Activity Consent Form And Approval By Parents Or Legal: Fill & Download for Free

Saying it straightforward, it is likely that the society would consider weird for a 16 year old European girl to date a 22 year old Japanese.This is not because of the age difference. In Japan, we usually put people on the age of 15 to 24 in the same generation pool and is not uncommon for them to date. However, it is in fact that the situation which western female dating a Japanese male itself is very unusual, at least at the present moment, and the society as a whole many consider the situation a bit weird.When we (Japanese) think of international marriage or dating, we often think of male of a European origin dating a Japanese female,not the other way around. This itself is still regarded as unusual as Japanese tend to date with themselves, but are not unheard of.But is it legal? Eh?That’s a bit sketchy. The age of consent in Japan is 13 so the girl can legally consent sex with his boyfriend. However, there are several other criminal codes they must consider.The girl is under the age of 20 which makes her a “Minor”. Minors must have consent or the approval of their parent in order to perform most legal activity.She is also under the age of 18, which makes her a “Juvenile”.Any relationships involving a minor technically requires the consent of the parent. Also, Juveniles additionally requires the consent from the judges in order to pursue the relationship. Otherwise, it would be considered as corruption of a minor.I do not know the specific details of the relationship depicted in this question, however, I would highly advise that the family from both parties being fully aware of the relationship and approve the situation.It is a criminal offence for anyone under 18 to have relationships without the intention of marrying in most parts of Japan. The interpretation of inappropriate relationship differs on city municipal level. Some only consider sexual penetration as the inappropriate, others consider kissing, touching, and even holding hands as inappropriate. In order for the relationship to be legal, one must have solid proof that the relationship was to the intention of marriage. Although there are no guidelines on what makes a solid proof, but it can be assumed, based on the legal interpretation in the past that:The family is aware of the relationship for some time, and is approvedThe relationship is long, (Usually a year or so)The two parties have many in common (such as same hobby, both are students, etc)Has consentNo exchange of anything with value (to prevent prostitution)The situation is socially justifiableThere are concrete evidences in order to prove the above (written record, physical evidence, etc)It is also a criminal offence to interrupt the right of the parent (which they hold until the child turns 20), which dating is sometime considered as such. The criminal punishment for this would be max 5 years in state prison. Also, I hear that it is not uncommon for parents to sue the violator for violation of the right of the parent which may result in civil sanction and may result in forced to pay millions of yens.Also, you have to understand that you are going to deal with the Japanese police, which is internationally widely accused of using torture to extract false confession. It is been said that the “victim” would be “voluntarily detained” for investigation and are mentally pressured to admit that the relationship was non consensual. In order to counter such investigation, one must have a solid undeniable proof that the relationship was appropriate.Although, I am not a professional legal adviser, I would strongly recommend such relationship to stay as a form of informal friendship and never go further unless the parents, the teacher, and other close relatives of the 16 year old was fully cooperative. Although, I would admit that dating between a 22 year old and a 16 year old is not uncommon, but do to the rarity of the relationship (white girl dating an asian men), they would stand out a lot and is likely to receive attention from the police.I’d say it is almost certain that this relationship would end up in some form of police intervention as from my personal experience tells me (18 year old friend of mind was temporary detained by the police for dating his 17 year old girlfriend.)It is also strongly recommended that you would seek advises from professional legal advisers in Japan to assist your case. They are likely to have better and deeper information then what I do in this answer.

Placebos are used in both clinical trials and general practice. Arguably the most prescribed drug in human history (1), the history of medicine is in large part the history of the placebo (2). What's the ethical dilemma of placebos in clinical trials? To understand this we need to examine the history of informed consent, and understand what's a placebo, where it stands in current biomedical research and how its use creates an ethical dilemma.The problem starts with the definition of placebo. There isn't one. Rather there are many.The word placebo derives from the Latin word, 'placere' meaning 'I will please' or 'I will do good', a word opposite to nocebo derived from the Latin word 'nocere' meaning 'I will harm'. One definition of placebo is 'An inert substance usually prepared to look as similar to the active product investigated in a study as possible' and the placebo effect is 'any (usually beneficial) changes that occur within a group ‘treated’ with placebo' (3). I wrote one definition implying there are many and therein lies one of several ethical issues about placebos. A recent review (4) helpfully collated different definitions of placebo used by many world-renowned biomedical research organizations and health policy-making bodies.From 4Ironically, even different institutes within the same organization, the US-based NIH, have multiple definitions. Why are multiple definitions a problem? Unlike our past or rather because of it, in biomedical research today, safety of patients is sacrosanct. The more ambiguous the definition of a foundational term like placebo, the greater the possibility of misunderstanding and miscommunication. If the experts themselves don't agree on a common definition of placebo, an intervention that requires the approval of clinical trial participants, what chances then that the latter, likely not experts, fully understand what their consent means? Such a pitfall could further undermine public trust in doctors and clinical trials (5).The clinical trial as we now know it is of recent vintage. It starts with the UK's Medical Research Council 1947 study of streptomycin treatment for tuberculosis (6). Since 1947, clinical trial methodology has improved vastly to minimize bias in design, management and interpretation. Now health-care providers need to provide clinical trial participants information necessary for their autonomous decision-making, i.e. informed consent forms are now mandatory. In this mix, we have placebos.By enabling a causal association between treatment and outcome, placebos have been instrumental in making clinical research more rigorous and scientifically sound, with a caveat of course. After all, the 'placebo effect' tells us in no uncertain terms that we don't fully understand how our body, brain and mind work together. The unpredictable 'placebo effect' also negates economic arguments that are typically made in favor of placebo-controlled trials, namely, that it requires fewer participants and is faster compared to trials that compare two or more treatments (e.g., active controlled or superiority or non-inferiority trials) (7).However, why do clinical trials require informed consent (approval by participants) in the first place?Brief history of informed consent in clinical trialsGerman Nazi doctor experiments on concentration camp inmates and the Tuskegee Syphilis Project are representative examples of egregious medical practice abuse. Human autonomy, the overarching victim, thus became the central tenet in modern medical ethics through a convoluted and not simplistically linear process. While the Nuremberg Code established a set of research ethics for human experimentation in 1947, isn't it ironic that the Tuskegee syphilis experiment was conducted continuously from 1932 until 1972? In this study, African-Americans diagnosed with syphilis were deliberately left untreated in order to follow natural disease progression. This example of egregious post-WWII violation of human rights proved that the Nuremberg Code alone was insufficient to prevent wholesale abuse in human experimentation. While public revelation of the Tuskegee project in 1972 drove the creation of new standards in research ethics requiring the treatment of research participants as autonomous agents, it was only in 1997 that US president Bill Clinton apologized to the Tuskegee study participants and their families. However, neither of these two egregious examples of abuse alone suffice to understand how we arrive at today's 'informed consent'. For this we need to delve into the law and lawsuits.The first piece of 'Informed consent'. When and how the phrase came into existence.The US case Salgo v. Leland Stanford, Jr. University Board of Trustees coined the phrase, 'informed consent'. The plaintiff, Mr Salgo underwent a now-defunct treatment 'involving puncturing the aorta through the back in order to inject a radio-opaque dye, and was left with permanent paralysis of the legs. According to the direction given to the jury: “The physician has . . . discretion [to withhold alarming information from the patient] consistent, of course, with the full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent” ([1957] 317 P.2d 170 (Cal. Ct. App.) at 181)'(8). In this jury instruction, there is an obvious contradiction of terms between 'discretion to withhold alarming information' and 'full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent'. Nevertheless, this and subsequent cases codified that disclosure needed to conform to 'professional practice standard', namely, what a reasonable health-care practitioner would do under similar circumstances (8).The second piece of 'Informed consent': The 'reasonable person standard'.In the US case, Canterbury v. Spence ([1972] 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir.)), the patient fell out of his hospital bed after undergoing a laminectomy (surgical removal of a vertebral bone called the lamina) and suffered major paralysis (8). The patient had not been warned about 'the possibility of this rare outcome'. This case deemed the professional practice standard inadequate in that it failed to respect the patient's self-determination, and it gave way to the patient- centered 'reasonable person standard', i.e. what any reasonable patient would consider necessary and sufficient to know, rather than what professionals might consider necessary to disclose (9). According to the philosopher Peter Singer and his colleague Helga Kuhse, 'this single move served to overcome three main weaknesses of the professional practice standard: first, that agreed professional standards of disclosure were typically set too low to satisfy patient demand for information; second, that there were no agreed standards for new procedures; and, third, that patients were put at a significant disadvantage in having to rely upon expert witnesses (usually other health-care practitioners) in disputes about standards of care' (8).With the adoption of a 'reasonable person standard', patients have greater decision-making control about their own health care. In theory, anyway. What does this mean in practical terms though? Health-care providers have to disclose to the patient the four elements necessary for informed patient consent: the nature (therapeutic/not), risks, alternatives and benefits of the procedure and/or treatment. Disclose the nature of the treatment: Is it therapeutic or not? This is how we arrive at the current ethical dilemma of the placebo. As with many ethical dilemmas that ensue from the tussle between individual rights and collective good, the participants of a placebo-controlled trial bear the risks. Let's examine who benefits.Who benefits from a placebo-controlled trial, public health (the participants, i.e. patients, nation(s)) or the sponsor? Some case studies highlight a) inevitable conflicts of interest and b) developed vs developing world disconnects in access to consistent standard of care.Neither individuals nor public health, only the sponsor. In Bolivia, Discovery labs was testing a new surfactant, Surfaxin, for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). However, its intent was not to develop the drug to benefit premature Bolivian infants with RDS but to market it in high-income countries (10). Violation of ethics? No doubt.Individuals pay but public health benefits. In the Romanian government-funded, Bucharest Early Intervention Project (11), abandoned children were randomly assigned to either foster or institutional care even though US childcare experts agreed foster care was better. The result helped Romanian policy-makers establish a foster care program in Bucharest, and an ethicist concluded the study had sufficient 'social value' to justify its design (12). Millum and Grady state 'Social value is a fundamental, but under-analyzed, concept in research ethics' (7). I bet the children left to institutional care would vociferously beg to differ. Another fundamental informed consent issue that this case highlights? Presumably, usually parents or caregivers, i.e. individuals, proffer informed consent on behalf of minors. In the case of these and other orphans, presumably the state, manifestly not an individual, consents? Is individual and state informed consent the same thing? The study (11) itself is mum on this issue. Yet another ethical conundrum.Double standards in medical research.The US 076 regimen gave Zidovudine (AZT) intravenously prenatally, during delivery, and postpartum (13). Though it reduced perinatal (vertical) HIV transmission by approximately 2/3rds and had become the standard of care in developed countries, the needed infrastructure, comprehensive prenatal care, and drug cost couldn't be met in developing countries, which had the majority of perinatal HIV infections. Hence controversial placebo-controlled trials in Sub-Saharan Africa gave a single nevirapine dose to pregnant women during labor and their infants within 72 hours of birth (14). What's egregious about that? As Millum et al write, 'it was known at the time that single-dose nevirapine would not be as effective as more comprehensive and much more expensive treatment regimens that also targeted transmission during pregnancy' (15). Like it or not, when it comes to public health, we live in a world of haves and have-nots.According to latest guidelines, when is a placebo currently acceptable?A brief history of the modern clinical trials and the codified set of rules for their conduct, namely, the World Medical Association's 1964 Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) and its subsequent revisions (7 as of 2013) reveal plenty of controversy such as the 5th revision in 2000 which was approved without consensus from national medical associations in the aftermath of the controversial sub-Saharan nevirapine studies on vertical HIV transmission.The 7th version of the DoH, adopted in October 2013 at the 64th WMA General Assembly in Fortaleza, Brazil, says, 'Medical research involving human subjects may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the risks and burdens to the research subjects. (Paragraph16)' (15). It also asserts that 'placebos, no intervention or any intervention less effective than the best proven one may be used only when the patients who receive them will not be subject to additional risks of serious or irreversible harm as a result of not receiving the best proven intervention' (16). 'Less effective than the best proven', a phrase that explicitly codified double standards in medical research. In response, the Latin American and Caribbean Medical Confederations did not approve the wording of placebo use in the DoH 2013 because 'the poor and vulnerable populations, discriminated by their lack of resources, cannot be subjected to biomedical research that have levels of safety less than those applied to more developed societies' (17, 18).Ambiguity about the 'risk of serious or irreversible harm' is another big problem with the latest DoH stance on placebo. Is it risk of serious or irreversible harm to not treat a cut or skin biopsy or to not treat an HIV positive pregnant woman? In the arena of global politics, 'risk of serious or irreversible harm' becomes a vast, seemingly insurmountable chasm between the optimal and the dubious in wealthy and poor countries, respectively. Hellman et al also point out that the 2013 DoH excluded the division between therapeutic and non-therapeutic studies, further increasing participant vulnerability (18).Today, health-care providers need to tell placebo-controlled trial participants they could receive either a treatment or a placebo. Do participants balk? Certainly but it seems to vary by disease type and severity. While a study suggests 70% of cancer patients would likely decline to participate in a placebo-controlled trial (19), 24% of hypertension patients are likely to do so (20).Final word: Placebos remain a persistent ethical dilemma. We just added another wrinkle with bureaucracy.Our history teaches us that when we codify processes and develop contingencies to accommodate ethical codes and legal requirements, we tend to become complacent and end up going through the motions without fully comprehending the poignant ethical and moral compulsions that necessitated them. In other words, a definition of bureaucracy. We see a similar effect at play with our current use of placebos in clinical trials. The meager research currently available on how clinical trial participants are informed about placebos and their effects suggests that placebos and their risks are poorly explained (4, 21, 22). This, even without getting into vast global cultural differences. For example, imagine informed consent in cultures that believe evil spirits or witchcraft cause diseases or where the concept of lock and key privacy (...of informed consent forms) is alien or where native healers are accorded respect on par with modern medical practitioners or where illiteracy is prevalent. Given we do live in a world of such enormous cultural, resource and opportunity differences, from benign neglect to active deception, the entire ethical gamut with respect to placebos is still very much at play.BibliographyShapiro, Arthur K., and Elaine Shapiro. "The powerful placebo." From ancient priest to modern (1997).Požgain, Ivan, Zrinka Požgain, and Dunja Degmečić. "Placebo and nocebo effect: a mini-review." Psychiatria Danubina 26.2 (2014): 100-107. Page on hdbp.orgDay, Simon. Dictionary for clinical trials. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.Hernández, Astrid, et al. "The Definition of Placebo in the Informed Consent Forms of Clinical Trials." PloS one 9.11 (2014): e113654. Page on plosone.orgLouhiala, Pekka, Harri Hemilä, and Raimo Puustinen. "Clinical use of placebo treatments may undermine the trust of patients: a response to Gold and Lichtenberg." Journal of medical ethics (2014): medethics-2014. Page on mv.helsinki.fiMarshall, Geoffrey, et al. "Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: a Medical Research Council investigation." BMJ 2.4582 (1948): 769-782.Millum, Joseph, and Christine Grady. "The ethics of placebo-controlled trials: methodological justifications." Contemporary clinical trials 36.2 (2013): 510-514. The Ethics of Placebo-controlled Trials: Methodological JustificationsA Companion to Bioethics, Second Edition. Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer, editors. A Companion to BioethicsFaden, Ruth R., Tom L. Beauchamp, and Nancy M. King. "A history and theory of informed consent." (1986).Lurie P, Wolfe SM. Commentary 9.2. The Developing World as the “Answer” to the Dreams of Pharmaceutical Companies: The Surfaxin Story. In: Lavery JV, Grady C, Wahl ER, Emanuel EJ, editors. Ethical Issues in International Biomedical Research: A Casebook. Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 159–170.Nelson, Charles A., et al. "Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project." Science 318.5858 (2007): 1937-1940. Page on ucsd.eduRid, Annette. "When is research socially valuable? Lessons from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project: commentary on a case study in the ethics of mental health research." The Journal of nervous and mental disease 200.3 (2012): 248-249. Page on bucharestearlyinterventionproject.orgConnor, Edward M., et al. "Reduction of maternal-infant transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with zidovudine treatment." New England Journal of Medicine 331.18 (1994): 1173-1180.Marseille, Elliot, et al. "Cost effectiveness of single-dose nevirapine regimen for mothers and babies to decrease vertical HIV-1 transmission in sub-Saharan Africa." The Lancet 354.9181 (1999): 803-809.Millum, Joseph, David Wendler, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. "The 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki: progress but many remaining challenges." Jama 310.20 (2013): 2143-2144. Page on nih.govWorld Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki. Amended by the 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013. WMA Archives, Ferney-Voltaire, France.Confederacion Medica Latinoamericana y el Caribe (CONFEMEL). Declaracion de Pachuca Sobre la Revision de Helsinki. 22 and 23 November 2013. (Accessed May 5, 2014. Page on confemel.comHellmann, Fernando, et al. "50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki: The Double Standard Was Introduced." Archives of medical research 45.7 (2014): 600-601.Jefford, Michael, and Rosemary Moore. "Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents." The lancet oncology 9.5 (2008): 485-493.Halpern, Scott D., et al. "Hypertensive patients' willingness to participate in placebo-controlled trials: implications for recruitment efficiency." American heart journal 146.6 (2003): 985-992.Bishop, Felicity L., et al. "Informed consent and placebo effects: a content analysis of information leaflets to identify what clinical trial participants are told about placebos." PloS one 7.6 (2012): e39661. Page on plosone.orgKeränen, Tapani, et al. "Placebo-controlled clinical trials: how trial documents justify the use of randomisation and placebo." BMC medical ethics 16.1 (2015): 2. Page on biomedcentral.com

Of course. That’s exactly what “due diligence” is all about. How thorough an investor will be depends to some extent on the professionalism of the investor, the size of the investment, and the stage of the company, but the checking will almost certainly entail requesting and reviewing all of the startup’s financial accounts and projections, customer contracts, cap table, IP filings, etc. (That’s one reason that a platform like Gust Launch can be so useful, because it ensures that everything is appropriately tracked and recorded.)Here is a typical business diligence checklist for an angel or venture investment:Company OverviewArticulate the “equity story” here (i.e. why the company is on to something and why its stock will appreciate greatly). Is it compelling?Does the company engage in thorough business planning?Does management have a clear understanding of the challenges it faces and a realistic plan to address them?Are there any skeletons in the company’s closet from previous activities (e.g. outstanding liabilities, unassigned IP)?Management TeamAre all resumes and personal references available?What key strengths does the management team have collectively and individually?What holes are there in the team and how/when might they be filled?Have there been any disgruntled employees and, if so, why? Do these employees cause any tangible risk going forward?What strengths does the Board bring to the company? How might it be augmented?Is there a Board of Advisors, and, if so, how active is it?MarketingDoes the company have a well-defined sense of what its true market is?·Is this market sufficiently large and fast-growing to be attractive?Is the company’s market generalized or niche?If generalized, does the company stand out from competitors?If niche, will the company dominate sufficiently to either build attractive cash flow or be bought by a larger firm?Is the company the leading firm in its market? Market share?What barriers to entry does the company enjoy? How long lasting are they?Does management understand the key metrics to measure its business and does it track its progress effectively? How do the metrics compare to similar firms?Does the company have a sensible business model?SalesDo customer reference calls bear out claims management make about demand for their products/services?Is the company pipeline attractive? What is the probability that it will hit its targets?Does the sales strategy make sense? What could be done to improve it?Can the company acquire customers profitably?Is the company’s sales cycle better or worse than its competitors and is it attractive?CompetitionDoes the company know who its competitors are, including indirect competitors?Where does the company stack up vs. competitors? Can it win business from them?Has the company focused its business plan narrowly enough to limit its competition?How well-funded is the competition?Product DevelopmentIs the product a need-to-have, a nice-to-have, or a luxury? Does it solve a critical problem or enable growth (if B2B)/provide entertainment (if B2C)?Describe the customer demand in detail?Has the company proven adept at product development? Does it have an adequate technical team?Did product development flow from perceived (or better yet researched) customer demand or from some other impetus? Explain.Intellectual PropertyDoes the company have an appropriate IP strategy? Explain.Are there any issues relating to patents or intellectual property?Production / Operations (HR, Customer Support, Fulfillment, Returns, Distribution Logistics)Do the management team and other employees enjoy appropriate incentives to run the company for the long term?Are the interests of management aligned with ours?Are total labor costs appropriate?Does the company have a realistic plan for managing its back office and customer support? Will it be able to handle customer growth while maintaining customer satisfaction?Financing StrategyIs the valuation attractive? What is the projected times money returned and IRR (if calculable)? Is the risk-adjusted return attractive?Does the company have a thorough plan as to what it will do with our money? Is it sensible?Is the company raising the right amount of money?What financing risk exists in the business plan? How much additional money must they raise and how flexible (in amount and timing) can they be in raising it?FinancialsDoes the company have a realistic set of projections based on reasonable assumptions?Are the projections bottom-up (good) or top-down (not so good)?Does the company have good operating leverage?Are the margins attractive (absolutely and relative to competitors)?Has the company met, exceeded or fallen short of its previous budgets? Analyze variances.Assets and PropertyAre there any issues here?Customer ReferencesWrite up summary of reference calls.Do customer reference calls bear out claims management make about demand for their products/services?Are there any issues flagged by customers? Does management recognize and admit to (without prompting) these issues?Contracts and AgreementsReview all contracts with legal counsel and flag any issues, risks or omissions.Corporate DocumentsReview all corporate documents with legal counsel and flag any issues, risks or omissions.TaxesReview company tax situation and analyze effects on cash flow over next several years.InsuranceAssess adequacy of insurance coverage and analyze risk to investment thesis of any insurance gaps.And here’s the legal/financial due diligence checklist that would accompany it in the case of a full venture or strategic round:“Please furnish for our review copies of the following documents or indicate in writing on a copy of this list that none exist. In addition, please provide a written summary of each oral agreement or arrangement which is responsive to the requests set forth below. Any documents identified as originals will be returned to you promptly.Unless otherwise indicated, (i) all requests are for any matters which are currently existing and in effect or which occurred at any time since the Company’s incorporation but which are not now existing or in effect, and (ii) each request applies to all past and present direct or indirect subsidiaries (if any), and all predecessors, whether corporations, partnerships or joint ventures. For purposes of this request, all such entities are included in the term “Company.” Where there is no information responsive to the request, please so indicate by writing “N/A” or the equivalent in the margin.I. Corporate Records.Chart showing, or a narrative description of, the corporate, partnership, limited liability company structures (parents, all subsidiaries and other financially or legally related entities) and ownership (including the number of shares and/or percentage of ownership) of the Company.Copies of the certificates of incorporation, by-laws, partnership agreements, operating agreements and other similar organizational documents of the Company.Stock record books and copies of all stock certificates, including reverse sides, of the Company and affiliates.List of all subsidiaries and affiliates of the Company, if any.List of jurisdictions in which the Company is qualified or has applied for qualification to do business and evidence of such qualification or application.List of jurisdictions where the Company has substantial contacts (e.g., real or personal property owned or leased, employees, sales representatives, etc.).List of the Company’s current shareholders, the numbers of shares owned and the consideration paid for such shares.Warrants, stock options, agreements relating to any warrants or options to purchase securities, any convertible security and other rights to subscribe for or purchase securities.Schedule of all outstanding stock options and warrants, including name of individual, grant date, expiration date and exercise price, of the Company.Voting agreements, voting trusts, shareholder agreements or other similar arrangements with or among shareholders or equity owners of the Company.Stock purchase and repurchase agreements.Stock restriction agreements.Registration rights agreements.Minutes or other records of meetings of the Board of Directors, committees of the Board of Directors or shareholders of the Company.All materials distributed to members of the Board of Directors, committees of the Board of Directors or shareholders of the Company since incorporation or organization (or written consents in lieu of meetings).II. Employee Benefit Plans and Other Employment Matters.Employment, consulting, compensation or other agreements or arrangements to which any director, officer or employee of the Company is a party.Copies of any provisions of any contract or arrangement, pursuant to which any director or officer (or other applicable principals, partners or members) of the Company is insured or indemnified in any manner against liability.All documents relating to pension, deferred compensation, stock option (including SARs), profit sharing and any other similar plans of the Company, all IRS determination letters relating to the foregoing and the most recent actuarial report for any defined benefit pension plan for the Company.All other employee compensation, bonus, incentive, benefit (e.g., life or health insurance) or similar plans of the Company, including plan evaluation and actuarial evaluation reports.Any standard form employment agreements used by the Company as well as any agreements that deviate in any material respect from such standard forms, and all severance or special termination agreements with senior management of the Company.Information with respect to any pension benefit plan subject to Title IV of ERISA maintained by an entity other than the Company which is, or was within the past five years, in a single controlled group with the Company.All collective bargaining agreements to which the Company is a party or by which it is bound, including any side letters.Any policy manuals or materials with respect to trade or employment practices of the Company.Confidentiality, proprietary rights, and non-competition agreements (i) between the Company and any officer, director, employee, consultant, representative, supplier or customer or (ii) which the Company’s employees or consultants have entered into with a prior employer.Information as to employment arrangements and/or compensation plans where any benefits or rights are triggered by a change in control of the Company, including any so called “golden parachute” or similar arrangements.Information as to employment arrangements and/or severance plans where any benefits or rights are granted upon severance or termination of an employee, whether or not in connection with a change in control of the Company.Any contracts for consulting or management services.III. Regulatory MattersAll applications, filings, findings, reports, registration statements, correspondence, complaints, consent decrees, determinations, orders, etc., relating to federal regulatory agencies and all foreign, state and local agencies performing similar functions. Include all exhibits for all filings, unless duplicative of material requested elsewhere.IV. Properties, Assets, and Leases.List of all real property owned, leased (as lessee or lessor) or used by the Company including all documentation of ownership, leasehold interest, any encumbrances or restrictions against transfer on such property, and any title insurance policies or title searches.List of all intangible or intellectual property e.g., patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade names, trade secrets and customer lists owned, leased, licensed or used by the Company and any patent or trademark registrations or similar documents in any domestic or foreign jurisdiction. Please include any required permits, licenses, approvals, related regulatory reports, or agreements and any actual or threatened claims of infringement or misappropriation.List of all fixed assets, personal property and equipment owned, leased or used by the Company including all documentation of ownership, leasehold interest or any encumbrances or restrictions against transfer of such property.With respect to all of the properties and leases described in this Item IV, please identify any officers, Directors, shareholders or employees of the Company holding an interest in such properties or leases.V. Material Agreements and Financing Documents.Loan agreements, lines of credit, indentures, revolving credit agreements, note purchase agreements, notes, other evidence of indebtedness and all related documents concerning any debt financing.Venture capital financing documentsAny agreements in principle or otherwise with respect to mergers, acquisitions, divestitures or sales of material assets of the Company, whether or not consummated.Mortgages, security agreements, pledges and other evidence of liens or letters of credit securing any obligations of the Company.Corporate and personal guarantees of any obligations and powers of attorney executed in the Company’s name.Schedule and copies of all contracts, agreements, arrangements or understandings under which the Company (i) has any surviving representations or warranties or any ongoing obligation to indemnify, defend or hold harmless any party, (ii) is subject to any other material commitment, contingency or liability or (iii) which restrict in any manner the right of the Company to conduct its business or to compete with any partyList of bank accounts belonging to the Company and its affiliates.Correspondence and internal memoranda relating to any documents requested in this Item V.VI. Marketing, Sales and Operations.Licensing agreements (including inter-company).Patents, patent applications, trademarks, trademark applications and copyrights (domestic and foreign), service marks (domestic and foreign) and documents relating to know-how, trade secrets, and other proprietary information used by the Company.Promotional material, sales literature and other advertising documents distributed to potential customers.Agreements with any educational institutions or relating to the Company’s provision of private student loans.Joint venture, partnership and limited partnership agreements.Agency, commission, distribution, franchise or sales representative agreements.Governmental contracts, agreements or purchase orders.Agreements under the which the company is obligated to provide or purchase a material amount of goods or servicesAll other contracts (including executory contracts) material to the Company.VII. Accounting, Financial and Insurance Matters.2004 annual and 2005 year to date monthly financial statements (including balance sheet and income statement).All documentation relating to any transaction between the Company and any director and officer including any loans or similar arrangement.Budgets, fiscal projections and strategic plans, together with a review of or comparison with actual results, if available.Summary of federal, state, local and foreign income tax status, including consents and agreements with any tax authority or any pending or threatened disputes concerning tax matters and all audit papers and communications between the Company and the Internal Revenue Service.Any documents relating to liabilities and obligations, including material contingent liabilities, write-downs or write-offs of notes or accounts receivable, incurred otherwise than in the ordinary course of business since formation.Copies of all insurance policies and a history of insurance claims, with details of any pending claims or incidents which may arise in claims.VIII. Legal Proceedings.List and description of all material litigation, administrative proceedings, arbitration proceedings, investigations, claims or disputes (including pending or threatened litigation or claims) involving the Company or any principal shareholder, officer, director, principal, partner or member of the Company as a plaintiff or defendant.All consent decrees, judgments, other decrees or orders, settlement agreements, injunctions or similar matters (continuing or contingent) to which the Company is a party or involving any person in his capacity as a shareholder, officer, director principal, partner, member or employee of the Company.Documentation with respect to any pending or threatened disputes with any governmental agency to which the Company is or may become a party.All correspondence dealing with actual or alleged infringement of patents, trademarks and copyrights.Any waivers or agreements canceling claims or rights of substantial value other than in ordinary course of business.IX. All other materials and documents involving the Company, not otherwise covered by the foregoing items, which, in your judgment, may be material to the business of the Company or which should be reviewed in making disclosures regarding the business and financial condition of the Company.”