See id at Article 5.
See id. 37. See 1999 Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA)–Section II ¶¶ B.2.a, available at xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxxx.xxx/policies/1999policy.html .
See id at Article 2. The Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx X. Bose May 3, 2023 Article 3 provides details on the construction of the Shared Network Upgrade.5 Article 4 contains information on force majeure.6 Article 5 covers information reporting.7 Article 6 provides details on creditworthiness, billing, and payments.8 Article 7 contains information related to assignment of the Agreement.9 Article 8 contains information on indemnity.10 Article 9 provides details on breach, cure and default.11 Article 10 contains information regarding termination of the Agreement.12 Article 11 provides information relating to subcontractors.13 Article 12 contains confidentiality provisions.14 Article 13 contains information access and audit rights provisions.15 Article 14 contains information on disputes.16
See id. The March 2020 and October 2020 orders as related to her (Footnote Continued Next Page) claim or controversy” for our review. See In re Appointment of a Guardian of Gerber, 824 A.2d 1204, 1206 (Pa.Super. 2003) (noting that “[i]f events occur to eliminate the claim or controversy at any stage in the process, the case becomes moot”).6 Turning to her first issue, Xxxxxx challenges the court’s enjoining of dissipation and spoliation of trust property. Xxxxxx maintains that the court should not have issued an injunction because the requirements for doing so were not met. She also faults the court for issuing an injunction against those who were not parties to the action, and an entity allegedly no longer is in existence. She also argues that the court improperly entered the injunction sua sponte, as Xxxxxx only sought her removal and a surcharge, and points out that Xxxxxx did not post a bond. She disagrees with the trial court that it did not issue an injunction, stating there is no way to interpret the order other than as an injunction. She argues that contrary to the court’s conclusion, it did not have “equitable powers” over the assets, and she disputes the finding that she engaged in self-dealing. removal as trustee are virtually indistinguishable, with just minor changes in sentence structure. The court made no substantive changes. That the trial court invited the parties to raise with it any concerns did not alter that Napoli had to file a timely appeal and a failure to do so would result in a waiver of the objections. See id. Xxxxxx therefore waived any objection to her removal as trustee when she failed to appeal the March 2020 order.
See id. Attachment E. The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the unredacted Governors’ Decision and the unredacted contract, under seal. In its Request, the Postal Service maintains that the contract and related financial information, including the customer’s name and the accompanying analyses that provide prices, terms, conditions, and financial projections, should remain confidential. Id. at 2–3. In Order No. 142, the Commission gave notice of the two dockets, appointed a public representative, and provided the public with an opportunity to comment.7
See id released contract claims and copyright infringement is a tort claim; (2) Immix did not have the authority to release 4DD’s copyright infringement claims;
See id. 3 See id. at 3. employers in the hiring context. Accordingly, errors in credit reports can negatively impact consumers.
See id at 7. This appeal followed. 1 Appellant’s petition did not ask the Orphans’ court to construe the residual paragraph found at the end of paragraph A of the SIXTH Article of the Trust. By stipulation filed on September 16, 2013, however, the parties agreed that the declaratory judgment action initiated by Appellant would encompass a construction of the residual paragraph as if the Trustee had filed its own declaratory judgment action. Appellant’s brief raises the following questions for our review: Whether the Orphans’ [c]ourt erred when it concluded that the amount[] [Appellant] is entitled to withdraw under A.1.c. of Article SIXTH of the Trust should be reduced by discretionary payments of principal to her by the Trustee under A.1.b.? Whether the Orphans’ [c]ourt erred when it concluded that the Trustee could give consideration to [Appellant’s] “other resources” when making discretionary payments of principal to her under A.1.b. of Article SIXTH of the Trust? Whether the Orphans’ [c]ourt’s interpretation of Article SIXTH of the Trust ignores the Settlor’s direction to the Trustee to apply principal liberally for [Appellant] to allow her to maintain the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed even if that leads to the exhaustion of the Trust? Whether this Court should reverse the Orphans’ [c]ourt’s interpretation of Article SIXTH of the Trust where it is contrary to the stated intent of the Settlor as set forth in the plain and unambiguous language of the Trust and violates established principles of [t]rust interpretation under Pennsylvania law? Appellant’s Brief at 4.2 Appellant challenges the Orphans court’s construction of Decedent’s Trust. Under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7711(c), “[a] judicial proceeding involving a trust may relate to any matter involving the trust's administration, including a request for declaratory judgment.” 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7711(c). “Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7531–7541, the [Orphans’] court 2 Our examination of Appellant’s first two claims raised on appeal incorporates a consideration of Decedent’s intent, as expressed in the terms of the Trust. Accordingly, in our discretion, we shall forego independent discussion of claims three and four in Appellant’s statement of questions involved in this appeal.
See id. In the article, Deputy Mayor Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx is quoted as say- ing, “The university’s expansion is critical. ” Id.
See id. Attachment E. The Postal Service filed much of the supporting materials, including the unredacted Governors’ Decision and the unredacted contract, under seal. In its Request, the Postal Service maintains that the contract and related financial information, including the customer’s name and the accompanying analyses that provide prices, terms, conditions, and financial projections, should remain confidential. Id. at 2–3. In Order No. 185, the Commission gave notice of the two dockets, appointed a public representative, and provided the public with an opportunity to comment.7 II. Comments Comments were filed by the Public Representative.8 No filings were submitted by other interested parties. The Public Representative states that the Postal Service’s filing complies with applicable Commission rules of practice and procedure, and concludes that the Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 agreement comports with the requirements of title 39. Public Representative Comments at 4. He further states that the agreement appears beneficial to the general public. Id. at 1. The Public Representative notes that the Postal Service has provided adequate justification for maintaining confidentiality in this case. Id. at 3. He also points out several contractual provisions that he believes are mutually beneficial to the parties and general public. Id.
