Malik Exchange Uae

[Michele Firmasyah]

Brownwas seen walking and leaning over to Monk during the break as the two shared words with each other. While it's unknown what was being said, it's clear by body language alone that it wasn't a friendly chat. After the game, Brown explained what happened in that moment and how things escalated to that point.

"Heat of the moment," Brown said (h/t FOX40's Sean Cunningham). "Malik and I, I think everyone has seen it, but Malik and I have gotten into exchanges before. This is not the first time and I'd bet a lot of money it won't be the last time. That's not a big deal."

"The first five out there, I thought they initially did a good job," Brown said. "And then once we made subs, we were throwing underhand passes. It was, in my opinion, probably one of the laziest, loosest games that we've had where we decided to play that way. It gave them confidence. And any time you give an NBA team confidence, especially when they struggled scoring, they were missing a handful of guys, but they're NBA players.

Just like Brown, Monk is very animated and doesn't shy away from speaking what's on his mind. But this isn't uncommon between a player and coach, as the two must be prepared to turn the page on the ugly loss -- and the exchange -- and focus on Wednesday's game against the Orlando Magic.

The site is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Theory: EPG-X models coupled two-compartment systems by describing each compartment with separate phase graphs that exchange during evolution periods. There are two variants: EPG-X(BM) for systems governed by the Bloch-McConnell equations, and EPG-X(MT) for the pulsed MT formalism. For the MT case, the "bound" protons have no transverse components, so their phase graph consists of only longitudinal states.

Methods: The EPG-X model was validated against steady-state solutions and isochromat-based simulation of gradient-echo sequences. Three additional test cases were investigated: (i) MT effects in multislice turbo spin-echo; (ii) variable flip angle gradient-echo imaging of the type used for MR fingerprinting; and (iii) water exchange in multi-echo spin-echo T2 relaxometry.

Results: EPG-X was validated successfully against isochromat based transient simulations and known steady-state solutions. EPG-X(MT) simulations matched in-vivo measurements of signal attenuation in white matter in multislice turbo spin-echo images. Magnetic resonance fingerprinting-style experiments with a bovine serum albumin (MT) phantom showed that the data were not consistent with a single-pool model, but EPG-X(MT) could be used to fit the data well. The EPG-X(BM) simulations of multi-echo spin-echo T2 relaxometry suggest that exchange could lead to an underestimation of the myelin-water fraction.

Conclusions: The EPG-X framework can be used for modeling both steady-state and transient signal response of systems exhibiting exchange or MT. This may be particularly beneficial for relaxometry approaches that rely on characterizing transient rather than steady-state sequences. Magn Reson Med 80:767-779, 2018. 2017 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

From left to right, AFS and Rotary exchange students Goce Dimitriev, Leni Schilling, Ana Scopel and Wasiq Malik pose for a photo at Floyd Dryden Middle School on Friday. Each met with various classes throughout the day to share their presentations and answer questions from Juneau students. (Jonson Kuhn / Juneau Empire)

Plaintiffs bring this action charging defendants with sundry violations of federal securities law,[1] California State Corporations *353 Code[2] and Civil Code[3] provisions and California common law.[4] This Court's jurisdiction over the federal claims is conferred by 22 of the 1933 Securities Act and 27 of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and the state causes of action are cognizable under pendent jurisdiction.[5]

Plaintiffs Fazley Malik, Orest Chaykowsky, Morton Barish and Thomas Coor invested in common stock and 7% convertible debentures issued by the now defunct closely-held California corporation Universal Resources ("UR").[6] The investment transactions were spaced over a thirteen month period from December, 1968 through December, 1969. At all times material hereto Malik was an Indiana resident; Chaykowsky, Barish and Coor were New Jersey residents; and defendants Barry Block, Howard Clayton and Leonard Clark were California residents. Each plaintiff's investment dealings with UR, including the transmission of securities and money therefor, were conducted largely through the interstate mails and by means of interstate telephone communication. Defendant Block was a large UR shareholder and served as director and secretary-treasurer of UR throughout the period under consideration. Defendant Clayton served as attorney for UR and was a shareholder throughout the period under consideration. Defendant Clark became a shareholder in UR in November, 1968, the president of UR in August, 1969, and a UR director in October, 1969.[7] Clark succeeded one Paul Byers to the UR presidency. Byers was a founder of UR, its first president and its most dynamic promoter and policy maker throughout its corporate life. Because this case is complicated by multiple plaintiffs and defendants with the concomitant need to segregate evidence pertaining to each party, the salient facts and transactions affecting each plaintiff will be developed independently with the individual liabilities, if any, of the defendants analyzed thereafter.

While the detailed facts respecting Chaykowsky's (and the other plaintiffs') dealings are obscured by lapse of time, there is sufficient available evidence to support the narrative findings that follow. On or about January 27, 1969, Chaykowsky purchased a UR investment package costing $10,200 which consisted of two $5,000 convertible debentures and 200 shares of UR common stock. This purchase was made after Chaykowsky had been in contact with Block and Byers for about three months discussing UR investment opportunities.

In October, 1968, while Chaykowsky was visiting Los Angeles on unrelated business, he had an informal meeting with Block whereat Chaykowsky first learned of UR and its investment potential. Block was Chaykowsky's former business associate and longtime professional colleague whose advice and business acumen Chaykowsky respected. Block described generally the anatomy and purpose of UR explaining that it was a private corporation established to *354 construct and operate hotels/motels especially Holiday Inns of America, Inc. ("Holiday Inns") franchises in California and abroad. Following this encounter, but still prior to his January, 1969 investment, Chaykowsky had many telephone contacts with Block as well as with UR's then president Byers concerning UR. The various witnesses understandably lacked distinct recollections of who initiated these calls, but it seems probable that calls were made in both directions, some originating in New Jersey and some in California. Representations made to Chaykowsky during this period included statements by Byers that UR was a "going concern" with "substantial assets" and "influential investors," that UR had an "inside track" with Holiday Inns for several franchises in different locales, that UR would soon obtain multi-million dollar financing through the International Development Bank, and that it was imperative that Chaykowsky decide quickly whether to invest because construction of a Holiday Inn complex was about to begin at Oceanside, California which would mark the participation deadline. Both Block and Byers represented to Chaykowsky that UR had theretofore secured a franchise from Holiday Inns for a motor inn at Oceanside; and, in response to inquiries by Chaykowsky, both informed him that UR was authorized to sell him securities notwithstanding his nonresident status. They both indicated that UR had previously sold securities to nonresidents and that there was no problem in that regard.

Chaykowsky also recalled a mid-January, 1969 telephone conversation with defendant Clayton in which Clayton allegedly confirmed the statements of Block and Byers to the effect that UR had authority to deal with Chaykowsky, adding that such authority had been granted by the California Commissioner of Corporations. Shortly thereafter, Clayton sent Chaykowsky a copy of UR's October 15, 1968 application[8] to the California Commissioner of Corporations for a permit to issue stock which, according to Chaykowsky, Clayton provided for the purpose of documenting UR's authority to sell to him. A close perusal of that document reveals just the opposite: Chaykowsky was not one of the eligible purchasers listed on the application. Nevertheless, Chaykowsky testified that in his cursory inspection of this rather lengthy document he did not really understand its contents or realize that he was not a qualified purchaser as of said date. Although he is not to be commended for his acuity and diligence in reading the document, I accept as true Chaykowsky's testimony that he failed to discern from it his non-inclusion in the group that UR sought permission to deal with. It would have been the height of illogic for Chaykowsky to have knowingly purchased UR securities despite his ostensible ineligibility in view of his wariness and persistent efforts to verify UR's authority to deal with him earlier that same month. I find credible Chaykowsky's testimony that, to him, the document served merely to satisfy him that UR was a bona fide legal entity in California which was undertaking the formal steps necessary to issue stock.

3a8082e126