ2=8/?ÿÿ@73ÿ4$ÿ8 45ÿ-5- 74ÿÿ234ÿ7448ÿ 72ÿ872ÿÿ)ÿ!ÿ343 Aÿ +8/ÿ54474ÿ:455.%424ÿ 6-48ÿ2ÿ4=-5488ÿ74ÿ:24ÿ544ÿ455ÿ3441ÿ ÿ BC ÿÿEFFÿGHIJKJLÿMNÿOLÿPQÿRQÿ BB ÿEFFÿGHIJKJLÿMNÿOLÿPQÿRQÿÿ BS ÿEFFÿGHIJKJLÿTUNÿOLÿPQÿVQÿÿÿ BW ÿEFFÿXYZÿUUU[V\RNÿ]^K_F`LÿLaÿbcaLF`LJdFÿecfFcÿgLcOh]iFcÿaiÿTUUjÿakhFc]IJPÿOhfÿTUUjÿ̀ahLcalÿaiÿXHJ]ÿ mJf]LcFOnÿoalfJhp]ÿYYqÿicanÿrOh]FdaacLÿshdF]LnFhL]ÿYYqÿgOÿZFcctuvFlOLFfÿqanPOhtwÿLaÿZFcctÿrbÿsh`Qÿ gBx|ZFcctÿrbNyÿOÿZFcctuvFlOLFfÿqanPOhtwÿzÿOÿLcOh]iFcÿLIOLÿOllÿPOcLJF]ÿcF`aphJ{FÿO]ÿdOlJfQÿ ÿEFFÿGHIJKJLÿTTQÿÿÿ ÿ 1ÿ 234567ÿ89234567ÿ9 536ÿ5665ÿ7ÿ95ÿ563ÿ5ÿ7ÿ9ÿ63ÿ 365ÿ7ÿ897ÿ9 !ÿ"4#6ÿ3$365ÿ7ÿ89 !7ÿÿ6%35&'(ÿÿ2%5ÿ )4#5ÿ46!ÿ 546ÿ9*33!+,6ÿ$ 57ÿ823456ÿ 536ÿ5ÿÿ !ÿ ÿ 6%ÿ*33!ÿ ÿ,*2ÿÿ6%35ÿ3ÿ3#6!ÿÿÿ6%ÿ635#65ÿ ÿ6%ÿ 54-.#6ÿ/ÿ 350ÿ1ÿÿ36ÿ05ÿ#$6ÿÿ2ÿÿ 335ÿ46!ÿ25&'3ÿÿ33ÿ ÿ6%ÿ)4#5ÿ46!ÿ 546ÿ65ÿ/ÿ6%455ÿ/ÿ$ 5ÿ/ÿ5#3!ÿ% ÿ3!ÿ-ÿ #% ÿ-!ÿ6%ÿ$ 365ÿ4ÿÿ%435ÿ8$3% $5ÿ6%455ÿ/ÿ$ 5ÿ/ÿ#465ÿ #% ÿ3ÿ3#6!ÿ36ÿ6ÿ3 #ÿ/ÿ 536ÿ5ÿÿÿÿ6%3ÿ *33!+,6ÿ$ 5ÿ ÿ6%ÿ54-.#6ÿ/ÿ 350ÿ1ÿÿ365ÿ05ÿ#$65ÿ8ÿ  335ÿ46!&'5ÿ6 !ÿ 36!05ÿ1ÿ*33!ÿ05ÿ663!5ÿ66ÿ5#4555ÿ6ÿ35ÿ  35%$1#63ÿ5545ÿ36ÿ6ÿ5ÿ6%5ÿ$ 56ÿ543ÿ8ÿ6%ÿ#66ÿ/ÿ6%ÿ)4#5ÿ 46!ÿ 546678ÿÿ$3#$ 5ÿ/ÿ5ÿ6#ÿÿ/3 ÿ6ÿ/3ÿ5ÿ563ÿ 5ÿÿÿ)4#5ÿ46!ÿ25ÿ6ÿ/3#ÿ5#455ÿÿÿ$55-ÿ3546ÿ/ÿ  35%$1#63ÿ5545ÿ36ÿ6ÿ5&79ÿÿÿÿ6%5ÿ:365ÿ3ÿÿ6%ÿ#66ÿ/ÿ5ÿ 563ÿ5ÿÿ8ÿ 6%ÿ 536ÿÿ !ÿ*33!ÿ ÿÿ36ÿ #$ 5ÿ-ÿ63ÿ6ÿ6%ÿ)4#5ÿ46!ÿ 546ÿ4ÿ ÿ5ÿ/4 6ÿ6ÿ6%5ÿ  335ÿ46!ÿ$3#5&ÿÿÿ ;<=>??>@A=>BÿDEFGH=>FÿIJ;B><=EKA@LMÿNÿÿ

ÿ ÿRSSÿTUVWXWYÿZZ[ÿÿ OP ÿRSSÿTUVWXWYÿ]ÿ^_`abcWdbYWecbfÿgVb`Yh[ÿÿÿ O\ ÿRjXkSlYÿYeÿm`eYSlYWnSÿ_`oSp̀ÿbcoÿbnbWfbXfSÿWcÿlbqS`b[ÿÿÿ Oi ÿRSSÿTUVWXWYÿZ]ÿ^SqbWfÿSUlVbcaStÿXSYuSScÿvbu`SclSwtÿbYYe`cSxtÿbcoÿyb`YxwtÿbYYe`cSxth[ÿÿÿ rs ÿRSSÿTUVWXWYÿZ{ÿ^Wc|e`qbfÿY`bctl`W}YWecÿe|ÿ~jajtYÿ]]€pÿqSSYWcah[ÿÿÿ rz

ÿ 1ÿ 234ÿ53647389ÿ 4758ÿ53ÿ957ÿ97 5ÿ 4647ÿ38ÿ87ÿ ÿ856897ÿ7ÿ  7564ÿ897ÿÿÿ ÿ64954 ÿ6845ÿ77457ÿ9 ÿ534ÿ7 7559ÿ649ÿ!68!465"ÿ 5464757ÿ349ÿÿ7!!865ÿ8#ÿ534ÿ6845$%ÿÿ&86ÿ64787ÿ4594 ÿ 8'4(ÿ537ÿ47ÿ534ÿ 4758ÿ 345346ÿ644ÿÿ984ÿ ÿ538 5ÿ)466"ÿ*7ÿ)86ÿ8#ÿ+645867ÿ865"ÿ!!68'9ÿÿ3 ÿ  53865"ÿ58ÿ567#46ÿÿ,-.ÿ 998ÿ)466"ÿ*ÿ7745ÿ7$ÿ58ÿÿ536/!65"ÿ0)2$%ÿ14!6549"ÿ ÿ  5899"(ÿ534ÿ774ÿ978ÿ47ÿ534ÿ 4758ÿ8#ÿ345346ÿ644ÿ534ÿ#64 9"ÿ+4#4 5$ÿ ÿ984ÿ ÿ538 5ÿ0)27ÿ)86ÿ8#ÿ+645867ÿ865"ÿ!!68'9ÿÿ3 ÿ 53865"ÿ58ÿ567#46ÿ 534ÿ74ÿ,-.ÿ 998ÿ)466"ÿ*ÿ7745ÿ7$ÿ58ÿÿ536/!65"ÿ1(ÿ! 6!8654 9"ÿ8568994 ÿ"ÿ 957ÿ38ÿ3'4ÿ85ÿ'4754 ÿÿ!4"ÿÿ534ÿ6845ÿ#86ÿ5346ÿ7!!874 ÿ2664 ÿ546475$%ÿÿ )466"ÿ*ÿÿ!65"ÿ58ÿ534ÿ3 447ÿ8 5"ÿ97 5$ÿ ÿ57ÿ,-.ÿ 998ÿ'4754 ÿÿ7ÿ7ÿ 54664954 ÿ53ÿ957ÿ97 5%ÿÿ4ÿ537ÿ4ÿ667ÿ8 5"ÿ97 5ÿ7ÿ85ÿ 7 774 (ÿ  54 (ÿ86ÿ567#4664 ÿ58ÿ3 447ÿ8 5"(ÿ247(ÿ534ÿ)466"ÿ*ÿ3'ÿ'4754 ÿ,-.ÿ 998ÿ ÿ534ÿ6845$ÿ8 9ÿ4ÿ#864 ÿ58ÿ546'44ÿÿ53474ÿ667ÿ8 5"ÿ!6844 7(ÿ47!54ÿ534ÿ 3 447ÿ8 5"ÿ7 5ÿ53ÿ)466"ÿ*(ÿ45ÿ9(ÿ4ÿ5675ÿ594 %ÿÿÿÿ234ÿ3 447ÿ8 5"ÿ7 5ÿ  ÿ537ÿ667ÿ8 5"ÿ97 5ÿ64ÿ978ÿ54664954 ÿ'4ÿ534ÿ58ÿ-$ÿ67 587ÿ8/475ÿ  ÿ8!45ÿ5'4ÿ6494#6ÿ7$ÿ3 447ÿ8 5"7ÿ886 94ÿ8 4ÿ08 465ÿ*9'ÿ 64#74 ÿ58ÿ48ÿ534ÿ567#46ÿ8#ÿ)466"/04954 ÿ8!47ÿ649ÿ!68!465"ÿ#546ÿ9:ÿ38 67ÿ 854$(ÿ 5ÿ667ÿ8 5"7ÿ886 94ÿ8 4ÿ 6ÿ04 4ÿ37ÿ484 ÿ;ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ567#466ÿÿ "ÿ"ÿ534ÿ84673!ÿ<86=ÿ!68!465"ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ6357ÿ8#ÿ"ÿ455"ÿ77854 ÿ53ÿ534ÿ6845>?@Aÿ  ÿ-$ÿ3 447ÿ8 5"7ÿ886 94ÿ8 4ÿ08 465ÿ*9'ÿ64#74 ÿ58ÿ48ÿ347ÿÿ

ÿ ÿEFFÿGHIJKJLÿMÿNOPQRSÿÿÿ BC

ÿ 1ÿ 3454673758ÿ9ÿ7 7487ÿ93457ÿ8ÿ4 ÿ958ÿ95947ÿ67ÿ44ÿ 775ÿ4ÿ75957ÿ!"#956ÿ45ÿ377856ÿ848ÿ5ÿ45ÿ$4ÿ77%ÿ89ÿ4&7'8ÿ87ÿ3454673758ÿ (ÿ(ÿ(ÿ9ÿ)*ÿ9ÿ45ÿ987ÿ7588ÿÿÿ(ÿ(ÿ(ÿ49'487ÿ$8ÿ87ÿ+97'8ÿ(ÿ(ÿ(ÿ(,ÿÿ-7ÿ.7'7ÿ958ÿ 4$8ÿÿ4ÿ498ÿ'9589ÿ9ÿ7 ÿ/+ÿ45ÿ87ÿ7 7487ÿ93457ÿ05'56ÿ)*ÿ 1+ÿ2$4ÿ45ÿ9873ÿ4ÿ4ÿ'93457ÿ7'8ÿ55957ÿ5ÿ87ÿ+97'8ÿ45ÿ+9$7ÿ6ÿ)7ÿ +98ÿÿ4$8(ÿÿÿ 7778ÿ :;<=>?=@A=BCÿ ÿ D8ÿÿ37584 ÿ848ÿ8$9ÿ0E3ÿ'98ÿ'45598ÿ97ÿ'895ÿ9ÿ87ÿ437ÿ'47ÿ9ÿ '958957ÿ48ÿ87ÿ437ÿ837(ÿÿ !4556ÿ"F8ÿ4'G7#ÿ9795ÿ45ÿ'895ÿ9ÿ87ÿ'47ÿÿ 848ÿ'895ÿ734'7ÿ757 856ÿ5ÿ87ÿ'47ÿ45ÿ757 ÿG7895ÿÿ 456ÿ$'ÿ'9ÿ7ÿ787357ÿ5ÿ8ÿ58ÿ8ÿ74'7ÿ8ÿ87354895ÿÿ 45ÿ87ÿ'895ÿ$4ÿ7*487(ÿH7ÿ87ÿ'895ÿ"5ÿ87ÿF8ÿ F7ÿ'47#ÿ487ÿ8ÿ$4ÿ7*'57ÿ45ÿ'9ÿ598ÿ7ÿ875'7ÿ95ÿÿÿ 45ÿ987ÿ854(,Iÿÿ ÿ -7ÿ7ÿÿ7*4857ÿ77ÿ5ÿ295458ÿ29895ÿ89ÿ)487ÿ6ÿ+74ÿ5ÿ)4873758ÿ095ÿF73ÿ 45ÿ4ÿ'ÿ7F56ÿÿ77ÿ5'99487ÿÿ7775'7ÿ4ÿ896ÿÿ78487ÿ775(ÿÿÿÿ -7*4ÿ4$ÿÿG87ÿ'74ÿ848ÿ87ÿ'895ÿ9ÿ87ÿJKLMNJOPQÿ4'895ÿ059$ÿ8ÿ7556ÿ5ÿ .7'7ÿ9583ÿÿ!7*'57,ÿ45ÿ'45598ÿ7ÿ!875'7ÿ95ÿÿ45ÿ987ÿ854(,ÿÿR9ÿ

ÿ ST ÿVWXYZ[\Zÿ]^ÿW__à\Wbac[ÿYZdeZfbZgÿhWYbiÿjZYYiÿW[gÿjZYYiÿklÿmW[gÿbncfZÿW\ba[oÿa[ÿ\c[\ZYbÿXabnÿbnZpqÿrZÿ Z[sca[ZgÿtYcpÿ\nW[oa[oÿpW[WoZpZ[bÿctÿjZYYiÿklÿcYÿW[iÿctÿabfÿYZẀbZgÿZ[babaZfÿriÿYZpcua[oÿVWXYZ[\ZÿWfÿWÿ gaYZ\bcYvÿÿwegoZÿkWùW[ÿYZtefZgÿbnZÿYZdeZfbZgÿYZàZtÿriÿYeà[oxÿbnZÿyjiẀXfÿ_YcuagZÿtcYÿbnZÿYZpcuWÿ̀W[gÿ WSS__ca[bpZ[bÿctÿWÿjcWYgÿctÿzaYZ\bcY{ÿfcÿ^|pÿ[cbÿoc[[Wÿa[bZYtZYZÿXabnÿbnWbv}ÿÿÿ ÿ~cYÿgc\epZ[bfÿa[ÿfe__cYbÿctÿfbWbZpZ[bfÿa[ÿbnafÿ_WYWoYW_n{ÿfZZÿtccb[cbZÿ[cfvÿÿ€ÿ‚{ÿWrcuZvÿÿ Sƒÿ„†‡†ˆ‰Šÿ‡ŒÿˆŽŠÿ‘’ÿ“ŒŒÿ”•–—ÿ”•˜”ÿ™š†›Œÿ”œ–Œÿ~cYÿWrcebÿ‚žžÿiZWYf{ÿ]ZŸWfÿ̀WXÿnWfÿYZpWa[Zgÿe[\nW[oZgvÿÿ  ˆ¡¡ÿ‡Œÿ“¢ˆ£ÿ¤¥¦§¨‰©ÿ„ª¦«ˆ‰ÿ¬­žÿ®v̄vgÿ°ÿm]ZŸvÿ‚±²²qvÿ ÿ 12ÿ 234567228ÿ9 5ÿ 65 ÿ1ÿ8576ÿ57ÿ636 5 5ÿ7ÿ9 ÿ4655 9 ÿ6554ÿ7 ÿ 35 ÿ5565 5ÿ49ÿ45ÿ57ÿ9 64ÿ64ÿ7 363ÿ633439 ÿÿÿ ÿ 57ÿ9565 4ÿ!9 5ÿ! 7456ÿ"#$ÿ3ÿ729ÿ 345ÿ7 77 4ÿ7%9 4ÿ45ÿ925 348ÿ9ÿ 45ÿ& 35ÿ!9 64'ÿ9 3567439 ÿ9ÿ34ÿ9 ÿ633439 ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ()ÿ45ÿ% 35ÿ9 64ÿ95ÿ94ÿ75ÿ633439 ÿ9ÿ45ÿ7439 ÿÿ ÿ ÿ 45ÿ9 64ÿ722ÿ74ÿ45ÿ9439 ÿ9ÿ45ÿ7648ÿ23ÿ45ÿ7439 *ÿÿ 1ÿ467 56ÿ45ÿ7439 ÿ49ÿ7ÿ34634ÿ9 64ÿ96ÿ9 48ÿ9 64ÿ74ÿ27ÿ3ÿÿ 7ÿ9 48ÿ9ÿ6956ÿ5 5,ÿ96ÿÿ "ÿ33ÿ45ÿ7439 ÿ349 4ÿ65 35ÿ49ÿ45ÿ7648'ÿ634-ÿÿÿ 57ÿ9565 4ÿ!9 5ÿ! 7456ÿ"#$ÿ5439 ÿ"#$.%/0ÿÿÿ 1554228ÿ43ÿ& 35ÿ!9 64ÿ2255 4ÿ33339 ÿ3ÿ695628ÿ35 ÿ%8ÿ45ÿ57ÿ 4 655ÿ!9 64ÿ7 496348ÿ345 ÿ5653ÿ7 ÿ7 3439 72ÿ57ÿ 3372ÿ7 496348ÿ345 ÿ7 ÿ 3 5 ÿ3ÿ597 4'ÿ59439 ÿ49ÿ$%745ÿ6ÿ7257ÿ3ÿ$%7455 4,ÿ729 ÿ34ÿ57ÿ9565 4ÿ !9 5ÿ! 7456ÿ"#$ÿ$ÿ ÿ43ÿ& 35ÿ!9 64ÿ(722-ÿ53456ÿ467 56ÿ45ÿ7439 ÿ49ÿ8 55ÿ !9 48ÿ57,ÿ96ÿ(33ÿ45ÿ7439 ÿ349 4ÿ65 35-/9ÿÿÿ :;<ÿ ;>?@>ÿ ÿ 57ÿ1 25ÿ9ÿ!332ÿ7695 65ÿ(1!7-ÿA##%"ÿ65 365ÿ474ÿB765 5'ÿ89435ÿ9ÿ 15972ÿ(257 ÿ74ÿ49ÿ547%23ÿÿÿÿ5 5ÿ3ÿ7ÿ9 48ÿ3ÿ7 ÿ956743ÿ3339 ÿ9ÿ45ÿ % 35ÿ9 64-ÿÿCÿ9 65ÿ45ÿ6596ÿ59 46745ÿB765 5ÿ7655 ÿ49ÿ45ÿ467 56ÿ9ÿ 5 5ÿ9ÿ45ÿ64D25 ÿ2734ÿ45ÿ8 55ÿ!9 48ÿB734/Eÿ854ÿ9ÿ73ÿ294ÿ3ÿ%3ÿ96ÿ

ÿ FG ÿIJKLMNOÿPOQRSJTÿUVWXYYZ[\]^ÿÿXÿXÿXÿ_àÿRbOÿcdPSTOPPÿQJdNRÿ\JOPÿTJRÿbMeOÿfdNSP\SQRSJTÿJaÿRbOÿMQRSJTgÿRbOÿ cFmdPSTOPPÿQJdNRÿPbMhhÿNOKMT\ÿRbOÿMQRSJTÿRJÿRbOÿQJdNRÿSTÿibSQbÿRbOÿMQRSJTÿiMPÿJNSjSTMhhkÿlhO\Xÿ ÿnopqporstÿqvÿwrxtyÿz{|ÿ}vwvÿ~€yÿ~‚~ÿƒ„pvÿ~†z€‡ˆÿw‰rŠŠÿqvÿ}‹rŒÿoŽ‘s’ÿn“”rs‰yÿ•ZYÿ–X—XU\ÿU˜Vÿ[™OšXÿ › Fÿ œ]žÿ™OšMPÿŸJeONTKOTRÿIJ\OgÿIbMLRONÿUVgÿPOQRSJTÿUVXYYZ[c]Xÿÿ –OOÿ¡šbScSRÿXÿÿÿ ÿ 11ÿ 345647839ÿ 3 ÿ34ÿ8 ÿ6 7ÿ648ÿ638ÿ3ÿÿ34ÿ 448ÿ334ÿ4ÿ 8834ÿ ! ÿ"ÿ# 3ÿ!8ÿÿ$6 8ÿÿ8 ÿ% ÿ345647839ÿ 3 ÿ&4ÿ88%'8ÿ%6 34()*ÿÿ  47ÿ3+ ÿ%864ÿÿ3ÿ' 936ÿ % 48ÿ8ÿ84 ÿ8 ÿ,8-, ÿ7ÿ8ÿ 6 7ÿ648.ÿ/948ÿ6ÿÿ88ÿ 47ÿ837ÿÿ0 %9ÿ3ÿ8ÿ1' ÿ 78ÿ8ÿ8 3ÿ)ÿ)ÿ)ÿ946 ÿ)ÿ)ÿ)ÿ)23ÿÿ448.ÿ 47ÿ% ÿ848ÿÿ 47ÿ8 ÿ ! ÿ"ÿ# 3ÿ!8ÿÿ' 83834ÿ&37ÿ3ÿ48ÿÿ' 34ÿÿ78ÿ8ÿ8 3ÿ946 ÿÿ  47()5ÿ 47ÿÿ3ÿ8ÿ7%'ÿ38ÿ60!ÿ788&(&2(.ÿ4ÿ86ÿ8 ÿ3ÿ4ÿ'' ÿ ' 34ÿ6'4ÿ37ÿ946 ÿ34ÿ8 ÿ9634 ÿ68ÿ3ÿ8 3 )ÿÿÿ ÿ  47ÿ837ÿÿ0 %9ÿ3ÿÿ'76ÿ: ÿ'6648ÿ8ÿ6;ÿ <9 4% 48ÿ.ÿ7834ÿ28#)==>&()ÿÿ63ÿ'9334ÿÿÿ74,%?ÿÿÿ 1#ÿ'8ÿ8ÿ4ÿ7834ÿ, ÿ34ÿÿ38378ÿ768ÿÿ7648ÿ768ÿ8ÿÿÿ 34ÿÿ7648ÿÿ'' ÿ946 ÿ88ÿ3ÿ48ÿ3834ÿ4ÿ' 834ÿ39334ÿÿ ÿ8 ÿ634 ÿ768ÿÿ8 ÿ56ÿÿ8 ÿ768ÿ34ÿ37ÿ8 ÿ7834ÿÿ 3ÿ, ÿ%ÿ48ÿ%9ÿÿ84 ÿ8 ÿ7834ÿ8ÿ8 ÿ634 ÿ768)2ÿÿÿ ÿ  47ÿ3ÿÿ1'82ÿ8ÿ8 ÿ6 7ÿ648ÿ17834ÿ, ÿ34ÿÿ38378ÿ768ÿ)ÿ)ÿ)ÿ34ÿÿ7648ÿÿ '' ÿ946 2ÿ& ÿ946 ÿ34ÿ6 7ÿ648(ÿ188ÿ3ÿ48ÿ3834ÿ4ÿ' 834ÿ39334ÿÿ 8 ÿ634 ÿ7682ÿ&@38ÿ9634 ÿ68ÿ39334(ÿ)ÿ)ÿ)ÿ1%ÿ48ÿ%9ÿÿ84 ÿ8 ÿ7834ÿ 8ÿ8 ÿ634 ÿ768)2ÿÿ 47ÿ %9ÿÿ8 ÿ%88 ÿ8ÿ8 ÿA 948ÿ9634 ÿ68ÿ 39334ÿ3ÿ;' ÿ'338ÿÿ8868)ÿÿÿ

ÿ BCÿEFFÿGHIJKJLÿMNÿOLÿPQÿRQÿÿÿ STÿEFFÿUVOJWLJXYZÿEF[\W]ÿ^_FW]F]ÿUFLJLJ\WNÿOLÿPQÿ̀Qÿÿÿ Saÿb\_POcFÿGHIJKJLÿMÿdef]gFÿhOViOWZYÿcfVJWgÿ\WÿjOkcFW[FZYÿ^PPVJ[OLJ\Wÿl\cÿmF_P\cOcnÿoWpfW[LJ\WqÿOW]ÿGHIJKJLÿrNÿ kJ Suÿ LIÿGHIJKJLÿ̀ÿdmstÿYJgWF]ÿKnÿef]gFÿsF]]FWqQÿÿÿ Sxÿ msbUÿRvvdKqdwqQÿÿ EFFÿjOkcFW[FZYÿy\LJ[Fÿ\lÿsF_\iOVNÿOLÿPQÿz{rÿdJW[Vf]JWgÿl\\LW\LFÿwqQÿÿÿ ÿ 12ÿ ÿ 3456ÿ78946 6ÿ ÿ5ÿ56ÿ46ÿ7ÿ34 65ÿ34674 ÿ64ÿ 5ÿ ÿ4 ÿÿ6ÿ 4 ÿ8  64ÿ ÿ947574 ÿ997ÿ64ÿ6ÿ756 6ÿ8 66ÿ75ÿ6 5ÿ4ÿ6ÿ 7596ÿ64ÿ5ÿ4 6ÿ!5"#ÿ ÿ7ÿ6ÿ$ÿ46ÿÿ56%ÿ5ÿ7ÿ5ÿ4 6ÿ !5ÿ&ÿ$7ÿ6ÿ75'ÿÿ34 65ÿ$4ÿ54$ÿ6ÿ ÿ755ÿ 5ÿ ÿ556 67 ÿ 59946ÿÿ7 ÿ ÿ7ÿ$76ÿ6ÿ7(ÿ4ÿ34 65ÿ34674 ÿ64ÿ 5ÿ ÿ4 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ5ÿ7 ÿ ÿ7 (ÿ75ÿÿ7494 6ÿÿ ÿ5ÿ64(ÿ ÿ 56ÿ46ÿ ÿ566ÿ7'""ÿÿÿÿ)789ÿ566*ÿÿ!5ÿ77ÿ+ 67ÿ ÿ,875ÿ4ÿ - +, .ÿ 96ÿ1/ÿ5674 ÿ1/'011ÿ75ÿÿ8  64ÿ ÿ947574 ÿ77(ÿ6 5ÿ4ÿ 675ÿ5ÿ64ÿ5ÿ4 6ÿ!5ÿ +, ÿ1/'010ÿ7(ÿ7 997ÿ5ÿ6ÿ+4$5ÿ2ÿ 3 7ÿ+465ÿ44 ÿ4 6 65ÿ7ÿ5674 ÿÿ46ÿ-8 54ÿ6 5674 5."6'ÿÿÿ ÿ !5ÿ74 8 6ÿ4ÿ 96ÿ1/3ÿ6ÿ555ÿ 'ÿÿ8ÿ967 6ÿ9 6ÿ 5674 ÿ1/3'009ÿ5665*ÿÿÿ -8ÿ6ÿ ÿ674 ÿ75ÿ557(ÿ64ÿÿ77574 ÿ4ÿ6ÿ5755ÿ46ÿÿ 6ÿ46ÿ6875ÿ6 6ÿ6ÿ77574 :5ÿ(4( 97ÿ6 764ÿ45ÿÿ 46ÿ7ÿÿ4 6ÿ4ÿ949ÿ ÿ4ÿ6ÿ674 ÿ6ÿ46ÿ5 *ÿ 1ÿ7ÿ ÿ49 67(ÿ77574 ÿ4ÿ6ÿ46ÿ75ÿÿ4 6ÿ4ÿ949ÿÿ  ÿ6 5ÿ6ÿ674 ÿ64ÿ6 6ÿ77574 <ÿ4ÿ 1ÿ7ÿ6ÿ75ÿ46ÿ ÿ49 67(ÿ77574 ÿ4ÿ6ÿ46ÿ6 6ÿ75ÿÿ ÿ4 6ÿ4ÿ949ÿ ÿ6ÿ6ÿ49674 ÿ4ÿ6ÿ9 6ÿ7(ÿ6ÿ674 ÿ 6 5ÿ6ÿ674 ÿ64ÿÿ75676ÿ46ÿ4ÿ4 6ÿ46ÿ6ÿ$ÿ7ÿÿ4 6ÿÿ 4ÿ949ÿ 'ÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿ@ABCDÿEFGFHÿIJCKLFKAÿCMNÿOAPANFADÿEQNARÿDAKLFQMÿSTUVSSUÿÿ => ÿWAAÿXBYFZFLÿS[ÿ\C]FNCGFLÿQ^ÿ_F̀AÿabPPAHHRÿcFLYÿABYFZFLDdUÿÿÿ == ÿfghijkÿmnÿojpqrstÿuQUÿVvwSVwVVvSxwEyRÿzVS[ÿ@ABU{||Uÿ}X~WÿSvVTxRÿCLÿ€w‚ÿ\@ABU{||Uÿƒÿ{bDLFMRÿ„AKAPZAJÿ‚Rÿ =e zVS[RÿMQÿ|ALFLFQMdÿDAAÿCHDQÿ†‡ÿqjÿˆ‰hkÿŠ‡jqhstÿ†‡rntÿuQUÿVTwVxwVSVS‚wEyRÿzVVxÿ@ABU{||Uÿ}X~Wÿx[xRÿzVVxÿ‹}ÿ vzŒVxSVRÿCLÿ€Sÿ\@ABU{||Uÿƒÿ„CHHCDRÿKLQZAJÿSvRÿzVVxRÿMQÿ|ALFLFQMdUÿÿŽbJLYAJRÿ|HACDAÿMQLAÿLYCLÿMAFLYAJÿ_CJLÿ AJJÿMQJÿ„AMMFDÿAJJÿDF‘MANÿCMÿKQMLJCKLÿcFLYÿCÿ|JQGFDFQMÿCHHQcFM‘ÿ^QJÿGAMbAÿFMÿaCJJFDÿEQbMLRÿ@ABCDUÿÿ ÿ 12ÿ 34ÿ456ÿ7896ÿ595 ÿ5 5ÿ4ÿ 689ÿ ÿ554ÿ8 6ÿ54ÿÿ9545 6ÿ6595ÿ4ÿ8ÿ 8596 ÿ76ÿ4 544ÿ896ÿ 48 ÿ34ÿ4 ÿ6 4ÿ!55 6ÿ4 544ÿ896ÿ 48 ÿÿ "ÿ94 6ÿ68ÿ54ÿ#8595 6ÿ85ÿ$%3&&'ÿ"ÿ69 4759ÿ65ÿ9855 ÿ68ÿ554ÿ8 6ÿ 4696ÿ896ÿÿÿ ()ÿ +,-./012,-ÿ ÿ  4ÿ465ÿ4ÿ95ÿ5  ÿ ÿ4ÿ8 ÿ355 ÿ5  ÿÿ554ÿ8 6ÿ54ÿÿ 5ÿ9545ÿ465ÿ5ÿ65ÿ43456ÿ87ÿ65ÿ554ÿ8 6ÿ5646ÿ4ÿ95ÿ5659 65ÿ 87ÿ65ÿ86594ÿ7ÿ35ÿ8964ÿ55ÿ4658ÿ66ÿ4ÿÿ954868 ÿ87ÿ65ÿ599ÿ#ÿ98659ÿ ÿ 8 698:ÿ465ÿÿ65ÿ554ÿ8 6ÿ5646ÿ6ÿ95485ÿ65ÿ98659ÿ ÿ8 698:ÿ4654ÿ 789ÿ8659ÿ599;<565ÿ8 548ÿ ÿ95485ÿ6 5659ÿ5695 5ÿÿ 659ÿ8659ÿ68ÿ 5ÿ4845ÿ69 475995ÿ34ÿ86ÿ87ÿ599ÿ#ÿ68ÿ<8ÿ 789ÿ86ÿ87ÿ<ÿ68ÿ5=>ÿ34ÿ4 ÿ 65ÿ?946;?5ÿ554ÿ8 6ÿ5646ÿ4ÿ8565ÿ6599565ÿ68ÿ6 4ÿ86594ÿ7ÿ35ÿ8964ÿ 55ÿ646ÿÿ5ÿ668ÿ@$Aÿ454ÿ85ÿ4346 6ÿ65ÿ45ÿ9654ÿ89ÿ9654ÿ66ÿ ÿ35ÿ 5ÿ@4ÿ865ÿ789ÿ59ÿ65ÿ54ÿ=955ÿ896ÿ8 8 4ÿ65A8ÿ65ÿ668ÿ@$Aÿ454ÿ85ÿ 65ÿ5 6ÿ98659ÿ ÿ8 698:ÿ465ÿ789ÿ599ÿ#8ÿ65ÿ668ÿ@$Aÿ454ÿ 563ÿ 85ÿ B96ÿ8 5ÿ5695 5ÿ599ÿ#ÿ34ÿ5=ÿ<ÿ ÿB6ÿ@ ÿ8659ÿ599;<565ÿ 8 54A8ÿ65ÿ668ÿ@$Aÿ454ÿ85ÿ86;65ÿ ÿ856 ÿ896ÿ89594ÿ789ÿ4 65ÿ 9557ÿ@C5ÿ# ÿ86 ÿ69 4759ÿ87ÿ98596ÿ36ÿC5ÿ<55 ÿ5 48 ÿ6A8ÿ65ÿ668ÿ@$Aÿ 454ÿ 85ÿ86;65ÿ ÿ856 ÿ896ÿ89594ÿ789ÿ8659ÿ 4 65ÿ9557ÿ@C5ÿ # ÿ86 ÿ  5ÿ ÿ956894ÿ@ 55 6Aÿ36ÿC5ÿ<55 ÿ5 48 ÿ6A8ÿ ÿ 895ÿ5ÿ454ÿ95ÿ6599565ÿ ÿ64ÿ65ÿ49468 ÿ87ÿ65ÿ896ÿÿ6  ÿ65ÿ?946;?5ÿ

ÿ 12ÿ 345678ÿ69ÿ 8 68ÿ768385ÿÿ77ÿ8 ÿ39ÿ679ÿ3 ÿ57ÿÿ384ÿ38 ÿ 35ÿ5ÿ3ÿ69ÿ38 357ÿ68ÿ 49ÿ785ÿÿÿ ÿ  ! "#! ÿ$! %& &ÿ#&%' ! 'ÿ73859ÿ3ÿ5(35ÿ5(69ÿ7873ÿ85(ÿ )968 99ÿ75ÿ'669678ÿ38 ÿ69699ÿ7ÿ5389*ÿ8 ÿ7*ÿ5( ÿ355ÿ39ÿ+ 95 ÿ ( 68ÿ38 ÿ*7ÿ94(ÿ75( ÿ38 ÿ*5( ÿ6*ÿ57ÿ(64(ÿ73859ÿ3ÿ9(7ÿ5( 99ÿ,95ÿ 8565 ÿ75(ÿ35ÿ3ÿ38 ÿ68ÿ+65ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ! 9 45*ÿ&655 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ -./ÿ1223456ÿ12ÿ7189-.6ÿ.--361:ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ;<=ÿÿ>3843(3ÿ&5 5ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 79ÿ(6956ÿ>?39ÿ@A;<1ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ >Bÿ =C1DAAADC<<Eÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ "Bÿ =C1DAAADCC21ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Bÿ 7F 36978347ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ )GBÿÿ HIJIÿLMNOPQJÿRSÿRPPTJMUVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 7WXYZ[\ÿ.]ÿ.ZZ^\W_ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ &535ÿ)3ÿ7ÿ<1<A=2<<ÿ ÿ 45`a3234.a5ÿ12ÿ65`b345ÿ ÿ ÿ %ÿ5( ÿ8 968 ÿ( ÿ456*ÿ5(35ÿ3ÿ5 ÿ38 ÿ4745ÿ47 ÿ7*ÿ5( ÿ*7 768ÿ 74 85ÿ(39ÿ 8ÿ7ÿ6ÿ ÿ9 ÿ 78ÿ3ÿ4789ÿ7*ÿ47ÿ*7ÿ5( ÿ3569ÿ68ÿ3447384ÿ 65(ÿ5( ÿ>?39ÿ!9ÿ7*ÿ66ÿ$74 ÿ78ÿ5(69ÿ5( ÿE<cdÿ3ÿ7*ÿ7 ÿE<E;ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿe9eÿ'739ÿfÿf6978ÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ 7189-.6ÿ.]ÿ.--361:ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ

ÿ 12ÿ 012 345 267ÿ 96 2 5 26ÿ 3 ÿ66 6 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!"ÿÿ#$%ÿ"& '( ) ÿ+,-) .ÿ/ ) . 0 ) 1 ÿ2 ( , / ÿ1 3 45 6) 7 2ÿ0, 8 ÿ)68 , - ÿ 9) 7 ).

8 2)1ÿ:;ÿ 2()ÿ )+, -, 7 9ÿ /;/2)6 P<Q=RÿS?T@UTAPÿVBSCQ?WAÿÿYCU=ÿWBQÿR?<ZTÿP?@QAÿ[ÿDVAZEQFÿ<\=YFSÿP[V\]Q^_ÿ̀TaQRWÿbcWSÿWSTaaÿdRYZT^QÿV ÿ GH F ?A Bÿ I AG <JK ÿL@A ÿE M G AFÿ N<OAE=H=N efghijiekhfÿmjÿnfgoiefÿhpkhÿemqrsifnÿtihpÿkssÿkrrsiekusfÿgvsfnw xyzÿ Œ Ž ÿ|}~’ÿ“€”•–‚—ƒ””„}ÿƒÿ‚†‡„ÿƒ„ÿˆƒ~‰‡†Šÿ‹‡‡yŠƒ ‘ ˜™š›œžž™Ÿ¡ž¢£¤š ¥¦ ¶· § ¨ ©ª ¸Î·Í¹ÏºÐÿÿ¼½« ¨ ÿ ­®ÿ̄ ¾ÔÕ¿ÖÿÍÀ¿ ° ± ² ³ ± ° ´ µ ÁÏÂÃÚÿ·ÄÛÅÜ·½Û¹ÝÆÞÿßǽ ŷܽÿ¹àÙ ÁÿÈáÿɸÿ̧ØÊÅËàÙ ¿ÃØÍÙÏÿØÙÿäÓåâÏæçÿÒÍÔåÍÔÔçÿàèé ÌÍ ÒÓ × ØÍÙ ß Þ Û âÏ ã Ôÿ êëìëíîÿìîÿðñÿòòóôòóôõôöÿ÷øõöÿùúÿûêü ýþþÿ012345ÿ72þ4ÿ8293ÿý 4934ÿ5ÿ948ÿ49þ  +,-./012- >?@AB _àbcdeafghiad̀dbj ‚ƒ‚„ ÿ 3345677 CDCEFGHIJKLMNKDDKHOLGP kklmnlmnmoÿqromrnsÿtu †‡ˆ‰ !"#$%&'ÿ!#)'&''%* 89:;<=8= QRSSTUTTVWXYUSZ[U\\UW]S^R vvwxywxyxzÿ|}zx}y~ÿ€ Š‹Œ

Ž‘’“”•–ÿ˜“•ÿ™“š”›œÿŽ’ÿž’–”š•“Ÿÿ¡–’¢£ ¤¥¦§ ³´µ¶·¸¹ºµ ¿ÀÁÂà ÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÔÙÚÛÜÔÓ××ÕÝ éêëêìí ¨©ª«¬­®ÿ°±²²­®® »¼½¾»»¼¼ ÄÅÆÆÇÈÈÆÉÊËÌÈÍÎÏÐÑÆ ÞÞßàáßàáàâÿäåâàåáæÿçè îïðñ

òóóôõö÷øùúÿü÷óùÿý÷þøÿ0ÿò11ù23÷4þù2õù5ùþþÿ 6789 ;<=>?@AB= CDEFG „†‡ˆ‰Š†‹ŒŽ† ‰‰‡ ¼½¾½¿À ÿ  HIJKLMNJIOPQHHLHIRNLSTMU ‘’“‘’“’”ÿ–—”’—“˜ÿ™š ÁÂÃÄ ÿ!"#$ VWXYVZ[Z\]^[XXYX\_`YabcV ››œžœžŸÿ¡¢Ÿ¢ž£ÿ¤¥ ÅÆÇÈ %&'()ÿ%+,-&)) ddefghiijklddmdhnompqrs ¦¦§¨©§¨©¨ªÿ¬­ª¨­©®ÿ̄° ÉÊËÌ ./012/ÿ456627829:7 tuvwwxtyxz{t|}~uutuz€t‚{ƒ ±±²³´²³´³µÿ·µ̧³¸´¹ÿº» ÍÎÏÐ ÑÒÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÙÿÛÖÒØÿÜÖÝ×ÞßÿàÖÝáÕâãäØââåØÝÝÞ æçèé   GHIJKLMINOPQIHLLJR tuvuwx êëìíîïðÿòîîóðëô   !"#$%%&'(%$)*+, SSTUVTUVUWÿYZWUZV[ÿ\] yz{| õö÷ÿùúûüýþüÿ0þ1þú -./01233.456327895/ ^^_`a_`a`bÿdeb`eafÿgh }~€ 23456ÿ8965 4 :;:<=>?<@@A:B=@<CDEBF iijkljklkmÿopmkplqÿrs ‚ƒ„ †‡ˆÿŠ‹Œ†Œ‡ 012 345 267ÿ 96 2 5 26ÿ 3 ÿ66 6 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!"ÿÿ#$%ÿ"& '( ) ÿ+,-) .ÿ/ ) . 0 ) 1 ÿ2 ( , / ÿ1 3 45 6) 7 2ÿ0, 8 ÿ)68 , - ÿ 9) 7 ).

8 2)1ÿ:;ÿ 2()ÿ )+, -, 7 9ÿ /;/2)6 P<Q=RÿS?T@UTAPÿVBSCQ?WAÿÿYCU=ÿWBQÿR?<ZTÿP?@QAÿ[ÿDVAZEQFÿ<\=YFSÿP[V\]Q^_ÿ̀TaQRWÿbcWSÿWSTaaÿdRYZT^QÿV ÿ GH F ?A Bÿ I AG <JK ÿL@A ÿE M G AFÿ N<OAE=H=N efghijiekhfÿmjÿnfgoiefÿhpkhÿemqrsifnÿtihpÿkssÿkrrsiekusfÿgvsfnw xyzÿ Œ Ž ÿ|}~’ÿ“€”•–‚—ƒ””„}ÿƒÿ‚†‡„ÿƒ„ÿˆƒ~‰‡†Šÿ‹‡‡yŠƒ ‘ ˜™š›œžž™Ÿ¡ž¢£¤š ¥¦ ¶· § ¨ ©ª ¸Î·Í¹ÏºÐÿÿ¼½« ¨ ÿ ­®ÿ̄ ¾ÔÕ¿ÖÿÍÀ¿ ° ± ² ³ ± ° ´ µ ÁÏÂÃÚÿ·ÄÛÅÜ·½Û¹ÝÆÞÿßǽ ŷܽÿ¹àÙ ÁÿÈáÿɸÿ̧ØÊÅËàÙ ¿ÃØÍÙÏÿØÙÿäÓåâÏæçÿÒÍÔåÍÔÔçÿàèé ÌÍ ÒÓ × ØÍÙ ß Þ Û âÏ ã Ôÿ êëìëíîÿìîÿðñÿòòóôòóôõôöÿ÷øõöÿùúÿûêü ýþÿ0ÿý234þ54ÿ 6789 6789:;<=8 >?@AB €‚ƒ„†‚‡ˆ‰Š‚ƒ‹ ¸¹º¹»¼ ÿ  CDCEFFGFHIJDDKDCLFKMNOP ŒŒŽŽŽÿ’“Ž“”ÿ•– ½¾¿À ÿÿ QRSTUTVTWXYYZ[\]^W_`\VabWU ——˜™š˜™š™›ÿž›™žšŸÿ¡ ÁÂÃÄ !"#$$%ÿ'(#)#* cdcefeghdijjkjclmknopg ¢¢£¤¥£¤¥¤¦ÿ̈©¦¤©¥ªÿ«¬ ÅÆÇÈ +,-./0.12ÿ4512 qrstuvwxyyzy{|tz}q~ ­­®¯°®¯°¯±ÿ³±́¯°́µÿ¶· ÉÊËÌ

EXHIBIT 4

E-filed in the Office of the Clerk CAUSE NO. 24-BC11A-0025 for the Business Court of Texas 12/3/2024 11:51 AM ALBERT THEODORE POWERS; § IN THE BUSINESS COURT Accepted by: Beverly Crumley ALLIED PORTS LLC, § Case Number: 24-BC11A-0025 § Plaintiffs, § § v. § ELEVENTH DIVISION § AXIS MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS, § LLC; ALLEN LAWRENCE BERRY; § MARVIN GLENN BERRY; AND § BONNIE BERRY, as successor in § interest to DENNIS WAYNE BERRY § § Defendants. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND MOTION TO REMAND/DISMISS/TRANSFER

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Marvin Berry (“Marty”) and Bonnie Berry (“Bonnie”) have filed a Motion to

Transfer Venue (“MTV”) and Motion to Remand, Dismiss, and/or Transfer Venue (“MTR”) and

a Plea in Abatement (the “Motions”) all of which ignore the fact that Marty and Bonnie (through

her husband Dennis) contractually agreed that exclusive jurisdiction in this case lies only in Harris

County, Texas. Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the most efficient path to resolving the Motions

is to enforce the parties’ agreement and rule that exclusive jurisdiction for disputes under the

Investment Agreement is in Harris County and Harris County only. There are two independent

paths to such a conclusion. First, the contractual clause at issue is an enforceable forum selection

clause which is presumptively enforceable in Texas and can only be ignored if the party

challenging the enforceability of the clause meets an onerous burden of proof which Marty and

Bonnie have not met in this case.

Alternatively, the clause at issue is a venue selection clause which grants mandatory and

exclusive jurisdiction in Harris County for this case, evidence of which Plaintiffs have established

by prima facie proof. See, e.g., Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(3)(a); Sustainable Tex. Oyster Research Mgmt.

L.L.C. v. Hannah Reef, Inc., 491 S.W.3d 96, 106 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied

(citing Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tex. 1993)) (A plaintiff’s “prima facie proof

is not subject to rebuttal, cross-examination, impeachment, or disproof.”). If this Court

determines that claims in this lawsuit are subject to either a forum selection clause or an

enforceable venue selection clause, then both the Plea in Abatement and the Motion to Transfer

Venue must be denied.

Plaintiffs’ claim for an ownership interest in the project that is the subject of this lawsuit is

based on an Investment Agreement signed by all parties (the “Investment Agreement.”). See, e.g.,

Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Petition at p. 1. The Investment Agreement between these sophisticated

parties from separate states includes a provision that requires this lawsuit to be brought and

litigated only in Harris County, Texas and may not be brought in Nueces County or any other

county. Ex. 1 at §5(a). In the Agreement, the Berry Defendants not only consented to “exclusive

jurisdiction” in Harris County for any suit “seeking to enforce any provision of, or based on any

matter arising out of in connection with this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby,”

but they also “irrevocably waive[d], to the fullest extent permitted by relevant law, any objection

that may now have or hereafter have to the laying of venue or any of any such suit, action, or

proceeding in any such court.” Ex. 1 at § 5(a) (emphasis added). Simply put, the courts in Harris

County are the only courts where Plaintiffs’ claims can be brought. Nueces County does not have

jurisdiction over this lawsuit, and Marty and Bonnie waived their right to object to venue in Harris

County just as they have attempted to do here.

Aside from that dispositive issue, Marty and Bonnie’s venue arguments are unpersuasive

and irrelevant, and none lead to mandatory venue in Nueces County. The assertion that “real

property” involved with the Lone Star Ports Project at issue in this lawsuit is located in Nueces

County is a red herring and, even absent the Investment Agreement, would still not support transfer

to Nueces County. Plaintiffs are not seeking to adjudicate any issues involving “real property,”

and the entity at the center of this lawsuit, Axis Midstream Holdings, LLC, does not own any real

property in Nueces County. Similarly, Lawrence Berry is not “sham” defendant, as the relief

Plaintiffs seek applies equally to him as it does to the other Berry Defendants.

Regardless, Nueces County is not a county of proper venue that (1) is within another

operating business court division or (2) a county of proper venue that would be considered “at the

option of the party filing the action.” Id. at § 25.006A(c). If this Court determines that it does not

have jurisdiction or that venue is not proper in Harris County, then the Plaintiffs get to pick which

county this case should be transferred to and the Plaintiffs do not select Nueces County.1 Finally,

transfer for convenience is not appropriate when a forum selection clause or mandatory venue

applies, and Marty and Bonnie woefully failed to meet their burden anyway. Defendants’ Motions

should be denied.

1 If the Court determines that this case should be transferred to another court, Plaintiffs suggest that it be transferred to the Business Court in San Antonio. One of the entities involved in the Project that is the subject of this lawsuit owns property in San Patricio County, which is within the jurisdiction of the Fourth Business Court Division in San Antonio. Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.003(f); id. at § 74.042(e); see also MTR at Ex. 14, Hummell Affidavit at ¶ 3 (“The Midway to Harbor Island Project that is the subject of the TRO in the above-referenced litigation is located entirely in San Patricio and Nueces Counties.”).

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES2

I. The parties agreed to “exclusive jurisdiction” in Harris County in a mandatory forum selection clause.

While Marty and Bonnie have attempted to create several different smokescreens over

jurisdiction and venue over this action, at bottom both are straightforward. In the Investment

Agreement, Powers and the Berry Defendants agreed to “exclusive jurisdiction” “in the state or

federal courts in Harris County, Texas” for suits “seeking to enforce any provision of, or based

on any matter arising out of or in connection with, this Agreement or the transactions contemplated

hereby, whether in contract, tort or otherwise… so long as one of such courts shall have subject-

matter jurisdiction3 over such suit[.]” Ex. 1 at §5(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Berry

Defendants agreed to “irrevocably waive[], to the fullest extent permitted by relevant law, any

objection that it may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such suit, action, or

proceeding or that any such suit, action, or proceeding which is in any such court has been brought

in an inconvenient forum.” Id. (emphasis added). A full copy of the provision is reproduced below

for convenience:

2 Plaintiffs’ Verified Third Amended Petition contains a fulsome recitation of the facts applicable to this action, and Plaintiffs’ Response to Marty’s Plea in Abatement contains a condensed factual background. The facts relevant to venue are referenced through this section and supported by the Declaration of Plaintiff Albert Theodore Powers attached as Exhibit 10. 3 The Court’s subject matter jurisdiction can be plainly derived from Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.004(d), as this action involves a “qualified transaction”3 with an amount in controversy of more than $10,000,000. See, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Third Am. Pet. at ¶ 8, 13; see also Defendant Lawrence Berry’s Notice of Removal. The Motion to Remand is not based on an assertion that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, it is based on assertions that there were procedural defects in the removal to this Court. Those defects are being addressed by Lawrence Berry as the removing party.

Despite their agreement, Marty and Bonnie are now ignoring that Harris County has

“exclusive jurisdiction” and seeking to object to venue that they “irrevocably waive[d].” As set

forth further below, the Court should hold them to their agreement.

A. The forum selection clause is valid and enforceable.

In Texas, forum selection clauses are “presumptively valid.” See, e.g., In re Laibe Corp.,

307 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2010). “A trial court abuses its discretion in refusing to enforce the

clause unless the party opposing enforcement clearly shows (1) enforcement would be

unreasonable or unjust, (2) the clause is invalid for reasons of fraud or overreaching, (3)

enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum where the suit is brought, or (4)

the selected forum would be seriously inconvenient for trial.” Id. Notably, the “burden of proof

6

is heavy for the party challenging enforcement.” Id. And in this case, Marty and Bonnie can come

nowhere close to meeting their burden of proof.

“The enforcement of valid forum-selection clauses, bargained for by the parties, protects

the parties ‘legitimate expectations’ and furthers ‘the vital interests of the justice system,’ such as

sparing litigants the time and expense of pretrial motions to determine the proper forum for

disputes.” See, e.g., In re Agresti, 2014 WL 3408691, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 29,

2014, mand. denied) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 33 (1988) (Kennedy,

J., concurring)); see also Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 594 (1991). Not

surprisingly, Texas courts have routinely enforced and construed contractual provisions as “forum

selection clauses” that, like this one, provide “exclusive jurisdiction” to certain enumerated courts:

• In re Automated Collection Techs., Inc., 156 S.W.3d 557, 558 (Tex. 2004) (“The parties hereto consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.”) (emphasis added);

• In re Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., 257 S.W.3d 228, 230-31 (“AGREE TO SUBMIT FOR THEMSELVES, IN ANY LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT AND ANY SCHEDULE OR FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ANY JUDGMENT IN RESPECT HEREOF OR THEREOF, TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH [sic] OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND APPELLATE COURTS FROM ANY THEREOF, (B) CONSENT THAT ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE BROUGHT IN SUCH COURTS, AND WAIVE ANY OBJECTION THAT EACH MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE TO THE VENUE OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING IN ANY SUCH COURT”) (capitals in original) (emphasis added);

• In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 674 (Tex. 2009) (“It is agreed that exclusive jurisdiction and venue shall vest in the Nineteenth Judicial District of Lake County, Illinois, Illinois law applying.”) (emphasis added).

• Pinto Tech. Ventures, L.P. v. Sheldon, 526 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex. 2017) (“[T]he Delaware state courts of Wilmington, Delaware (or, if there is exclusive federal jurisdiction, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware) shall have exclusive jurisdiction and venue over any dispute arising out of this Agreement, and the parties hereby consent to the jurisdiction of such courts.”) (emphasis added).

• Rieder v. Woods, 603 S.W.3d 86, 90 (Tex. 2022) (“ANY CLAIMS OR CONTROVERSIES UNDER OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE EXCLUSIVELY DETERMINED IN THE STATE AND/OR FEDERAL COURTS LOCATED IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, TO WHOSE JURISDICTION EACH PARTY IRREVOCABLY CONSENTS.”) (capitals in original) (emphasis added).

Texas appellate courts have done the same:

• Deep Water Slender Wells, Ltd. v. Shell Int’l Explor. & Prod., Inc., 234 S.W.3d 679, 683-84 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (“the parties irrevocably agree that the courts of The Hague, The Netherlands shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any controversy or claim of whatever nature arising out of or relating to the Consulting Agreement or breach thereof”) (emphasis added);

• In re Counsel Fin. Servs., L.L.C., 2013 WL 3895317, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, Jul. 25, 2013, no pet.) (“BORROWER HEREBY CONSENTS AND AGREES THAT ANY FEDERAL OR STATE COURT LOCATED IN ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK, SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ANY CLAIMS AND DISPUTES BETWEEN BORROWER AND HOLDER PERTAINING TO THIS NOTE OR TO ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS NOTE…”) (capitals in original) (emphasis added);

• Loya v. Loya, 507 S.W.3d 871, 874 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, mand.

denied) (“Any dispute arising out of or [i]n connection with this Agreement or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof shall be submitted exclusively to the jurisdiction of the courts of Rotterdam, the Netherlands.”) (emphasis added);

• Xia v. Floyd, 638 S.W.3d 821, 824 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2021, no pet.) (“such action shall be filed exclusively in the courts of the State of California or of the United States of America located in the counties of ... Orange or Los Angeles, as selected by the Member that is the plaintiff in the actions, or that initiates the proceeding or arbitration. Each Member agrees not to commence any action, suit or other proceeding arising from, relating to, or in connection with this Agreement except in such a court and each Member irrevocably and unconditionally consents and submits to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of such courts for the purposes of litigating any such actions, and hereby grants jurisdiction to such courts…”) (emphasis added);

• In re Apex Tool Group, 2024 WL 969735, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar.

7, 2024, no pet.) (“[e]ach party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts located in the County of Mecklenburg, North Carolina in any legal suit, action or proceeding...”) (emphasis added).

Section 5(a) is no different than the forum selection clauses addressed in the cases cited

above. Under Texas law, Section 5(a) is a forum selection clause that is presumptively valid, and

the Court has not been provided with evidence to invalidate this clause. Accordingly, the Court

should rule that Section 5(a) constitutes a mandatory forum selection clause and deny Marty and

Bonnie’s Motions.

B. Marty and Bonnie (through Dennis) signed the Investment Agreement containing the forum selection clause.

Marty and Bonnie have not provided the Court with any evidence to meet the heavy burden

of invalidating the forum selection clause to which they contractually agreed. The best they could

do to date is claim that neither Marty nor Dennis signed the Investment Agreement. This is easily

rejected, as the Investment Agreement is fully executed by all four parties—Lawrence, Marty,

Dennis and Powers (Ex. 1; see also Ex. 10 at ¶ 5 (“I witnessed Marty Berry and Dennis Berry

execute the Agreements at the Berry GP office in Corpus Christi, Texas; I have an original

Investment Agreement signed in ink by all parties.”):

Having established the existence of a signed written contract with prima facie evidence sufficient

to meet Plaintiffs’ burden of proof in a venue challenge, Marty and Bonnie are not permitted to

challenge, rebut or try and disprove the existence of a signed written Investment Agreement. Tex.

R. Civ. P. 87(3)(a) (“Prima facie proof is made when the venue facts are properly pleaded and an

9

affidavit, and any duly proved attachments to the affidavit, are filed fully and specifically setting

forth the facts supporting each pleading.”). This proof, at the motion to transfer stage, “is not

subject to rebuttal, cross-examination, impeachment, or disproof.” See, e.g., Hannah Reef, Inc.,

491 at 106 (citing Ruiz, 868 at 757).

Moreover, this is not the first time that parties to a signed contract have attempted to deny

they signed in order to avoid a mandatory forum. In Aerotek v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199, 202 (Tex.

2021), a group of employees filed declarations denying they electronically signed an arbitration

agreement associated with their employment documents. The court noted, relevant here, that for

“a paper document with a handwritten, wet-ink signature, the genuineness of a signature can be

proved by direct evidence—for example, testimony by an eye witness,4 a witness familiar with the

signatory’s handwriting, or an expert who has compared the signature against a genuine

specimen.” Id. at 204-05. But the court went further, finding that the employees did not present

evidence that demonstrated “how their electronic signatures could have wound up on [the

agreement] without their having placed them there themselves.” Id. at 209. The court put it

bluntly—“[m]ere denials do not suffice.” Id. “Evidence cannot be disregarded when it

demonstrates physical facts that cannot be denied, so that reasonable people could differ in their

conclusions.” Id. The court accordingly reversed and compelled the employees’ claims to

arbitration. Id. at 210.

Similarly, in Knox Waste Serv., LLC v. Sherman, 2021 WL 4470876, at *8 (Tex. App.—

Eastland Sept. 30, 2021, no pet.), a party seeking to avoid an arbitration agreement filed an

affidavit claiming that “he did not sign the document.” The court rejected this assertion, stating

that “a mere denial by the [party] that he did not sign the agreement, without more, fails to create

4 As noted above, Plaintiff Powers witnessed both Marty and Dennis sign both the Investment Agreement and Agreement at issue. Ex. 10 at ¶ 5.

a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. The court accordingly reversed the trial court and compelled

the action to arbitration—the required forum for disputes within the agreement’s scope. Id. at 10.

Moreover, the conduct of both Powers and the Berry Defendants is consistent with both

the Investment Agreement and the Agreement being signed by all parties. For example, the Berry

Defendants paid Powers compensation and expenses totaling over $2 million dollars. Ex. 10 at ¶¶

6-7. At the Berry Defendants’ request, the compensation portion of the Agreement was terminated,

which was memorialized in a letter and email discussion. Id. at ¶ 6; see also Ex. 3; Ex. 4. If there

was no signed agreement, why send a letter terminating the compensation portion of the agreement

in 90 days according to that Agreement’s terms? And perhaps more importantly, why agree to

keep paying Mr. Powers’ expenses? Id. Because all parties understood that the Investment

Agreement and Agreement had been signed by all parties and were enforceable contracts.

That same month, Mr. Powers sent Marty and Dennis a proposed structure for the Project

that plainly showed Mr. Powers’ 20% interest (i.e., “ATP”) at the ownership level (Ex. 5) – which

is consistent with the terms of the signed Investment Agreement:

None of the Berry Defendants objected or otherwise claimed that Mr. Powers did not have any

ownership interest. Ex. 10 at ¶ 8. Nor did the Berry Defendants object when Mr. Powers sent

transfer documents and operating agreements for entities involved in the Project to Energy Capital

Partners—a potential investor in the Project. Id.; Ex. 6, 7. Nor did the Berry Defendants object

or claim Mr. Powers did not have an interest when he sent an organizational chart showing “the

11

structure currently being discussed with ECP” with his company, Plaintiff Allied Ports, LLC listed

at the ownership level. Id. at ¶ 9; Ex. 8.

Again, not only is the evidence that all parties signed the contract overwhelming, the

parties’ conduct is consistent with the terms of the Investment Agreement. When parties contend

that there is a signed contract and the parties’ conduct is consistent with the terms of the alleged

signed contract, the court may infer that the parties agreed to the terms. See, e.g., SK Plymouth,

LLC v. Simmons, 605 S.W.3d 706, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist. 2020], no pet.) (cleaned

up) (“A party’s intent to be bound by a contract may be evidenced by its conduct at the time a

contract is drafted and by its subsequent conduct reflecting that it was acting in accordance with

the terms of the contract.”); see also Firstlight Fed. Credit Union v. Loya, 478 S.W.3d 157, 168

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, no pet.) (“In the absence of a signature on a contract, a court may look

to other evidence to establish the parties’ assent to the terms of the contract,” which “includes the

party’s conduct.”).

The reality is that Marty and Dennis (now Bonnie) do not have evidence that they did not

sign the Investment Agreement and instead the evidence establishes that they did. Indeed, Marty

and Bonnie have significantly less evidence than that present in Aerotek or Knox. They have no

real evidence at all. They did not even file a verified pleading denying execution as required by

the Rules. Tex. R. Civ. P. 93.7. With all the contrary evidence, little wonder why. As in Aerotek

and Knox, the Court should reject Marty and Bonnie’s manufactured attempt to avoid the forum

selection required by the Investment Agreement.

As such, the Court should rule that Section 5(a) of the Investment Agreement is a

mandatory forum selection clause and enforce the parties’ agreement. Doing so moots Marty and

Bonnie’s remaining jurisdictional and venue issues.

II. If Section 5(a) is a “venue clause” the Investment Agreement is “major transaction” requiring mandatory venue in Harris County.

A. Plaintiffs do not believe that Section 5(a) is a “venue clause.”

Plaintiffs do not believe that Section 5(a) can reasonably be construed as a mere venue

selection clause—that would contravene the plain meaning of the parties’ agreement. Burlington

Res. Oil & Gas Co. LP v. Tex. Crude Energy, LLC, 573 S.EW.3d 198, 202-03 (“The Court’s task

is to ascertain the true intentions of the parties as expressed in the writing itself.”). Indeed, venue

“does not refer to any grant or restriction of subject-matter jurisdiction providing for a civil action

to be adjudicated only by the district court for a particular district or districts.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1390(a); see Velasco v. Tex. Kenworth Co., 144 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet.

denied) (recognizing that Texas’s venue statute “appears to have been patterned after a federal

venue statute” and looking to “federal cases to guide our interpretation of the [Texas] statute”);

Summers v. WellTech, Inc., 935 S.W.2d 228, 232–33 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no

writ.) (“The similar wording in the federal and state statutes allows us to look to federal cases as a

guide to interpreting th[e] [state] statute.”). Thus, construing Section 5(a) merely as selecting

venue (rather than as a mandatory forum selection clause) would effectively nullify the parties’

agreement to vest “exclusive jurisdiction” in the state and federal courts in Harris County,

Texas. Otherwise, this language would be rendered meaningless. See Burlington, 573 S.W.3d at

203 (“We examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all

the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless.”) (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs submit that this Court should rule that Section 5(a) is a forum selection

clause.

B. If Section 5(a) is a venue clause, venue is mandatory in Harris County under Tex. Civ. Prac. And Rem. Code Section 15.020.

If this Court determines that Section 5(a) is a “venue clause,” then venue is mandatory in

Harris County because the Investment Agreement qualifies as a “major transaction” under Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.020. Under that provision, if any party to an agreement is to receive

greater than $1 million, then venue is mandatory in the county selected by the parties to the

agreement. Id. at 15.020(a).

Marty and Bonnie argue that the Investment Agreement—which forms the underlying basis

for a state of the art crude oil terminal project in Nueces and San Patricio counties (the “Project”)—

does not qualify as a “major transaction” and instead only reflects a $5,000 contribution payment.

MTV at pp. 2-3. This is nonsensical and contrary to the plain text of the Investment Agreement.

Even if Section 5(a) of the Investment Agreement was merely a venue selection clause (it is not),

it is plainly a “major transaction,”5 for which venue is mandatory in Harris County. Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code 15.020(b) (“An action arising from a major transaction shall be brought in a

county if the party against whom the action is brought has agreed in writing that a suit arising from

the transaction may be brought in that county.”) (emphasis added); see also Tex. Gov. Code §

25A.015 (“A jury trial for a case in which a written contract specifies a county as venue shall be

held in that county.”).

5 "[M]ajor transaction" means a transaction evidenced by a written agreement under which a person pays or receives, or is obligated to pay or entitled to receive, consideration with an aggregate stated value equal to or greater than $1 million. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.020(a).

Indeed, Marty and Bonnie either ignore or fail to consider what they, under the plain text,

are “entitled to receive” under the Investment Agreement. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §

15.020(a). The Agreement entitles Plaintiffs to receive as consideration a 20% interest in the

Project, while the Berry Defendants receive as consideration “priority distributions to the Berrys

or their designees of Two Hundred Fifty Million United States Dollars ($250,000,000) plus a ten

percent (10%) cumulative preferred return on the outstanding balance of such amount.” Ex. 1 at

§ 2. On the face of the Investment Agreement, the Berry Defendants are “entitled to receive” as

consideration for Plaintiffs’ interest far more than the $1,000,000 “major transaction” threshold

under the Agreement. See id.; see also Ex. 10 at ¶ 6.

To be sure, this is consistent with other documents associated with the Investment

Agreement. See SM Energy Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 652 S.W.3d 830, 840 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2023, pet. denied) (considering other documents related to the agreement at issue to

determine whether a transaction was a “major transaction”). The Investment Agreement discusses

“another Agreement” as part of this transaction that “appoint[ed] Powers as [the Berry’s]

representative and chief negotiator for the financing for the Project.” Ex. 1 at p. 1; see also Ex. 2

at § 1. The Agreement being referred to is the compensation agreement entitled “Agreement”

which was executed at the same time as the Investment Agreement (referred to herein as the

“Agreement”). Under the Agreement, the Berry Defendants paid Powers more than $1,000,000 in

compensation and reimbursed expenses. Ex. 2 at § 3; see also Ex. 10 at ¶ 7 (“For my performance

of the Agreements and work on the Project, the Berry Defendants have paid to me and I have

received a total $2,051,421.99.”).

Moreover, in February 2019, a well-respected private equity firm, the Carlyle Group,

valued the Berry Defendants’ interest in the Project at “no less than $400,000,000.” Ex. 9 at p. 7;

see also Ex. 4 at p. 2 ($400,000,000 value assigned to Berry Defendants’ interest). And at a

hearing just days ago, Defendants’ counsel admitted6 the transaction described in the Agreement

“is literally a billion dollar project.” Ex. 10 at p. 4. Even at the more conservative $400,000,000

estimate, Plaintiffs’ 20% interest is worth $80,000,000. See, e.g. Plaintiffs’ Third Am. Pet. at ¶

14. Marty and Bonnie cannot deny the transaction’s “billion dollar” value to avoid venue now.

Fleming, 669 S.W.3d at 461 (“As long as the statement stands unretracted, it must be taken as true

by the court and jury; it is binding on the declarant and he cannot introduce evidence to contradict

it.”).

Marty and Bonnie’s cited authorities are inapplicable here. In In re Togs Energy, Inc., for

instance, there was no language stating the value of the consideration each party was entitled to

receive at all. 2009 WL 3260910, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 13, 2009, no pet.). And similarly,

in Hughes v. Pearcy, the contract did not expressly state that one party or the other was “entitled

to receive” more than $1 million as a condition or consideration in the contract. See 2014 WL

7014353, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin, Dec. 8, 2014, pet. denied). Quite the opposite—one party to

the contract had control over the amount of payments to the other. Id. Here, by contrast, the

Agreement plainly and expressly states that the Berry Defendants are entitled to receive over

$250,000,000 as a result of Plaintiffs’ work that is covered by and the subject of the Investment

Agreement. And unlike in Pearcy, Plaintiff Powers did actually receive more than $1 million

dollars in consideration for his performance. Ex. 10 at ¶ 7.

6 “A judicial admission is a clear, deliberate, and unequivocal assertion of fact which conclusively disproves a right of recovery or a defense and makes the introduction of other evidence on an issue unnecessary.” See, e.g., Wilson v. Fleming, 669 S.W.3d 450, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, pet. granted on other grounds, 694 S.W.3d 186). To constitute a judicial admission, the statement must be: (1) made in the course of a judicial proceeding; (2) contrary to a fact essential for the party's recovery or defense; (3) deliberate, clear, and unequivocal; (4) in accordance with public policy if given conclusive effect; and (5) consistent with the opposing party's theory of recovery. Id. “A party's pleadings or a counsel's factual statements on behalf of a client may constitute judicial admissions.” Id. (emphasis added).

As set forth in Section 1 above, Plaintiffs’ respectfully submit that the Investment

Agreement contains a forum selection clause that is presumptively enforceable and for which

Marty and Bonnie have not met their heavy burden to show it should not be enforced or why the

Court should not enforce their agreement to “irrevocably waive[]” objections to venue.

Regardless, Plaintiffs’ the signed Investment Agreement, Powers’ declaration, and other

supporting evidence cited herein, at this stage, meets the required prima facie proof standard

applicable to motions to transfer venue.7 Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(3)(a) (“When a venue fact is

specifically denied, the party pleading the venue fact must make prima facie proof of that venue

fact.”); see, e.g., Hannah Reef, Inc., 491 at 106 (citing Ruiz, 868 at 757) (A plaintiff’s “prima facie

proof is not subject to rebuttal, cross-examination, impeachment, or disproof.”).

This action arose to “enforce” the Agreement due to Defendants’ disregard for their

obligations. Marty and Bonnie should not be allowed to flout their agreement to exclusive venue

in Harris County the same way they have treated their other obligations under the Investment

Agreement. The Court should enforce the Agreement, which moots the remaining jurisdictional8

and venue issues.

III. Venue over real property is inapplicable and irrelevant to this action.

If the Court enforces the forum selection clause or finds venue under the “major

transaction” statute as set forth above, it need not go further. Nonetheless, Marty and Bonnie claim

in both Motions that Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.011—a venue provision related to disputes

7 “Prima facie proof is made when the venue facts are properly pleaded and an affidavit, and any duly proved attachments to the affidavit, are filed fully and specifically setting forth the facts supporting such pleading.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(3)(a). 8 Plaintiffs are simultaneously filing a Response to the Plea in Abatement in which Marty and Bonnie assert that the case filed in Nueces County has dominant jurisdiction over this case. As discussed more fully in the response to the Plea in Abatement, because mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction is only in Harris County – and this case cannot be brought in or transferred to Nueces County—dominant jurisdiction does not apply.

over real property—should be applied to this case. This is wrong for several reasons. First,

“exclusive jurisdiction” lies in Harris County under the mandatory forum selection clause. Second,

as a matter of law, the major transaction statute trumps other mandatory venue provisions in

Chapter 15 (i.e., Title 2). See, e.g., In re Fisher, 433 S.W.3d 523, 534 (Tex. 2014). There, the

Supreme Court held that section 15.020 applies “to an action arising from a major transaction

‘[n]otwithstanding any other provision in this title,’ indicating “that the Legislature intended for it

to control over other mandatory venue provisions.” Id.; see also In re Fox River Real Estate

Holdings, LLC, 596 S.W.3d 759, 768 (Tex. 2020) (“[W]e clarify that section 15.020 means what

it says and indicates that the Legislature intended for it to control over other venue provisions

within Title 2.”). Plaintiffs’ claims cannot be brought in another venue because the Investment

Agreement requires they be brought in Harris County and cannot be brought in Nueces County.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.020(c)(2) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,

an action arising from a major transaction may not be brought in a county if: the party bringing

the action has agreed in writing that an action arising from the transaction must be brought in

another county of this state or in another jurisdiction, and the action may be brought in that other

county, under this section or otherwise, or in that other jurisdiction.”).

Even so, this case has nothing to do with real property in Nueces County or anywhere else.

The entity at issue in this case—Axis Midstream Holdings, LLC—owns no real property in Nueces

County. In their MTR, Marty and Bonnie ramble through several merits-related questions

regarding the transfer of interest of Axis amongst various non-party companies and Lawrence’s

authority to do so in an attempt to muddy the water. MTR at pp. 4-5. But these facts are not

relevant to the venue standard nor do they change the result (nor are they correct in any event), as

Plaintiffs have (1) sought enforcement of the forum selection clause between the parties and (2)

alternatively provided “prima facie proof” as required to support their venue allegations. Tex. R.

Civ. P. 87(3). Moreover, Marty and Bonnie misconstrue the relief sought by Plaintiffs. The relief

Plaintiffs seek can be summed up simply—follow the Investment Agreement for Plaintiffs’

ownership and do not do anything to steal it. See generally Plaintiff’s Third Am. Pet. This case

is about Plaintiffs’ ownership interest in the Project and Defendants’ attempt to steal it—not title

of or possession of a piece of property owned by other entities in Nueces County.

IV. Marty and Bonnie’s remaining assertions for transfer have no merit.

Marty and Bonnie devote a collective page in their MTV to assert that “none of the acts”

underlying the Plaintiffs’ TRO or claims occurred in Harris County, that Lawrence Berry is a

“sham defendant,” and that the case should be transferred “for convenience.” Each of these

kitchen-sink style arguments (1) do not affect the application of the forum selection clause, (2) do

not affect the application of the major transaction statute, and (3) are easily rebutted by prima facie

proof and can be quickly rejected.

A few examples make the point. First, Marty and Bonnie purport to “specifically deny all

Plaintiffs’ venue allegations,” and that “none of the acts giving rise to the TRO or claims occurred

in Harris County. Motion at p. 3. This misses the point, as many “events and omissions” giving

rise to Plaintiff’s contractual claims and work on the Project occurred in Harris County, Texas.

See, e.g., Ex. 10 at ¶¶ 2, 7. Marty and Bonnie cannot and do not provide any proof to rebut that

the initial framework for the Agreement was negotiated in Houston, Texas. Third Am. Pet. at ¶

11; Ex. 10 at ¶ 2. They provide no proof to rebut the several Houston, Texas meetings where the

underlying agreement at issue was confirmed and significant details about the Project were

discussed. Third Am. Pet. at ¶¶ 12, 14; Ex. 10 at ¶¶ 2, 7. They provide no proof to rebut that

Plaintiff Powers spent most of his time working on the project in Houston, Texas—in an apartment

paid for by the Berry Defendants no less. Third Am. Pet. at ¶ 14; Ex. 10 at ¶ 7.

Second, Marty and Bonnie baldly assert that Lawrence is a “sham defendant.” Though

again irrelevant to venue under the major transaction statute, this is simply not true. The

declarations, breach of contract cause of action, TRO and Temporary Injunction application sought

by Plaintiffs apply equally to all of the defendants. That Lawrence correctly admits that he signed

the fully executed Agreement at issue does not make him a “sham defendant”—it makes him

honest. And if it were necessary to reach additional venue bases (it is not), Lawrence’s residence

in Harris County serves as a basis for proper venue in this dispute. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§ 15.002(2).

Finally, Marty and Bonnie assert that this action should be transferred “for convenience”

to Nueces County. As a matter of law, “convenience” cannot trump a mandatory forum selection

clause or a venue provision like the major transaction statute. See, e.g., In re Fisher, 433 S.W.3d

523, 534 (Tex. 2014). Even if it could, Marty and Bonnie come nowhere close to meet their burden

to transfer and do not even cite any evidence to support their allegations. See Motion at p. 4.

V. Regardless, Nueces County is not a proper transferee court.

Based on the above, the Court can deny Marty and Bonnie’s Motion without further

analysis. However, Plaintiffs wish to briefly address Marty and Bonnie’s assertions that this Court

can or should “remand” the case or transfer to Nueces County based on the Government Code.

First, Mary and Bonnie’s procedural complaints about the removal have no merit and are

dependent on their misguided and wrong arguments on jurisdiction and venue. But even if this

Court does not have jurisdiction after removal, this Court should transfer this case to the Business

Court in San Antonio. The Code provides:

(c) “If, after an action is assigned to a division of the business court, the court determines that the division’s geographic territory does not include a county of proper venue, the court shall:

(1) if an operating division of the court includes a county of proper venue, transfer the action to that division; or

(2) if there is not an operating division of the court that includes a county of proper venue, at the option of the party filing the action, transfer the action to a district court or county court at law in a county of proper venue.

Tex. Gov. Code §25A.006 (emphasis added).

Under 25A.006(c)(1), the case would not be transferred to Nueces County as Marty and

Bonnie seek. Even if Marty and Bonnie’s argument regarding the import of other parties’ real

property were accepted as relevant and dispositive (it is not), it is undisputed that there is real

property involved with the Lone Star Ports Projects in San Patricio County, which is part of the

Fourth Business Court Division. Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.003(f); id. at § 74.042(e); see also MTR

at Ex. 14, Hummell Affidavit at ¶ 3 (“The Midway to Harbor Island Project that is the subject of

the TRO in the above-referenced litigation is located entirely in San Patricio and Nueces

Counties.”). Nueces County does not fall within an established Business Court division and

accordingly would not be available as a venue under 25A.006(c)(1).

Nor would the case be properly transferred to Nueces County under 25A.006(c)(2).

Because there is not an operating division in Nueces County, any transfer would be to a county of

proper venue “at the option of the party filing the action.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.006(c)(2).

Plaintiffs do not agree that Nueces County is a county of mandatory venue or proper venue.

Plaintiffs would not request this Court transfer this action to Nueces County. Instead, if the Court

determines that transfer is required, Plaintiffs would request a transfer to the Business Court in San

Antonio.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny

Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and grant any further relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled.

DATED: December 3, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alistair B. Dawson Alistair B. Dawson State Bar No. 05596100 M. Jake McClellan State Bar No. 24109525 Madeline E. Gay State Bar No. 24138681 E-mail: adawson@beckredden.com E-mail: jmcclellan@beckredden.com E-mail: mgay@beckredden.com 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010-2010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 Telecopier: (713) 951-3720

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served on counsel of record in this matter in accordance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 3rd day of December, 2024.

/s/ M. Jake McClellan M. Jake McClellan

CAUSE NO. 24-BC11A-0025

ALBERT THEODORE POWERS; § IN THE BUSINESS COURT ALLIED PORTS LLC, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § ELEVENTH DIVISION § AXIS MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS, § LLC; ALLEN LAWRENCE BERRY; § MARVIN GLENN BERRY; AND § BONNIE BERRY, as successor in § interest to DENNIS WAYNE BERRY § § Defendants. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Exhibit Number Description Page Number 1 Investment Agreement 23 2 Agreement 33 3 Letter regarding Agreement dated 41 January 30, 2020 4 Email regarding Agreement dated 45 February 3, 2020 5 Email regarding Project Structure 49 dated May 9, 2019 6 Email regarding Interest Transfers 55 dated April 23, 2020 7 Email regarding Operating 68 Agreements dated April 23, 2020 8 Email regarding Project Structure 315 dated May 13, 2020 9 Executed Carlyle Group Term Sheet 318 dated February 7, 2019

23

10 Transcript of Hearing on Plaintiffs’ 335 Motion for Temporary Injunction dated November 12, 2024 11 Declaration of Albert Theodore 365 Powers

EXHIBIT 5

E-filed in the Office of the Clerk for the Business Court of Texas 1/27/2025 4:48 PM Accepted by: Beverly Crumley Case Number: 24-BC11A-0025 CAUSE NO. 24-BC11A-0025

ALBERT THEODORE POWERS and § IN THE BUSINESS COURT ALLIED PORTS LLC § § v. § § 11A – STATE OF TEXAS AXIS MISTREAM HOLDINGS, LLC, § ALLEN LAWRENCE BERRY, § MARVIN GLENN BERRY, and § BONNIE BERRY, as successor in interest to § DENNIS WAYNE BERRY § HONORABLE SOFIA ADROGUE

MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT’S RULING ON PLEA IN ABATEMENT

MOTION TO STAY PENDING MANDAMUS

NOW COMES Martin Glynn Berry (“Marty), Bonnie Berry (“Bonnie), and Axis

Midstream Holdings LLC (“Axis”), together “Movants”, and make and file this Motion to

Reconsider Court’s Ruling on Plea in Abatement (“Motion”) and, in the alternative, Motion to Stay

Pending Mandamus, and in support of same would show:

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 31, 2024, Albert Theodore (“Ted”) Powers and Allied Ports LLC (“Allied

Ports”) filed their Original Petition and Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and

Temporary Injunction (“Plaintiffs’ Original Petition”). On November 8, 2024, Marty and Bonnie

filed a Motion to Transfer Venue (“Motion to Transfer”) and Plea in Abatement/Motion to

Abatement (“Motion to Abate”).1 On January 17, 2025, the Court signed a court order (“Order”)

denying the Motions. Marty, Bonnie, and Axis now file this Motion to Reconsider Court’s Ruling

on Plea in Abatement (“Motion”).

II.

RECENT EVENTS

Recent events reveal that this Plaintiffs’ lawsuit (the “Harris County Lawsuit”) and the

“Nueces County Lawsuit” (Lawrence Berry, et al v. Berry GP, et al, pending in the 94th Judicial

District Court, Nueces County, Texas (filed a year before the Harris County Lawsuit)) are

unequivocally intertwined/interrelated. Of course, an abatement only puts the Harris County

Lawsuit on hold (Plaintiffs’ Harris County lawsuit will remain in Harris County abated, only until

such time as the Nueces County Lawsuit exhausts its jurisdiction2), so that Plaintiffs may

adjudicate its contract claims (such contract having the venue provision in favor of Harris County)

at the appropriate time. Please consider the following.

Recent Events Absolutely Reveal the Two (2) Cases are Intertwined/Interrelated –

We now know with certainty that the Harris County Lawsuit and Nueces County Lawsuit

are inherently intertwined/interrelated. Berry GP’s filing of an application requesting injunctive

1 The Motion to Transfer and Motion to Abate may be collectively referred to as the “Motions.” By this Motion, Axis joins in the Motions (and fully incorporates the Motions by this reference) and joins in this request for the Court to reconsider the Order (that is, joins in this Motion). 2 “[The first-filed case] [h]aving the possession of jurisdiction of the case, that jurisdiction embraced everything in the case, and ever question arising which could be determined in it until it reached its termination, and the jurisdiction was exhausted. While the jurisdiction lasted it was exclusive and could not be trenched upon by any other tribunal.” Cleveland v. Ward, 285 S.W. 1063, 1068 (Texas 1926); citing French v. Hay, 22 Wall. (U.S.), 250, 253. NOTE: Of course, Berry GP is free to file any and all meritorious pleadings, including an application seeking injunctive relief. Historically, litigants have responded to competing lawsuits by filing pleas to the jurisdiction, pleas in abatements, applications for injunctive relief (including anti-suit injunctions to enjoin litigants), and more.

relief in Nueces County (“Berry GP’s Nueces Application”)3 elucidates how the two (2) lawsuits

involve the same core dispute. Lawrence Berry’s (“Lawrence”) Response in Opposition to

Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction (“Lawrence’s Nueces

Response”)4 crystalized that both cases are inherently intertwined/interrelated.

• In Lawrence’s Nueces Response, Lawrence argues that “Movants Berry GP and RBT

[Redfish Bay Terminals Inc.] now seek to have this Court [in the Nueces County Lawsuit]

interfere with the Business Court’s jurisdiction . . . [by filing of Berry GP’s Nueces

Application].”5 This is an overt confession that the two (2) cases seek judicial relief

relating to the same dispute (i.e., a judicial determination of ownership and control of Axis

Midstream Holdings LLC (“Axis”)).

• In Lawrence’s Nueces Response, Lawrence argues that Berry GP’s Nueces Application is

“related to the ownership of Axis that is the very centerpiece of the Injunction Hearing

proceeding in Judge Adrogue’s Court next week.”6 (emphasis added). Movants and

Lawrence clearly agree that the Harris County Lawsuit and Nueces County Lawsuit are

seeking judicial relief relating to the same dispute (i.e., ownership and control of Axis).7

No party has filed any plea to the jurisdiction (or other similar plea or motion) asserting

that Nueces County’s Judge Robert Galvan lacks jurisdiction.

• At time of hearing on Berry GP’s Nueces Application (January 24, 2025), Lawrence – via

legal counsel – argued:

“Nobody contends that directly or indirectly, Marty, Bonnie

3 See Exhibit 1: (Berry GP’s Verified Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, sometimes referred to as “Berry GP’s Nueces Application”). 4 See Exhibit 2 (Lawrence’s Nueces Response). 5 See Exhibit 2 (Lawrence’s Nueces Response), at p. 2. 6 See Exhibit 1 (Lawrence’s Nueces Response), at p. 2. 7 See Exhibit 3 (proposed court order granting TI in Harris County Lawsuit); compare Exhibit 4 (proposed court order granting TRO in Nueces County Lawsuit).

and Lawrence all have ownership in this project. What’s at issue in that [Harris County Lawsuit] case is that Mr. Powers says that he did and he has documents to that effect and is asking for the [Harris County] Court there to take action as to – as to that Axis ownership. That’s what [is] central to that [Harris County] case.”8

Agreed. Movants and Lawrence agree that the “central” issue in the Harris County

Lawsuit is “Axis ownership” (same claim being made by Berry GP in the Nueces County

Lawsuit). These parties also apparently agree that neither Marty, Bonnie, nor Lawrence

“have ownership [of Axis] . . . .” In fact, Berry GP is the owner of Axis, and to the extent

there is disagreement about ownership of Axis, the threshold documents being

scrutinized involve Berry GP, Redfish Bay Terminals Inc., and Lawrence Berry.9 Restated:

The “central” issue in the two (2) cases is “ownership” of Axis, and the only lawsuit on

file with party claiming ownership of Axis is the Nueces County Lawsuit (i.e., Berry GP).

None of the parties in the Harris County Lawsuit claim ownership of Axis.10

• At time of hearing on Movants’ Plea in Abatement (in the Harris County Lawsuit,

December 6, 2024), Ted – via counsel – argued:

“And you can look at the relief that is sought in the [Movant’s Nueces County] petition and in the [Movants’] counterclaim and the court down there [in Nueces] can

8 See Exhibit 8: January 24, 2025 Nueces County Hearing Transcript, at p. 43 9 See Exhibit 5 (document Lawrence/Ted Powers claims transferred Axis from Berry GP to Redfish Bay Terminals Inc.) and Exhibit 6 (document Lawrence/Ted Powers claims transferred Axis from Redfish Bay Terminals Inc. to Lone Star Ports Holdings LLC) – all parties agreeing that neither document signed with any Board of Directors’ majority approval (as required by each corporation’s bylaws). NOTE: Apparently, Ted Powers and Allied Ports LLC seek an adjudication of ownership/control without even joining the real parties in interest. 10 The defect in parties in the Harris County Lawsuit will be addressed in a separate filing.

give all that relief and it won’t have one – it won’t have any bearing at all on this case.11 And so I think that – I think that there is no dominant jurisdiction.”12

Based upon the exact same “petition” to which Mr. Dawson referred, Berry GP moved for

injunctive relief. In response to Berry GP’s request for injunctive relief, Mr. Reasoner –

for Lawrence – argued Berry GP’s request for injunctive relief in Nueces County seeks

relief that is the “very centerpiece”13 of the Harris County Lawsuit (i.e., ownership and

control of Axis);14 and that “Movants Berry GP and [Redfish Bay Terminal] RBT now seek

to have this Court [in the Nueces County Lawsuit] interfere with the Business Court’s

jurisdiction . . . [by Movants’ Nueces Application].”15 Which is it? Can Judge Robert

Galvan (in the Nueces County, first-filed lawsuit) grant all relief requested by Berry GP (as

Mr. Dawson promised), or does the second-filed lawsuit somehow take from Judge Robert

Galvan his jurisdiction (power to be a judge of the dispute pending before him)? This

moment begs for relief. Indeed, the two (2) cases (the Harris County Lawsuit and Nueces

County Lawsuit) are inherently interrelated/intertwined.

• Stated differently: On December 6, 2024, Ted’s attorney stated to this Business Court, as

follows:

. . . I will draft our proposed injunction in a way that it will not interfere at all with whatever the injunction that exists down in Nueces County. . . . [W]e can certainly craft an injunction that does not in any way impinge or infringe upon what the

11 NOTE: The Nueces County Lawsuit expressly prays that certain alleged transfers of Axis Midstream Holdings LLC be declared “void” – thereby confirming that Berry GP owns Axis, not Lone Star Ports Enterprises LLC (as claimed by Ted Powers). 12 See Exhibit 7 (transcript of December 6, 2024 hearing), at p. 55. 13 See Lawrence’s Nueces Response, at p. 2. 14 Berry GP is claiming ownership and control of Axis in the Nueces County Lawsuit, and Plaintiffs are claiming ownership and control of Axis in the Harris County lawsuit. 15 Lawrence’s Nueces Response.

Judge Galvan, I think is his name, down in Corpus Christi, what he’s doing. I just want to let the Court know that.”

The reality is the two (2) cases are – at this very moment – screaming for that relief

which is Texas law.

Movants’ Have Followed Proper Protocol, and First-Filed Acquires Dominant Jurisdiction –

Allen Lawrence Berry (“Lawrence”) seems intent upon attacking Movants’ counsel to

persuade resolution of the dominant jurisdiction issue.16 Towards this end, Lawrence’s counsel

argued to Nueces County’s Judge Galvan “[t]hat Movants fail to disclose either the existence of

the Business Court Lawsuit to this Court . . . .” – but this is FALSE. Movants’ Nueces Application

states: “As of October 31, 2024, Ted Powers and Lawrence (as friendly defendant) filed a new

lawsuit in Harris County, Texas, to take control of Axis Midstream Holdings LLC.”17 Movants’

Nueces Application did not fail to disclose the existence of the Business Court Lawsuit, but rather

expressly disclosed the existence of the Business Court Lawsuit (the Harris County Lawsuit).18

Enough said: let us not cast aspersions, but rather embrace the present issue.

16 In a recent Nueces County Lawsuit document, Lawrence characterizes Movants’ counsel’s Verified Application for Temporary Restraining Order and for Temporary Injunction (“Nueces Application”) filed on behalf of Berry GP, Inc. (“Berry GP”) as “an improper attempt to circumvent . . . Order issued by Judge Adrogue . . . .” (Lawrence’s Response in Nueces, at p. 9) and “procedural impropriety.” (Lawrence’s Response in Nueces, at p. 11). To the contrary, Berry GP is owner of Axis, and thus has an absolute right to protect its (Berry GP’s) multi-million dollar investment by filing whatever pleadings and documents are indicated in the only pending legal action wherein Berry GP (owner of Axis) is a party to the legal proceeding. 17 See Exhibit 1: Movant’s Nueces Application, at p. 10, footnote 27. 18 See Exhibit 1: Movants’ Nueces Application, at p. 10, footnote 27. On January 24, 2025, Lawrence’s attorney tried to float the lie again – and argued to Judge Robert Galvan: “It was remarkable, in their [Movants’] TRO and motion for temporary injunction, there was simply no mention of the case filed by Ted Powers and an entity he owns called Allied Ports . . . .” Transcript, at p. 36 (again, this statement by Lawrence’s attorney proven false by review of Exhibit 1: Movants’ Nueces Application, p. 10 footnote 27); and Lawrence’s attorney again argued to Judge Galvan: “ . . . when you file something like this and don’t disclose that this other case exists . . . ” See Transcript at p. 40; and – again – the statement is false.

Step 1: “Where, as here, two courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine inherently

intertwined issues, filing a dilatory plea in abatement is the proper method for drawing a court’s

attention to another court’s possible dominant jurisdiction.”19 This has occurred, and it is the

proper method for seeking relief in the second-filed action (Harris County Lawsuit).

Step 2: Plaintiffs and Lawrence argue against application of black letter law, and so let it

be said that the scope of a dominant jurisdiction inquiry includes not only the breath of the pleading

on file – but also amended petitions and added parties.

“It is not required that the precise issues and all of the parties be included in the first filed suit before the second suit is filed, provided that the claims in the first suit can be amended to bring in all of the necessary and proper parties and claims.”20

Berry GP is owner of Axis, and a party to the Nueces County Lawsuit since inception (and not a

party to the Harris County Lawsuit). Redfish Bay Terminals Inc. (a corporation that may, in the

alternative, claim ownership) and Lone Star Ports Enterprises LLC (a limited liability company

that Ted claims owns Axis) may both be added as parties to the Nueces County Lawsuit (and are

not parties in the Harris County lawsuit). All of these parties and claims are within the scope of

the Nueces County Lawsuit (per In re Coronado Energy EP Company).

Step 3: Are the two (2) lawsuits inherently intertwined/interrelated? Yes, and let us not

argue this any further. Both lawsuits have requests pending for injunctive relief that is nearly

19 In re Puig, 351 S.W.3d 201 (Texas 2011); citing Mower v. Boyer, 811 S.W.2d 560, 563 n. 2 (Texas 1991); Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Company, 760 S.W.2d 245, 247-248 (explaining that it is proper to file a plea in abatement when two inherently interrelated cases are filed in different counties). 20 In re Coronado Energy EP Company, 341 S.W.3d 479, 481-482 (Tex.Civ.App. – San Antonio, 2011); Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Company, 760 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Texas 1988).

identical. All seemingly now agree the “very centerpiece” of Plaintiffs’ Harris County Lawsuit

has been pleaded, briefed, argued, and submitted for Judge Galvan’s consideration.

Step 4: What are the public policy considerations?

• “Abatement of a lawsuit due to the pendency of a prior suit is based on the principles of

comity, convenience, and the necessity for an orderly procedure in the trial of contested

issues.”21 Comity asks that the judge in the second-filed action honor the judge in the first-

filed action. Convenience asks that the pending case with at least one of the parties

claiming ownership (Berry GP) be preferred. And the “orderly procedure” (most

importantly) asks of us that two (2) courts not engage of battle for jurisdiction (power over)

the dispute – but rather the second-filed action be abated.

• “The first-filed rule flows from “principles of comity, convenience, and the necessity for

an orderly procedure in the trial of contested issues.”22 “The default rule thus tilts the

playing field in favor of according dominant jurisdiction to the court in which suit is first

filed.”23

• Finally, and again, “[The first-filed case] [h]aving the possession of jurisdiction of the case,

that jurisdiction embraced everything in the case, and ever question arising which could be

determined in it until it reached its termination and the jurisdiction was exhausted. While

the jurisdiction lasted it was exclusive, and could not be trenched upon by any other

tribunal.”24

21 Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Company, 760 S.W.2d 245, 248 (Texas 1988). 22 In re J.B. Hunt Transportation Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287 (Texas 2016), citing Wyatt at 248. 23 In re J.B. Hunt Transportation Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287 (Texas 2016). 24 Cleveland v. Ward, 285 S.W. 1063, 1068 (Texas 1926); citing French v. Hay, 22 Wall. (U.S.), 250, 253.

Extensive briefing has already been filed by all parties. The magma-shift is the real world shift

in positions forced by Berry GP’s filing of Berry GP’s Nueces Application, Lawrence’s Nueces

Response, and transcript of hearings.

III.

REQUEST FOR STAY OF HARRIS COUNTY PROCEEDINGS

With absolute respect for this Court, Movants request reconsideration of the Order denying

Movants’ Motions (and a stay pending this court’s further consideration of recent events). If Your

Honor is not so inclined, then Movants’ do intend to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

request a stay pending resolution of such mandamus. Candidly, a final resolution of which court

(Nueces v. Harris) has acquired jurisdiction of the competing requests for injunctive relief

promotes an orderly judicial process. In the meantime, please allow these contents to confirm that

in the absence of a TRO (the court may recall it expired on its own terms on December 6, 2024),

no party to the Harris County Lawsuit has engaged in any action relating to Axis

management/control – thus there is no need (and certainly no hurry) for the court’s consideration

of injunctive relief against Movants.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movants pray for all relief requested herein;

and specifically pray that this Court grant its request for reconsideration of the Order denying

Movants’ Motions, and pray for a stay of proceeding to allow reconsideration and/or mandamus,

and pray that Movants’ Motions (upon reconsideration) be granted, and for such other and further

relief – both at law and in equity – to which Movants may show themselves justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS ALLISON 403 N. Tancahua Street Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 T: 361-888-6002 F: 361-888-6651 E: doug@dallisonlaw.com

BY: /s/ Douglas A. Allison DOUGLAS A. ALLISON State Bar No. 01083500

ROBERTS MARKLAND LLP 2555 N MacGregor Way Houston, Texas 77004 E: vg@robertsmarkland.com

BY: /s/ Vanessa D. Gilmore VANESSA D. GILMORE State Bar No. 07960010

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS MARTY BERRY, BONNIE BERRY, & AXIS MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record in accord with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on January 27, 2025.

/s/ Douglas A. Allison DOUGLAS A. ALLISON

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Susan Gonzales on behalf of Douglas Allison Bar No. 1083500 susan@dallisonlaw.com Envelope ID: 96655627 Filing Code Description: Motions - All Other Filing Description: Movants' Motion to Reconsider Court's Ruling on Plea in Abatement Mtn to Stay Pending Mandamus Status as of 1/27/2025 4:57 PM CST

Associated Case Party: AllenLawrenceBerry

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Barrett H.Reasoner breasoner@gibbsbruns.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Michael R.Absmeier mabsmeier@gibbsbruns.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Bruce Baldree bbaldree@gibbsbruns.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Sydney Ballesteros sballesteros@gibbsbruns.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Cameron Roth CRoth@gibbsbruns.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Stephanie Sanchez sanchezst@gtlaw.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Rosa Brennan rbrennan@gibbsbruns.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Roxanne Graham rgraham@gibbsbruns.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Christina Pena cpena@gibbsbruns.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Becky Young Becky.Young@gtlaw.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Business Court 11A BCDivision11A@txcourts.gov 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Liz Poirrier epoirrier@beckredden.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Vanessa Gilmore vg@robertsmarkland.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Liz Poirrier epoirrier@beckredden.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: MarvinGlennBerry

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Douglas Allison 1083500 doug@dallisonlaw.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Susan Gonzales on behalf of Douglas Allison Bar No. 1083500 susan@dallisonlaw.com Envelope ID: 96655627 Filing Code Description: Motions - All Other Filing Description: Movants' Motion to Reconsider Court's Ruling on Plea in Abatement Mtn to Stay Pending Mandamus Status as of 1/27/2025 4:57 PM CST

Associated Case Party: MarvinGlennBerry

Douglas Allison 1083500 doug@dallisonlaw.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Kim Brunkenhoefer kim@dallisonlaw.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Susan Gonzales susan@dallisonlaw.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: AlbertTheodorePowers

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Alistair Dawson 5596100 adawson@beckredden.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Mary Raffetto mkraffetto@beckredden.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Michael McClellan 24109525 jmcclellan@beckredden.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Madeline Gay mgay@beckredden.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Allied Ports LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Roland Garcia 7645250 garciar@gtlaw.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Steven Higginbotham higginbothams@gtlaw.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Axis Midstream Holdings

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Michael Hummell 10271100 hummellm@bayltd.com 1/27/2025 4:48:15 PM SENT

EXHIBIT 6

THE BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS ELEVENTH DMSION

Albert Theodore Powers; Allied Ports § LLC, § § Plaintiffs., § § V. § § Cause No. 24-BCllA-0025 Axis Midstream Holdings, LLC; Allen § Lawrence Berry; Marvin Glenn Berry; § and Bonnie Berry as successor in § interest to Dennis Wayne Berry, § § Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court is Marvin Glenn Berry, Bonnie Berry, and Axis Midstream Holdings

LLC's Motion to Reconsider Court's Ruling on Plea in Abatement ("Motion to

Reconsider"). At this juncture, having considered the Motion to Reconsider; Alistair B.

Dawson's January 28, 2025 Correspondence; Barrett H. Reasoner's January 28, 2025

Correspondence; the evidence presented; the arguments of counsel; and the current status

of the law, the Court ORDERS that the Motion to Reconsider is

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED: January 28, 2025

EXHIBIT 7 ÿ

ÿ 23456ÿ89ÿ 23ÿ ÿ 36ÿ6996ÿ965ÿ ÿ 8ÿ6ÿ458655ÿ294ÿ 36ÿ95ÿ2ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ !"##$%ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 'ÿ ÿ 66(68ÿ(598ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 3)5ÿ*563*ÿ98+5ÿ ÿ ÿ 2ÿ368ÿ36826ÿ6,ÿ ÿ *3(8ÿ+688ÿ6,ÿ38ÿ ÿ 9886ÿ6,ÿ-.ÿ./001..23ÿ45ÿ ÿ 456131.6ÿ62ÿ6885ÿ3,86ÿ6,ÿ ÿ ÿ 78#8!9!"$:ÿ ÿ 35ÿ2948,ÿ6)35ÿ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ÿ 9956ÿ52648+ÿ<ÿ2356ÿ*383+6*68ÿ96ÿ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ÿ ÿ 2ÿÿ*11645?ÿ @ABÿCDEFGBHÿIBFÿDJKÿLMJNBEEBKÿMOBEÿBIDGPÿMJÿQBLBIRBEÿSTUÿVWVXYÿ ÿ ÿ Z/34.[406425ÿ<ÿ(15/1ÿ @ABÿCDEFGBHÿD\EBBÿFADFÿFABÿ]M^EFÿADHÿH^R_BLFÿIDFFBEÿ_^EGHKGLFGMJYÿÿÿ `PDGJFGNNHÿLMJFBJKÿFADFÿOBJ^BÿGHÿCEMCBEÿGJÿaDEEGHÿ]M^JFbUÿDÿLM^JFbÿGJÿFABÿcPBOBJFAÿQGOGHGMJÿ MNÿFABÿd^HGJBHHÿ]M^EFÿDHÿCEMOGKBKÿRbÿFABÿNME^IÿHBPBLFGMJÿLPD^HBÿLMJFDGJBKÿGJÿFABÿeJOBHFIBJFÿ f\EBBIBJFÿDFFDLABKÿDHÿcgAGRGFÿVÿFMÿ̀PDGJFGNNHhÿ@AGEKÿfIBJKBKÿ̀BFGFGMJYÿÿfPFBEJDFGOBPbUÿFABÿ]M^EFÿ ADHÿOBJ^BÿC^EH^DJFÿFMÿiBLFGMJÿSjYWVWÿMNÿFABÿ@BgDHÿ]GOGPÿ`EDLFGLBÿkÿlBIBKGBHÿ]MKBYÿÿ`PDGJFGNNHÿ LMJFBJKÿFADFÿFABÿ_^EbÿFEGDPÿMNÿFAGHÿDLFGMJÿHAM^PKÿRBÿABPKÿGJÿaDEEGHÿ]M^JFbÿ^JKBEÿiBLFGMJmHnÿ VjfYWSjmKnÿMNÿFABÿ@BgDHÿoMOBEJIBJFÿ]MKBYÿ QBNBJKDJFÿpDqEBJLBÿdBEEbÿLMJFBJKHÿFADFÿOBJ^BÿGHÿCEMCBEÿGJÿaDEEGHÿ]M^JFbYÿ QBNBJKDJFHÿrDEFbÿdBEEbÿDJKÿdMJJGBÿdBEEbÿLMJFBJKÿFABÿaMJMEDRPBÿlMRBEFÿoDPODJUÿsXFAÿ t^KGLGDPÿQGHFEGLFÿ]M^EFÿMNÿ@BgDHUÿu^BLBHÿ]M^JFbUÿ@BgDHÿDLv^GEBKÿKMIGJDJFÿ_^EGHKGLFGMJÿMNÿHMIBÿMEÿ

ÿ ÿ 233ÿ56ÿ7899ÿ 79 93279ÿ2779 ÿ32 ÿ57932 ÿ2ÿ5 ÿ32 ÿ2ÿ9779ÿÿ92ÿ 39ÿ56ÿ3ÿ599ÿÿ29ÿ789ÿ!97ÿ56ÿ7899ÿ" 9 ÿ57ÿ599 #$ÿ2ÿ%ÿ7899659ÿ %ÿ7899ÿ" 9 ÿ57ÿ599 #ÿ7ÿ9ÿ2279ÿ5ÿ  9&ÿÿ'96927ÿ(27ÿ"9 ÿ2ÿ "5 9ÿ"9 ÿ579ÿ789ÿ) 779ÿ5727ÿ2#9ÿÿ32 766ÿ75ÿ659ÿ99ÿ ÿ*2 ÿ57ÿ )2+ÿ,ÿ57ÿ#9ÿÿ(27ÿ"9 ÿ5ÿ"5 9ÿ"9 $ÿ-ÿ57ÿ#9ÿÿ"9 ÿ.ÿ5) 9ÿ56ÿ/ ÿ ( 792ÿ*53 #ÿ00ÿ789ÿ923ÿ27ÿ ÿ 7997$ÿ2ÿÿ9659239ÿ2ÿ2ÿ99ÿ93975ÿ 329ÿ7ÿÿ57ÿ2ÿ65ÿ93975ÿ329ÿ%ÿ5637#ÿ)78ÿ92ÿ3ÿ279ÿ1ÿ999ÿ59ÿ 23ÿ8279ÿ,4$ÿ2ÿ6789ÿ579ÿ7827ÿÿ,4&5-5ÿÿ23239ÿ 27ÿ75ÿ92ÿ !23ÿ2785 7ÿ79ÿ ÿ 96 #&ÿÿ'96927ÿ(27ÿ"9 ÿ2ÿ"5 9ÿ"9 ÿ579ÿ99ÿÿ 2275ÿÿ699ÿ57ÿ92ÿ2ÿ97ÿ6578ÿÿ 96 #$ÿ2ÿ7827ÿ2ÿ!ÿ723ÿÿ53ÿ59ÿÿ 699ÿ57ÿ92&ÿÿÿ '96927ÿ/ ÿ( 792ÿ*53 #ÿ00ÿ!5 ÿÿ233ÿ56ÿ(27ÿ"9 7ÿ2ÿ"5 9ÿ"9 7ÿ 2#97ÿ2ÿ 96 #ÿ2ÿ97ÿ6578ÿÿ(27ÿ"9 7ÿ392ÿÿ/27997ÿ(27ÿ"9 7ÿ2ÿ"5 9ÿ "9 7ÿ(575ÿ75ÿ2 69ÿ899ÿ2ÿ(27ÿ"9 7ÿ9ÿ"5 9ÿ"9 7ÿ(575ÿ75ÿ'  ÿ 92ÿ295ÿ2 69ÿ899&ÿ ÿ :::;ÿ =>?@ABCÿ E976ÿ2ÿ 99ÿ279ÿ5ÿ27279ÿ27523ÿ279ÿ2ÿ789ÿ93275 8ÿ75ÿ789ÿ 279ÿ2ÿ32 ÿ ÿ789ÿ29&ÿ0 7ÿ2ÿ 963ÿ932 ÿ2ÿ27279ÿ 79975 &ÿ'99ÿ 32 275ÿ5ÿ533979275ÿ 9ÿ6ÿ2$ÿ2ÿ59ÿ789ÿ559ÿ32 ÿ96 75ÿ2ÿ2ÿ  2#9997ÿ9#2 #ÿ29&ÿ 3929ÿ976ÿ7827ÿ233ÿ279ÿ829ÿ639ÿ789ÿ55279ÿ' 359ÿ65ÿ9F 9ÿÿ"0ÿ G&ÿÿÿ ÿ 32 766+ÿÿ/33ÿ279ÿ75ÿ78 ÿ599 #ÿ829ÿ99ÿ99ÿ2ÿ32 766ÿ5ÿ57ÿ27279ÿ 2 #ÿ27523ÿ279&ÿÿ32 766ÿ/339ÿ57ÿ00ÿÿ57952953ÿ63#ÿ7ÿ55279ÿ ' 359ÿ65&ÿ '96927ÿ02)99ÿ"9 ÿ59ÿ57ÿ27279ÿ2 #ÿ27523ÿ279&ÿÿ'96927ÿ 02)99ÿ"9 ÿÿ57952953ÿ63#ÿ8 ÿ55279ÿ' 359ÿ65&ÿ '96927ÿ(27ÿ"9 ÿ2ÿ"5 9ÿ"9 ÿ9399ÿ7827ÿ233ÿ99 2ÿ279ÿ29ÿ57ÿ9659ÿ 78 ÿ" 9 ÿ57&ÿÿ"9 ÿ.ÿE&ÿ2"9 ÿ.3ÿ ÿ539ÿ5) 9ÿ2ÿ539ÿ22#9ÿ56ÿ/ ÿ ( 792ÿ*53 #ÿ00ÿ%ÿ789ÿ97999ÿ56ÿ32 7667ÿ32) 7&ÿÿ"9 ÿ.ÿÿ5) 9ÿ,55Iÿÿ789ÿ 0'(/ÿ079ÿ279 8ÿ20'(/3ÿ2ÿ0'(/ÿÿ235ÿ57ÿ2ÿ27ÿ75ÿ7899ÿ" 9 ÿ57ÿ 599 #&ÿÿ0'(/ÿÿ575339ÿÿ"95ÿE&ÿ2"953ÿ7ÿ539ÿ#9923ÿ279ÿ%ÿ2ÿ"95ÿ E&ÿÿ235ÿ57ÿ2ÿ27ÿ75ÿ7899ÿ" 9 ÿ57ÿ599 #&ÿÿ/33ÿ9396ÿ9F979ÿÿ32 766ÿ 2 57ÿ9ÿ#279ÿ)7857ÿ3 5ÿ56ÿ27523ÿ99 2ÿ279&ÿÿÿ ÿ '96927ÿ/ ÿ( 792ÿ*53 #ÿ00ÿ!5 ÿÿ233ÿ56ÿ(27ÿ"9 7ÿ2ÿ"5 9ÿ"9 7ÿ 2#97ÿ97ÿ6578ÿ259ÿ9327#ÿ75ÿ789ÿ99 2ÿ279ÿ57ÿ!5 9ÿÿ7899ÿ599 # &ÿÿÿ ÿ

1ÿ ÿ ÿ 234ÿ 67789 8ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿ"ÿ#$ÿÿ%&ÿ"ÿ'$%($ÿÿ#$ÿ ÿ%&ÿ ÿ 34ÿ ) *89+,ÿ-ÿ)9,./012ÿ ÿ )9,./01ÿ7.88 + 8 +9ÿ-ÿ989999.+,ÿ ÿ :$ÿÿ"ÿ;ÿÿ<ÿ:$%($ÿ=>;<:?@ÿABC&C=@=A@Dÿÿ(%$Eÿ'$(ÿ ÿ #ÿÿÿ$ÿÿ(%$ÿ$ÿ(ÿ($ÿ;<:ÿABF&C&ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ#ÿ(%$EÿGÿ''EDÿ%$'$#ÿ;<:ÿABH&I=@Jÿ(ÿ(ÿ $ÿ$ÿ'$Kÿ ÿ ÿ 34ÿ50,ÿ L  %ÿ(ÿÿG(ÿÿÿG$ÿÿÿ$ÿ$ÿ$ÿ('ÿÿ%ÿDÿ ÿ%(#ÿ"'$&ÿÿÿ'$ÿGEÿ$ÿÿG$ÿEÿ#$G&ÿ ÿ 63ÿ ÿL%ÿ'$EÿÿG(ÿÿ$#ÿÿG$ÿÿ$$#$ÿÿ$&ÿ ÿ 2MN2M63ÿ O8 90.+9 881ÿP9.0*ÿ2+Q.08 99.+ÿROP2SÿT0.9..86ÿ ÿ UEÿÿ(Dÿÿ'$ÿGÿGÿ(ÿ%$ÿÿÿL!Vÿ'$%Dÿ%(#ÿÿ '$G$ÿ$ÿ'$$ÿÿL!Vÿ(ÿÿ'$%($ÿÿ'$ÿÿG'Eÿÿ ($Gÿ$%ÿ$Gÿ(ÿG(#Eÿ$ÿ(E#ÿL!Vÿÿ$'ÿÿÿ (%$Eÿ$Wÿ%#ÿ$ÿ%ÿ$G&ÿÿ'$ÿ(ÿÿ'$'$(ÿÿ (%ÿÿL!Vÿ'$%ÿÿÿ%(#ÿ%$%&ÿ L!Vÿÿÿ'$(%(ÿÿX 99/ÿ$Gÿÿÿ$Gÿ(ÿG$ÿÿ%ÿEÿ$ÿY'ÿ ÿÿ$($Eÿ%$ÿÿÿ=('(#ÿÿÿ$Gÿÿÿ(%G@Dÿ"%'ÿ ÿÿ'$ÿGEÿ#$ÿ'ÿÿ($ÿ$G&ÿÿ V$Gÿ%ÿ$W$ÿ$(%ÿ$ÿ(%Gÿÿ$ÿÿÿÿ%$%ÿ $Gÿÿÿ'$(%(ÿÿ$%ÿ#ÿ'#ÿ4Z2[ÿ$ÿG'#ÿ4T)[ÿG#Dÿ ÿ#%ÿ\ÿ'$$(&ÿÿ;(%ÿ(ÿÿÿ%%G'(ÿÿÿ G$ÿÿ$ÿÿ(#$(ÿÿEÿÿ%$%Eÿ$%ÿÿ$(%(ÿ '$ÿÿÿ(%Gÿÿ'$ÿÿÿ'$(%ÿ'$%&ÿÿÿ :$]%(ÿ$'ÿ(ÿÿG(ÿ=&&Dÿ(%Gÿ(ÿÿ'$(%(ÿ %%Eÿÿ$ÿ%G@&ÿÿ^($ÿ(ÿÿGÿ(ÿÿ'$((&ÿÿ ÿ Aÿ _(ÿ̀$ÿaÿU$$EDÿUÿU$$EDÿ(ÿb"ÿ̀($Gÿc(#Dÿdd<ÿ(ÿÿ#$ÿÿÿ(ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ'$'(ÿ%(&ÿ Cÿ _(ÿ`$ÿaÿU$$EDÿUÿU$$EDÿ(ÿb"ÿ`($Gÿc(#Dÿdd<ÿ#$ÿÿÿ$ÿ(ÿÿ '$#$'Dÿÿ(ÿÿ#$ÿÿÿ%(Dÿ$(Dÿ(ÿ$ÿ'$#$'&ÿ 1ÿ ÿ ÿ 234ÿ6789 8ÿ389ÿ94ÿÿ88794ÿ89ÿ4ÿÿÿ87ÿ3ÿ94ÿ 979ÿ88794ÿ94 47ÿ3ÿ994ÿ34ÿ49ÿ49ÿÿ7ÿ4ÿ8ÿ34ÿ4ÿ 8ÿ34ÿ49ÿ4ÿ9ÿ979ÿ49ÿ49ÿ9ÿ 38 ÿ 8ÿ ÿ!"#!$2"%ÿ ÿ"&'!$2"%ÿ ÿ!"#$22$(ÿ ÿ"&'$22$(ÿ ÿ)%2*'+$&ÿ ÿ'$2"%"&2ÿ ÿ2+,"%"&2ÿ ÿ'$2"-.'ÿ ÿ2+,"-.'ÿ ÿ'$2"-"$2"'ÿ ÿ2+,"-"$2"'ÿ ÿ'$2"/$%2,*'ÿ ÿ2+,"/$%2,*'ÿ ÿ",$+/0%)!1"2ÿ ÿ2-*,ÿ ÿ2*ÿ ÿÿ ÿ!ÿ ÿ2+2/"ÿ ÿ%)!1"2ÿ ÿ$)2(*-ÿ ÿ2+/"3$2(ÿ ÿ2+/"&$,"ÿ ÿ2+/""42ÿ ÿ,'5($%(ÿ ÿ2+/"%+6"ÿ ÿ&$2+."2+/"ÿ728947ÿ63ÿ87ÿ ÿ*-3$2(ÿ728947ÿ63ÿ87ÿ 4ÿ678949ÿ489ÿ  :64ÿ4;ÿ49ÿ 234ÿ674ÿ8ÿ898ÿ347ÿ"%+ÿ67888ÿ<8ÿ7444ÿÿ8ÿ4ÿ 38 ÿ87ÿ 844=ÿ >?@A?>Bÿ DEFGHIJÿÿ $ÿ674ÿ ÿ<4ÿ9949ÿ9ÿ4749ÿ34347ÿ<8ÿ494ÿ87ÿ379:678ÿ 67 4ÿ<8ÿ3ÿ94=ÿÿ 234ÿ678ÿÿ34ÿK8947ÿ ÿ67894ÿÿ868ÿ8ÿ34ÿ%349ÿ*7947ÿÿ34ÿ 4ÿ8ÿ47 4=ÿÿ $ÿK8947ÿ ÿ8ÿ868ÿ 3ÿ2-3ÿLMNOP=ÿÿ ÿ STUIJVÿWFVGIXXÿIXFYGZVFEGXÿ ÿ ";647ÿ 4ÿ948ÿ ÿ94ÿ34ÿ878ÿ49ÿÿ- 4ÿP[5=579=ÿ - 4ÿP[L=\ÿÿ847ÿ8ÿ74ÿ8ÿ 48ÿ]4ÿ49ÿ87ÿ6644ÿÿ ÿ 948=ÿ !8ÿ3ÿ94ÿ674ÿ44]ÿ74ÿ744ÿ ÿ474ÿ347ÿ4;647ÿ 4ÿ B?>?>Bÿ 948=ÿÿ Q?R?>Bÿ !8ÿ3ÿ94ÿÿ8347ÿ674ÿ ÿ474ÿ4;647ÿ 4ÿ948=ÿ 1ÿ ÿ ÿ 234356ÿ 89ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ9ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ !"#$%&'ÿ()"&$)"&*+ÿ 23356ÿ ,ÿÿÿÿÿ-ÿ9ÿ ÿÿÿ.ÿ/-ÿ0/ÿ/ÿ ÿ ÿ 1 /ÿ/.ÿ9ÿ/2ÿÿ 3356ÿ 3-ÿÿ9ÿÿÿ1ÿ/ÿ1ÿ/-ÿ1 /ÿ/ÿ/ÿÿ ÿÿ/.ÿ/ ÿÿ 9ÿÿ/9ÿ-.ÿÿÿ/ÿ/ÿ ÿ2ÿ1ÿ/ÿ1ÿ/-ÿ1 /ÿ 9ÿ ÿÿ 4 ÿÿÿ/ÿ ÿÿ/ÿ/ÿ.ÿ ÿÿ/-ÿ9ÿ/ /ÿ /ÿ1ÿ/9ÿ/ÿ9ÿ 36356ÿ 5&$ÿ67ÿ8%+96:";<ÿ =1ÿ1/.9ÿÿÿ1/ÿ9ÿ ÿÿ>ÿ1/.9ÿ9ÿ1/ÿÿ ÿÿ-/ÿ1/ÿÿ2 ÿ/ /ÿ/2ÿÿ ?ÿÿ.ÿ1/.9ÿ@ÿ9ÿ/ÿÿÿ/ÿÿÿ2 ÿÿ .ÿ1/.9ÿ/ÿ ÿ 5BC";*ÿD%*&"++ÿ8"C6+%*%6&+ÿ ÿ ,ÿ9ÿEÿ-- .ÿ-ÿÿEÿÿFGÿ.ÿ-/ÿ/ /ÿ ÿ 9ÿ ÿ-//2ÿHÿ A35356ÿ ÿÿÿÿ3-ÿ/ÿÿ/ÿÿ-ÿÿ4I0?ÿJKLMÿ/ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ3-ÿÿÿ/ÿÿ-ÿÿ4I0?ÿJKLMÿ 36356ÿ ,ÿ 9ÿ/ÿEÿ--.ÿ-ÿÿEÿÿFGÿ.ÿ-/ÿ/ /ÿ 9ÿ ÿÿ 36356ÿ ,ÿÿFGÿÿÿÿ.ÿ-/ÿ/ /ÿ9ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ (!*";&#*%:"ÿ8%+CN*"ÿO"+6!N*%6&ÿÿ A352356ÿ 89ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ-ÿ ÿFJGÿÿÿ-/ÿ,PIÿÿÿ-/ÿ/-ÿ ÿ ,PIÿ@ÿÿÿÿ/-ÿÿÿ/ÿ-ÿ1Qÿ/ÿFRGÿÿÿ ÿ/ÿ/ÿ/ÿÿ/ÿ/ÿÿ/ÿ,PIÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ,PIÿ1/1ÿÿ/ÿ ÿÿ/-ÿ ÿÿÿÿ1/ÿ9ÿ ÿ 23356ÿ ÿ4 ÿÿ9ÿ/-9ÿ ÿÿ9ÿÿ 435A356ÿ 8%+C6+%*%:"ÿS6*%6&+ÿTÿ!"#+ÿ P / .ÿ/ /ÿÿÿ1ÿ/ /ÿ-/ÿ9ÿUÿ/ÿ ÿ9ÿUÿÿÿ1ÿ-/ÿÿ/ÿÿ/ÿ2 ÿ 1ÿ ÿ ÿ 2345622678ÿ87ÿ ÿ8ÿ62ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ!ÿ"#$%ÿ&'(!)ÿ ÿ * ÿ+,-./01234.56746ÿ576782ÿ7ÿ7ÿ576782ÿ7ÿ9:3;ÿ656;ÿ7ÿ7<62ÿ : 8=ÿ9>ÿ26578?ÿ532ÿ4ÿ@6 ÿ4?ÿ62ÿ ÿ ÿ C%!$!DÿEF%)ÿ%ÿ ÿ G8ÿÿH3?ÿ6ÿ:2;ÿ>62ÿ532ÿ9:8=;ÿ:78@ÿ473;ÿ8ÿ@6ÿ>7>72ÿH3?ÿ:=2ÿ ÿ 2ÿ@77<2Iÿ Aÿ J? ÿ62ÿ ;ÿ :ÿ>?ÿ532ÿ 9:8=ÿ62ÿ>7>72ÿH3?ÿK326782ÿ 8ÿ 6823:6782;ÿ6@ÿ8?;ÿ<6ÿÿ7ÿ>62ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Bÿ J? ÿ62ÿ ;ÿ :ÿ>?ÿ532ÿ68@75ÿÿ7ÿ>62;ÿ68ÿ<668=;ÿ< ÿ6ÿ = 2ÿ7ÿ74H:2ÿ7ÿ :ÿK32678ÿ8ÿ6823:678ÿ>7>72ÿ4?ÿ87ÿ>?ÿ ÿ J?ÿ62ÿ ;ÿ ÿ>62ÿ532ÿ5 ÿ8ÿ:78@;ÿ68ÿÿ=77ÿ@6ÿ@@7ÿ7ÿ :ÿ Aÿ = 5 8ÿ78ÿH3?ÿK326782ÿ8ÿ6823:6782ÿ ÿ J?ÿ62ÿ ;ÿÿ>62ÿ<6ÿ@6 Iÿ ÿ LMÿ ÿO768ÿP7>72ÿO3?ÿQ=ÿ ÿ68:32ÿ ÿ26>3 ÿ@:2ÿ8ÿ >7>72ÿH3?ÿK326782ÿ8ÿ6823:6782ÿ78ÿ<6:ÿ ÿ>62ÿ= ;ÿ8ÿ ÿ L4Mÿ6@ÿÿ>?ÿ<622ÿ7ÿ>7>72ÿH3?ÿK326782ÿ7ÿ6823:6782ÿ ÿ< ÿ87ÿ ÿ = ÿ7ÿ4?ÿÿ7ÿ>62;ÿ ÿ>?ÿ532ÿ@6 ÿÿR62>3 ÿP7>72ÿ O3?ÿQ=ÿ:78 6868=ÿ 8?ÿ23:ÿ>7>72ÿH3?ÿK326782ÿ7ÿ 6823:6782ÿ S>78ÿ@668=;ÿÿ>62ÿ532ÿ5 6ÿÿ23456226782ÿ68ÿLMÿ8ÿL4Mÿ7ÿÿQ73ÿ ÿ TU+5V57546WWXY1Z[4-017\]4Vÿ L@7ÿ O3=ÿ *7=3^Mÿ 7ÿ TU+5V57546WWTY1Z[4-017\]4VÿL@7ÿO3=ÿR7@5 8Mÿ68ÿÿ_7ÿ@75 ;ÿ:7>?68=ÿÿ 7ÿ>62ÿÿ `62ÿ>7:22ÿ62ÿÿ>:327ÿ7;ÿ8ÿ87ÿ68ÿ> :ÿ7@;ÿÿ:=ÿ:78@8:ÿ ÿ <6ÿ4ÿ ÿ ÿ6 ÿÿ Aÿ a'ÿbÿ"#'c'ÿd'ÿ J?ÿ62ÿ ;ÿÿ>62ÿ532ÿ9:8=ÿ622ÿ7@ÿÿ<68222ÿ8ÿ96462ÿ?ÿ9>:ÿ ÿ 7ÿ: e7@@ÿÿ6ÿÿÿ f9646ÿ622ÿ273ÿ4ÿ@75 ÿ2ÿ@77<2Iÿ "#'c'ÿgÿ hD('Dÿ ij%'$'!ÿ kÿ ÿ l ÿ@75ÿ*ÿ7ÿJÿ ÿmekenonpÿ nÿ ÿ P77=>ÿ7@ÿ8ÿq8ÿmekenonpÿ ÿÿ 1ÿ ÿ ÿ 23456457ÿ 9 ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ"#ÿ$%&'ÿ&ÿ((&ÿ$%!ÿÿ&&ÿ(ÿ#ÿÿ ÿ !)*ÿ%!(+'&(&ÿ"#ÿ,ÿ$%&'ÿ-&ÿ.ÿÿ/!ÿÿ0ÿ 1(!ÿ#(23(ÿ$%!ÿÿ!ÿ"#ÿ!(3ÿ,(ÿÿ#(23(ÿ%#ÿÿ!ÿ &&ÿ(ÿ)ÿ&ÿÿ!&%!ÿ'ÿ&ÿ)&ÿ'&(&0ÿ4/ÿÿ!ÿ&&ÿ(ÿ!ÿ ÿ((&ÿ"(&ÿ/!("ÿÿ!&%!ÿÿ!ÿ&ÿ(&)ÿ!(3ÿ'ÿ&ÿ)&ÿ '&(&0ÿ 2246457ÿ 56ÿ78ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ%ÿ!ÿ"#ÿ!(3ÿÿ9(#!ÿ-ÿ%)ÿ2ÿ:;1ÿ,&!<=ÿ %(&&&'ÿ,+" ÿ%(ÿ(/ÿ))ÿ$,ÿÿ!ÿ&&ÿ(ÿ(//!ÿÿ!)0ÿ4&ÿÿ %ÿ(/ÿ%)ÿ"ÿ(//!ÿÿ$,ÿÿ(('!ÿ(!ÿ(!ÿ!!(#%(&ÿ(/ÿÿ %)ÿ"ÿ"ÿ,ÿ#0ÿÿ >ÿ%)ÿ2ÿ:;1ÿ,&!ÿ"#ÿ,'&ÿ-ÿÿ!?ÿ$,ÿ)ÿ&ÿÿ$,ÿ (#)ÿ,ÿ,,ÿ&ÿ&#",!ÿ@#&))ÿ%(&&ÿ-ÿÿ$,ÿ)0ÿ 23456457ÿ A ÿÿBCÿ4ÿA ÿÿDE8ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ))ÿ!ÿ-))ÿ/)ÿ&ÿ"((&ÿ&ÿ)"&ÿ(!ÿ"((&ÿ(ÿ$%)#ÿ(!ÿ (!-ÿ)"ÿÿ"(&ÿ(/ÿ&(&+$!ÿ3&%0ÿ 23456457ÿ F 8ÿFGDÿH8ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ"#ÿI(&)ÿ(!ÿ&3#))ÿ/)ÿÿ:!((ÿ:!!)ÿ J!!0ÿ ÿ FGDÿK Lÿ >ÿ9(#!ÿ-))ÿÿÿ!!)ÿ%(&/!&%ÿ(ÿ%#ÿ))ÿ%ÿ(/ÿÿ%ÿ&%)#&'ÿ M;N0ÿ ÿ PGDÿ ÿ 22423457ÿ !!&'ÿ/#!!ÿ(!!ÿ(/ÿÿ9(#!ÿ!)ÿ-))ÿ%(""&%ÿ(&ÿÿ0ÿ 7ÿ8GOÿ >ÿ!ÿ!)"&!)ÿ"ÿÿ!)ÿ-))ÿ)ÿQQQQÿ0ÿ ÿ RSTÿ VGDWÿXÿFYÿH8ÿ 1(!ÿÿ%(&3&&%ÿ(/ÿÿ!ÿÿ9(#!ÿÿ!(3ÿÿ/(!"ÿ!(%3ÿ(!!ÿ(&ÿÿ -,0ÿ:!((ÿ!(%3ÿ(!!ÿÿ#,&))ÿ(ÿÿ/(!"ÿ!(3ÿ-))ÿ%))ÿ,ÿ  !(3ÿ,ÿÿ9(#!0ÿZ(-3!ÿÿ!ÿ!ÿ/!ÿ(ÿ"(/ÿ(!ÿ3!ÿÿ/(!"ÿ(!!ÿÿÿ"ÿ  !(!0ÿ[ÿYÿ8ÿCEÿC DOÿ\5]ÿG8ÿGÿE  8ÿÿ8 DGÿP^KFÿ 6_Gÿ-%ÿ-))ÿ'(3!&ÿ))ÿ3&%ÿ#ÿÿÿ̀%(#!ÿ!%(!aÿÿÿ!"ÿÿ/&ÿ!&0ÿ 1ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 3445ÿ78998 89ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿÿÿÿ"ÿ ÿÿÿ#ÿ!ÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿÿÿÿ""$ÿ ÿ 34445ÿ%&'(ÿ)ÿ*&89&'(ÿ+, -8&8.8ÿ /ÿÿÿ"ÿÿ0ÿ0ÿ1ÿ2ÿÿ34$ÿ/ÿ0ÿ0ÿ 1ÿ#ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ"ÿ3ÿÿÿÿÿÿ 3ÿÿÿÿ"ÿÿÿ"ÿ!ÿ#ÿ5ÿÿÿÿ ÿ$ÿ/ÿÿÿÿ6ÿ!ÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ"ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ6ÿ#ÿÿÿ0ÿ1$ÿ ÿ 475ÿ +, 8'98&(9', ÿ,-ÿ:;<89'989=79&8( '89ÿ*&,.89>&88ÿ /ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ"!ÿÿÿÿ "3ÿÿÿÿÿ"ÿÿÿ3!ÿ?ÿÿÿ"ÿ "ÿÿÿÿ#ÿÿÿ"#@ÿ AÿCDÿÿÿÿÿÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿ 3ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿÿ3Eÿ AÿF#ÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿ3ÿ!ÿÿ3ÿ ÿ"ÿ3ÿÿ3!ÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿ ÿÿEÿ AÿGÿÿÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ6ÿ#ÿ ÿ "ÿÿ"ÿÿÿÿ"H!ÿ"ÿÿ"Eÿ AÿGÿ3!ÿÿ"ÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ"ÿÿÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿ3!ÿ"Eÿ AÿGÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ#ÿ!ÿÿ!ÿ!ÿ Iÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿÿ2#ÿ!ÿÿÿJ4ÿ"ÿ ÿÿÿEÿÿ"ÿÿ#ÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ"ÿÿEÿ AÿGÿÿIÿÿ/5ÿK3ÿ6ÿCÿ LMN$OOP2"4ÿ5ÿ3ÿ!ÿ24Eÿÿ"ÿÿ#ÿÿÿ#ÿÿÿ !ÿÿÿÿQÿ6ÿEÿÿ AÿGÿÿÿÿÿ#ÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ"ÿ3ÿÿ""ÿÿ"ÿÿ6Rÿÿ#ÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ3ÿ3ÿ"ÿ"ÿEÿÿ AÿGÿÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿÿSCÿTUÿ2ÿ3#ÿÿ V%&'(ÿWXÿYZ&88 89[ÿÿÿD4$ÿÿÿ ÿ 75ÿ \,9'-'.(9', ÿ,-ÿ7.]89>'Zÿ^&98&ÿ /ÿÿ!ÿ3ÿI!ÿÿ3!ÿÿ"!ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ$ÿ_#3ÿ 1ÿ ÿ ÿ 23456578953 ÿ36ÿ9ÿ34ÿ78 39ÿÿ4ÿ93ÿ956ÿ39329ÿ36ÿ958ÿ9ÿ93ÿ393ÿ 958ÿ8ÿ456834ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ !"ÿ#$%&'ÿ'$"!(ÿ ÿ ÿ '"ÿ )*+,ÿ.*//*0ÿ112ÿ ÿ 343ÿ67849:8;ÿ<=ÿ>:?4@Aÿ ÿ '5985ÿBÿ8C 3ÿ #989ÿB8ÿ3ÿDEEFGHDDÿ Iÿ8JÿI7K8ÿ #989ÿB8ÿ3ÿLMHDFELEÿ I845ÿÿ"8ÿ #989ÿB8ÿ3ÿLMHNOGOHÿ P285ÿ848C 3Q7J44732ÿ P285ÿ2778Q7J44732ÿ P285ÿ2R8Q7J44732ÿÿ HLLHÿI7S5 ÿ#99Tÿ#59ÿMEDDÿ U393TÿV8ÿWWDHDPLDHDÿ 3ÿ XWHNYÿFEHPNWDDÿ 735ÿ XWHNYÿFEHPNWLDÿÿÿ ÿ Z[[\.0*]^ÿ_\.ÿ21Z`0[`__ÿ Z1)*.[ÿ[a*\/\.*ÿ2\b*.^ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ c.**0)*.cÿ[.Zd.`ceÿ112ÿ 343ÿf@7:Agÿh:;i8:ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ 384ÿ"8758ÿ #989ÿB8ÿ3ÿDWGMELEDÿ #9ÿU5RR53982ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ #989ÿB8ÿ3ÿLMHLELWMÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ P285ÿR8758QR98C732ÿ P285ÿ5RR53982 QR98C732ÿ HDDDÿj35588ÿ#99Tÿ#59ÿGWDDÿ U393TÿV8ÿWWDDLÿ 3ÿÿXWHNYÿNWMPNEDDÿ 1ÿ ÿ ÿ 34567879ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ!""ÿ !!"#ÿÿ!!$ÿ ÿ %&''(ÿ)ÿ'*+,(ÿ--.ÿ ÿ /0/ÿ2344566ÿ78ÿ9530:;54ÿ ÿ '4<<==ÿ* 46>?<ÿ (=4=ÿ'4<ÿ,>@ÿAABCÿ D75E49ÿ*@ÿFG68 7<ÿ (=4=ÿ'4<ÿ,>@ÿHBÿ -@ÿ'<I5ÿ'49J< ÿ (=4=ÿ'4<ÿ,>@ÿHAAÿ (KJ?Kÿ%@ÿ'4996=<>6ÿ (=4=ÿ'4<ÿ,>@ÿHACÿ L8479ÿG<46>?<MN7GG6G<I?6@5>8ÿ L8479ÿ84G68 7<MN7GG6G<I?6@5>8ÿ L8479ÿÿGG49J< MN7GG6G<I?6@5>8ÿ L8479ÿ6G4996=<>6MN7GG6G<I?6@5>8ÿ ÿ->I7674?4Oÿ(I7=ÿÿ P>I6=>?OÿQR46ÿÿ Q9SE>? ÿÿ ÿACCÿ Q95>S7<ÿÿ ÿBÿ ÿ ÿÿ##ÿ !!ÿ!T$ÿUÿ ÿ F%*LLWÿLXYL.QÿF(ÿ(LQÿ3Z*QPÿ&,ÿ3ZZQ,ZQL(ÿÿF,WÿHÿF'Z[Lÿ ÿ -F\ÿZ33&YL(ÿZ3ÿWZ+%-F(ÿF--&(Z,ÿ ÿ /0/ÿ]:^_3̀0ÿa8ÿa`b̀0:;ÿÿ ÿÿ W>IN946ÿF@ÿF9976>?ÿ (=4=ÿ'4<ÿ,>@ÿCÿ L8479ÿJ>INMJ49976>?94c@5>8ÿ ÿ,@ÿQ4?54EI4ÿ(=< =ÿ Y><SI6ÿYE<76=7OÿQR46ÿCÿ Q9SE>? ÿÿ AÿCCCAHÿ Q95>S7<ÿÿ AÿCCCACÿ ÿ ÿÿ##ÿ d"ÿe!ÿUÿÿ #ÿU"ÿUÿ ÿ 12ÿ ÿ 012 345 2 6 7ÿ 96 2 5 26 ÿ3 ÿ 6 6  6  )ÿÿ+,-).ÿ/ )1ÿÿ2(,/ÿ13456)

ÿ7ÿ2ÿ0,8ÿ)68 ÿ,-ÿ9ÿ)7).82)ÿ1!ÿ":ÿ;ÿ2(ÿ)ÿ)#+$,-,%7ÿ9ÿ"/;/2& '( ) .0 )6 <PQ=RÿS?T@UTAPÿVBSCQ?WAÿÿYCU=ÿWBQÿR?<ZTÿP?@QAÿ[ÿDVAZEQFÿ<\=YFSÿÿPGH[FV?A\B]ÿQI^A_G<ÿ̀T JKÿL@ Abc ÿEMWGSAÿWFSÿTNaa<ÿdORAYEZ=TH^=QNÿV aQ RW ÿ efghijiekhfÿmjÿnfgoiefÿhpkhÿemqrsifnÿtihpÿkssÿkrrsiekusfÿgvsfnw x‹Œyz{ÿÿ }~‘ÿ€ÿ ’ ’“‚”ÿ•ƒ–~–„{†ÿ†ÿ‡yzˆ{yÿ‰{Šz‚ —˜™š›œ™žŸš™ ™¡¢ž£› ¤¥ ´µ ¦ § ¨© ª § ÿ ¬­® ÿ̄° ± ² ± ³ ¯ ± ÇȶɵȷʸËÿÿº» ÍμÏнÑÿȾ½ÒÓÈÔ¿ÊÀÁÕÿµÂÖÑ ÃµÔ»Ò·ÔÄÿÏÅÁ λ×ÂÿØÐ »¿Ù½Î¼×ÿÆÁ ÚÉȼʽËÁÿÛÿÜÝÏÎÿÞÝÊÝËÎßÎÊÓÿàÑ×ÎÑ áâãâäåÿãåÿçèÿéêëéìëêíêîÿïðéíÿñòÿóáô õöö÷øùúûüýÿÿúöüÿ0ú1û23ÿõ45ü1û67ü÷ý÷1ü0÷8ü1ö 9 -./01234/ @ABCD opqrstuqvwxyqpttrz œžŸ ÿ 5567899 EFEGHIJKLMNOPMFFMJQNIR {|}{~}||€ÿ€‚€~‚ƒÿ„ ¡¢£¤ ÿ!" :;<=>?:? STUUVWVVXYZ[WU\]W^^WY_U`T †‡ˆ†‰ˆ‡Š‡‹ÿ‹‹‰ŠŽÿ ¥¦§¨ #$%&'()&ÿ+$, abcdefghijgkkglmhna ‘’“‘”“’•’–ÿ–˜–”˜•™ÿš› ©ª«¬

­®®¯°±²³́µÿ·²®´ÿ̧²¹³º»ÿ­¼¼±́µÿ̧¯¹³®ÿ½½· ¾¿ÀÁ ÛÜÝÞßàáâÝ éêëìí 9    +,-,./ ÂÃÄÅÆÇÿÉÅÊËÌÅ ãäåæçæè îïðñòïðóîôõïö÷ñøù ÿÿ 0123 ÍÎÏÐÏÑÿÓÔÕÕÔÑÖ×ÎØÙÚ úûüüûýþÿ0ú1234ü051678ÿ2 !"#"!$!%ÿ%'%#'$(ÿ)* 4567 I I I I 899:;<=>?@ÿB=9?ÿC=D>EFÿ8G<9ÿH<@9>D?=IÿJ:K@<LM9 NOPQ ]^_`abcd_ ijklm |}~€‚~ƒ„ †~}‡ “”•”–— RSTUVWXÿZ[\\WXX efgheeff noppqrrpstuvrwxyz{p ˆ‰Šˆ‹Š‰Œ‰ÿ‹Œÿ‘’ ˜™š› I I I I œžŸ¡¢£¤ÿ¦¡£ÿ§¡¨¢©ªÿœ««£¬­¡®¨£¬Ÿ£¯£¨¨© °±²³ åæçèéêëìç íîïðñ ./01234056780/3319 fghgij ´µ¶¶·¸ÿ̧º»¼·µ½¾¿·¶ òóôõö÷øôóùúûòòöòóüøöýþ÷ÿ :;<:=<;>;?ÿ?A?=A>BÿCD klmn ÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÿÈÉÊËÌÍÅÁÅÎ 012304546785223269 3 0 EFGEHGFIFJÿJLJHLIMÿNO opqr ÏÐÑÒÓÿÏÕÖ×ÐÓÓ  PQRPSRQTQUÿUWUSWTXÿYZ stuv ØÙÚÛÜÙÿÞßààÜáâÜãäá  !!"#"$%&'($)*+,%- [\][^]\_\`ÿ̀b̀^b_cÿde wxyz {|}~ÿ{€‚|ƒ‚} 012 345 267ÿ 96 2 526ÿ 3 ÿ66 6 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!"ÿÿ#$%ÿ"& '( ) ÿ +,-) .ÿ/ ) . 0 ) 1 ÿ2 ( , / ÿ1 3 4 5 6) 7 2 ÿ0, 8 ÿ)68 , -ÿ 9)7).82 )1ÿ:;ÿ 2()ÿ ) + ,- ,79ÿ/;/2 )6 P<Q=RÿS?T@UTAPÿVBSCQ?WAÿÿYCU=ÿWBQÿR?<ZTÿP?@QAÿ[ÿDVAZEQFÿ<\=YFSÿP[V\]Q^_ÿ̀TaQRWÿbcWSÿWSTaaÿdRYZT^QÿV ÿGH F?A BÿI A G< JKÿ L@AÿE MGAFÿ N<OA E = H =N efghijiekhfÿmjÿnfgoiefÿhpkhÿemqrsifnÿtihpÿkssÿkrrsiekusfÿgvsfnw xyz{ÿ ‹Œ ÿ}~‘ÿ’€ÿ ’ “‚”ÿ•ƒ–~–„{†ÿ†ÿ‡yzˆ{yÿ‰{Šz‚ —˜™š›œ™žŸš™ ™¡¢ž£› ¤¥ ´µ ¦ § ¨© ª § ÿ ¬­® ÿ̄° ± ² ± ³ ¯ ± ÇȶɵȷʸËÿÿº»ÍμÏнÑÿȾ½ ÒÓÈÔ¿ÊÀÁÕÿµÂÖÑ ÃµÔ»Ò·ÔÄÿÏÅÁ λ×ÂÿØÐ »¿Ù½Î¼×ÿÆÁ ÚÉȼʽËÁÿÛÿÜÝÏÎÿÞÝÊÝËÎßÎÊÓÿàÑ×ÎÑ áâãâäåÿãåÿçèÿéêëéìëêíêîÿïðéíÿñòÿóáô õö÷øÿõúûüöýü÷ þÿ01 LMNOPQRSN TUVWX ÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÅÊËÌÍÅÄÈÈÆÎ  234567894ÿ27864 YZ[\]^_Yàbc̀Zde\fg ÏÐÑÏÒÑÐÓÐÔÿÔÖÔÒÖÓ×ÿØÙ !"#$ ÿ hihjkklkmnoiipihqkprstu ÚÛÜÚÝÜÛÞÛßÿßáßÝáÞâÿãä %&'( ÿ vwvxyxz{w|}}~}v€~‚ƒz åæçåèçæéæêÿêìêèìéíÿîï )*+, !"#$%&$'(ÿ*+'( „†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŒŒŽ‡„‘’ ðñòðóòñôñõÿõ÷õó÷ôøÿùú -./0 ,-./0ÿ23456 “”•–—˜™š›œžŸ¡¢˜•š£ ûüýûþýüÿü0ÿ020þ2ÿ3ÿ45 1234 789:;<99ÿ>?8@AÿBBC ¤¥¦§¨§©§ª«¬¬­®°̄±ª²³¯©µ́ª¨ 6786987 7 ÿ 9 ÿ 5678 DEFÿHIEJJEKJ ¶·¸¹ºº¹¶º»¼¶½¾º¶¿¿¶ÀÁ½¸Â ÿÿ 9:;< =>>?@ABCDEÿGB>DÿHBICJKÿLBIMANOPDNNQDIIJ RSTU yz{|}~€{ †‡ˆ‰Š ³µ́¶·¸¹µº»¼½µ´¸¸¶¾ àáâáãä VWXYZ[\ÿ^ZZ_\W` ‚ƒ„ ‚‚ ‹ŒŽ‹‘‘’“Œ”‘•–—Œ˜ ¿ÀÁ¿ÂÁÀÃÀÄÿÄÆÄÂÆÃÇÿÈÉ åæçè abcÿefghijhkljmjf ™š›œžŸŸš¡¢Ÿž£¤¥¡› ÊËÌÊÍÌËÎËÏÿÏÑÏÍÑÎÒÿÓÔ éêëì nopqrÿturvqwxp ¦§¦¨©ª«¨¬¬­¦®©¬¨¯°±®² ÕÖ×ÕØ×ÖÙÖÚÿÚÜÚØÜÙÝÿÞß íîïð

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Anna Erickson on behalf of Alistair Dawson Bar No. 5596100 aerickson@beckredden.com Envelope ID: 97338804 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: Response to Relators' Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief Status as of 2/13/2025 11:28 AM CST

Associated Case Party: Marty Berry

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Douglas AAllison doug@dallisonlaw.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Susan Gonzales susan@dallisonlaw.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Kim Brunkenhoefer kim@dallisonlaw.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Vanessa AGilmore vg@robertsmarkland.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: AlbertTheodorePowers

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Alistair Dawson 5596100 adawson@beckredden.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Mary Raffetto mkraffetto@beckredden.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Michael JakeMcClellan jmcclellan@beckredden.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Liz Poirrier epoirrier@beckredden.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Madeline Gay mgay@beckredden.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Rosa Brennan rbrennan@gibbsbruns.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Michelle Bultman MBultman@gibbsbruns.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Roxanne Graham rgraham@gibbsbruns.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Christina Pena cpena@gibbsbruns.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Allied Ports, LLC

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Anna Erickson on behalf of Alistair Dawson Bar No. 5596100 aerickson@beckredden.com Envelope ID: 97338804 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: Response to Relators' Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief Status as of 2/13/2025 11:28 AM CST

Associated Case Party: Allied Ports, LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Roland Garcia 7645250 garciar@gtlaw.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: AllenLawrenceBerry

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Michael Absmeier 24050195 mabsmeier@gibbsbruns.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Barrett Reasoner 16641980 breasoner@gibbsbruns.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Sydney Ballesteros sballesteros@gibbsbruns.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Bruce Baldree bbaldree@gibbsbruns.com 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT

Associated Case Party: Honorable Sofia Adrogue

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Hon. Sofia Adrogue BCDivision11A@txcourts.gov 2/13/2025 11:16:36 AM SENT