From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:22:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8F87F.DBDC44C0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16545 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8F87F.DBDC44C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=84800 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


 

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and = Opinion=20 filed August 7, 2008.

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-08-00280-CV

____________

 

IN RE STERLING = CHEMICALS,=20 INC., RICHARD CRUMP, JOHN BEAVER, RESURGENCE ASSET MANAGEMENT, = L.L.C.,=20 BYRON HANEY, and PAUL ROSTEK, Relators

 

 

 

ORIGINAL=20 PROCEEDING

WRIT OF=20 MANDAMUS

 

 

O P I N I=20 O N

On April 10, 2008, = relators,=20 Sterling Chemicals, Inc., Richard Crump, John Beaver, Resurgence = Asset=20 Management, L.L.C. (ARAM@), Byron Haney, and = Paul=20 Rostek, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  = See Tex. Gov=3Dt Code Ann. = ' 22.221 (Vernon = 2004); see=20 also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  Relators ask this court to = compel=20 the respondent[1] = to=20 enforce a forum-selection clause and dismiss the lawsuit filed by = the real=20 party in interest.

We hold that the = trial court=20 did not abuse its discretion in declining to enforce an ambiguous=20 forum-selection clause.  Therefore, we deny the mandamus=20 petition.

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;  =20 Background

Sterling Chemicals, = Inc.=20 manufactures and sells acetic acid and plasticizers for its=20 customers=3D use in the creation = of other=20 chemicals and products.  The other relators consist of some = of=20 Sterling=3Ds officers and = shareholders.[2]

On July 25, 2007, = Sterling=20 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (AMOU@) with real party in = interest,=20 Gulf Hydrogen and Energy, L.L.C. (AGulf = Hydrogen@) concerning Gulf=20 Hydrogen=3Ds proposed = acquisition of=20 Sterling.  The MOU required that Gulf Hydrogen make three=20 non-refundable deposits of $100,000, $1,000,000, and $10,000,000 = into an=20 escrow account.  In return, Sterling granted Gulf Hydrogen an = exclusivity period during which Sterling would not solicit other=20 buyers.  The parties later agreed that the exclusivity period = was to=20 terminate on March 1, 2008, at which time the proposed transaction = would=20 close.

The transaction had = not been=20 complete when the exclusivity period terminated on March 1.  = Three=20 days later, Gulf Hydrogen sued relators, alleging that (1) Haney = and RAM=20 made misrepresentations to induce it to enter into the MOU and to = deposit=20 $1,100,000 in escrow; (2) relators refused to go forward with the=20 transaction or caused the transaction not to be completed; and (3) = Sterling refused to provide and execute closing documents, as = required=20 under the MOU, although Gulf Hydrogen had already tendered=20 performance.

Shortly thereafter, = relators=20 requested that the trial court dismiss the lawsuit based on a=20 forum-selection clause contained in the MOU.  At a March 27 = hearing,=20 the trial court denied relators=3D motions to = dismiss.  In=20 this original proceeding, relators assail those rulings as an = abuse of the=20 trial court=3Ds=20 discretion.

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;     =20 Mandamus Standard of=20 Review

Mandamus relief is = available to=20 enforce forum-selection clauses.  In re AutoNation, = Inc., 228=20 S.W.3d 663, 667 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding).  To be = entitled to=20 the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must = show that=20 the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and it has no = adequate=20 remedy on appeal.  In re Team Rocket, L.P., No. = 06-0414, 51=20 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 945, 2008 WL 2154092, at *1 (Tex. May 23, 2008) = (orig.=20 proceeding).  A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if = it=20 reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a = clear=20 and prejudicial error of law.  Walker v. Packer, 827 = S.W.2d=20 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           =20 Contract=20 Interpretation

The MOU clause we = have been=20 asked to enforce provides as follows:

All documentation in connection with the = Proposed=20 Transaction shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of = Delaware, require waiver of jury trials, and consent to the State = of=20 Delaware, and the District of Delaware as being the exclusive = forum for=20 and having exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes.

The parties disagree = about=20 whether this clause applies to disputes arising from the MOU = itself. =20 In arguing that the clause unambiguously applies to the MOU as a = matter of=20 law, Sterling emphasizes the broad nature of the phrase = A[a]ll documentation = in=20 connection with the Proposed Transaction.@   It = contends that=20 the MOU is part of Aall = documentation;@ therefore, the = argument goes,=20 the MOU=3Ds forum selection = clause=20 encompasses Aany = disputes@ arising from  = the MOU=20 itself.  Gulf Hydrogen disagrees with this interpretation, = noting=20 that the parties expressly provided that the MOU later would be = superseded=20 by so-called Definitive Agreements:

The parties shall negotiate in good = faith to=20 finalize the definitive agreements to give effect to the Proposed=20 Transaction (which will supersede this MOU) on mutually agreeable = terms=20 between [Gulf Hydrogen] and [Sterling], including customary terms = and as=20 further described in this MOU (the ADefinitive Agreements@).[3]

Gulf Hydrogen = contends that the=20 MOU=3Ds forum selection = clause is=20 forward-looking and encompasses only disputes arising later after = the=20 contemplated Definitive Agreements have been created and = executed. =20 Thus, Gulf Hydrogen contends that (1) as a matter of law, the=20 MOU=3Ds forum-selection = clause is=20 unambiguous and does not reach disputes arising from documents = created=20 before  execution of the Definitive Agreements; or, in the=20 alternative, that  (2) the MOU=3Ds forum selection = clause is=20 ambiguous, cannot be interpreted as a matter of law, and cannot = serve as a=20 basis for mandamus at this stage of the = litigation.

Whether a contract is = ambiguous=20 is a question of law for the court.  J.M. Davidson, Inc. = v.=20 Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003).  We determine = whether=20 the contract is ambiguous by looking at the contract as a whole, = in light=20 of the circumstances present when the parties entered into the=20 contract.  Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Renaissance=20 Women=3Ds Group, = P.A., 121 S.W.3d 742, 746 = (Tex.=20 2003).  That the parties disagree about a = contract=3Ds meaning does not = render it=20 ambiguous.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Benchmark Elecs., = Inc., 142=20 S.W.3d 554, 561 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = 2004, pet.=20 denied).  Rather, a contract is ambiguous when it is = susceptible to=20 more than one reasonable interpretation.  Frost=20 Nat=3Dl Bank v. L & F = Distribs.,=20 Ltd., 165=20 S.W.3d 310, 312 (Tex. 2005).  An ambiguity in a contract may = be=20 either Apatent@ or Alatent.@ =20 Nat=3Dl Union Fire Ins. Co. = v. CBI=20 Indus., Inc.,=20 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1994).  A patent ambiguity is = evident on=20 the face of the contract, while a latent ambiguity arises when a = contract=20 unambiguous on its face is applied to the subject matter with = which it=20 deals, and an ambiguity appears by reason of some collateral = matter. =20 Id.  When a contract is found to be ambiguous, the=20 parties=3D intent is a = determination for=20 the fact finder.  Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 395 = (Tex.=20 1983).  The court may conclude that a contract is ambiguous = in the=20 absence of such pleading by any party.[4] =20 Sage St. Assocs. v. Northdale Constr. Co., 863 S.W.2d 438, = 445=20 (Tex. 1993).

We find no patent = ambiguity in=20 the forum-selection clause.  However, when the clause is = examined in=20 light of two contemporaneous companion documents, inconsistencies = between=20 the three documents demonstrate the presence of a latent = ambiguity. =20 Specifically, this latent ambiguity becomes apparent when we = examine=20 certain provisions in the parties=3D confidentiality = agreements and=20 escrow agreements.  When clauses in these agreements are = analyzed and=20 compared to the MOU=3Ds forum selection = clause, it=20 becomes apparent that Sterling=3Ds Aall = documentation@ argument=20 overreaches.

A.       =20 Clauses in Confidentiality Agreements

Under the MOU, Gulf = Hydrogen=20 was permitted reasonable access to Sterling=3Ds  personnel, = property,=20 contracts, books and records, and other such documents and data so = that=20 Gulf Hydrogen could Acomplete its due = diligence with=20 respect to the Proposed Transaction.@  The MOU also = required=20 that the parties execute one or more confidentiality agreements = respecting=20 Gulf Hydrogen=3Ds access to the = documents and=20 data.  Accordingly, Sterling and Gulf Hydrogen entered into = two=20 confidentiality agreements.  Both confidentiality agreements=20 contained the following jurisdiction clause:

Section 17.  Submission to=20 Jurisdiction.  Each party hereby (a) irrevocably submits = to the=20 non-exclusive personal jurisdiction of any Texas state or = federal court=20 sitting in Harris County, Texas, over any claim or dispute = arising=20 out of or relating to this Agreement and irrevocably = agrees that=20 all such claims and disputes may be heard and determined in = such Texas=20 state or federal court, . . .[5]

This clause = contemplates that=20 litigation of disputes relating to the confidentiality agreement = will take=20 place in Texas.  Litigation in Texas is inconsistent with the = MOU=3Ds forum selection = clause, which=20 contemplates litigation only in Delaware of Aany = disputes@ arising from = A[a]ll documentation = in=20 connection with the Proposed Transaction.@  Logically, the = confidentiality agreements could be considered part of = A[a]ll documentation = in=20 connection with the Proposed Transaction,@ and yet those = agreements=20 contemplate litigation of disputes concerning those agreements in = a forum=20 other than the exclusive forum chosen in the MOU=3Ds forum selection = clause.[6] =20 This inconsistency gives rise to an ambiguity regarding the = meaning of the=20 phrases Aall = documentation@ and Aany = disputes@ in the = MOU=3Ds forum selection = clause as the=20 exclusive jurisdiction for Aany = dispute@ arising out of = A[a]ll documentation = in=20 connection with the Proposed Transaction.@

B.       =20 Clauses in Escrow Agreements

A similar tension = arises when=20 the escrow agreements are considered.  The MOU required Gulf = Hydrogen=20 to pay Sterling three non-refundable deposits of $100,000, = $1,000,000, and=20 $10,000,000.  The MOU provided that the ANon-Refundable = Deposits, along=20 with any accrued interest, will be held in an escrow (AEscrow@) to be established = by=20 [Sterling] as approved by [Gulf Hydrogen] and applied to the = Purchase=20 Price at Closing.@  Sterling and = Gulf=20 Hydrogen entered into two escrow agreements with regard to Gulf=20 Hydrogen=3Ds $100,000 and = $1,000,000=20 non-refundable deposits.  Both escrow agreements contained = the=20 following jurisdiction clause:

8.  Governing Law and=20 Counterparts.  This Agreement shall be governed by and = construed=20 in accordance with the laws of New York and may be executed in = separate=20 counterparts, all of which together shall be considered as but one = document.  Each party shall submit to the non-exclusive = jurisdiction=20 of the courts sitting in New York.

Like the = confidentiality=20 agreements, the escrow agreements could be considered Adocumentation in = connection=20 with the Proposed Transaction.@  Thus, if the = sweeping=20 language of the MOU clause is to include the MOU itself, as = Sterling=20 claims, it likewise encompasses disputes arising from the = confidentiality=20 and escrow agreements.  Yet we cannot, as a matter of law, = reconcile=20 Sterling=3Ds interpretation with = the fact=20 that the documents contain inconsistent jurisdiction=20 provisions.

Relators contend that = the=20 confidentiality and escrow agreements should not be considered in = our=20 interpretation of the MOU clause because in each agreement, the=20 jurisdiction clause applies only to that particular=20 agreement.  As a threshold matter, this contention arguably = conflicts=20 with the teaching that Ainstruments = pertaining to the=20 same transaction may be read together to ascertain the = parties=3D intent.@  Fort = Worth =20 Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex. = 2000). =20 Furthermore, this argument would not explain why the escrow and=20 confidentiality agreements should be included in A[a]ll documentation = in=20 connection with the Proposed Transaction,@ including the MOU, = but have=20 their own jurisdiction clauses.  Relators have argued = themselves into=20 a double blind: they cannot maintain that the MOU is part of = A[a]ll = documentation@ such that any claims = regarding=20 the MOU fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court in = Delaware,=20 while at the same time assert that the other = agreementsCwhich logically could = also be=20 considered Adocumentation in = connection=20 with the Proposed Transaction@Cshould not be = considered in our=20 interpretive context  This tension cannot be eliminated by = asserting=20 that the clauses in the confidentiality and escrow agreements = focus=20 primarily on personal jurisdiction, while the MOU=3Ds clause focuses on=20 forum.  These clauses must be considered together because no = purpose=20 would be served by agreeing to the personal jurisdiction of a = court=20 located in a forum other than the exclusive forum selected by the=20 parties.

This inconsistency = among the=20 three agreements creates a latent ambiguity in the A[a]ll documentation = in=20 connection with the Proposed Transaction@ language from the = MOU=20 forum-selection clause.  See Wright v. Eckhardt, 32 = S.W.3d=20 891, 896 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 2000, = no=20 pet.).[7] =20 Because it is susceptible to more than one reasonable = interpretation, the=20 MOU clause is ambiguous.  See Frost Nat=3Dl = Bank, 165 S.W.3d at = 312.  The=20 forum-selection clause reasonably may interpreted either as = including the=20 MOU itself, or as inapplicable to disputes arising before the = subsequent=20 execution of the Definitive Agreements that were to seal the=20 transaction.

Given the ambiguity = in the=20 forum-selection clause, we cannot say that the trial court abused = its=20 discretion by denying relators=3D motions to = dismiss.  When=20 a contract is ambiguous, the parties=3D intent is a = determination left=20 to the exclusive province of the fact finder.  Coker, = 650=20 S.W.2d at 395.  We may not address disputed fact issues in an = original mandamus proceeding.  Davenport v. Garcia, = 834 S.W.2d=20 4, 24 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Brady v. Fourteenth Court = of=20 Appeals, 795 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding) = (op. on=20 reh=3Dg).

Relators have not = established=20 their entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of = mandamus. =20 Accordingly, we deny relators=3D petition for writ of = mandamus.

 

/s/     =20 Adele Hedges

Chief = Justice

 

Petition Denied and = Opinion=20 filed August 7, 2008.

Panel consists of = Chief=20 Justices Hedges, Justice Boyce, and Senior Justice Hudson.*


 =20           [1]     &= nbsp;    =20 The Honorable Susan Criss, presiding judge of the 212th District = Court of=20 Galveston County.

 =20           [2]     &= nbsp;    =20 Richard Crump is Sterling=3Ds president and CEO; John Beaver is its = CFO; Paul=20 Rostek is a Sterling senior vice president; RAM is an 83% = shareholder in=20 Sterling; and Byron Haney is a Sterling board member and a RAM=20 director.

 =20           [3]     &= nbsp;    =20 Emphasis in original.

 =20           [4]     &= nbsp;    =20 Gulf Hydrogen did not plead ambiguity, and first raised the issue = at the=20 hearing.

 =20           [5]     &= nbsp;    =20 Emphasis added.

 =20           [6]     &= nbsp;    =20 Sterling attempts to remedy this inconsistency by arguing that the = two=20 jurisdiction clauses do not conflict inasmuch as the = Confidentiality=20 Agreement=3Ds jurisdiction clause provides for=20 non-exclusive jurisdiction in Harris County.  However, = expressly permitting the parties to litigate a dispute in a forum = other=20 than the Aexclusive@ jurisdiction, by definition, makes the=20 Aexclusive@ jurisdiction = non-exclusive.  We are=20 not redrafting the terms of the parties=3D agreements to treat the Aexclusive@ MOU forum-selection clause as=20 non-exclusive.  See Fein v. R.P.H., Inc., 68 S.W.3d = 260, 267=20 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. = denied). =20 However, we cannot ignore an obvious inconsistency between two=20 patently-unambiguous jurisdiction clauses. 

 =20           [7]     &= nbsp;    =20 See also South Plains Lamesa R.R., Ltd. v. Kitten Family Living = Trust, No. 07-06-00209-CV, 2008 WL 223847, at *3 (Tex.=20 App.CAmarillo Jan. 28, 2008, pet. denied) = (mem. op.)=20 (A[T]o the extent that the two contracts = contained=20 inconsistent terms, we find that the two agreements, when = construed=20 together, created an ambiguity.@).

  =          =20 *Senior = Justice Hudson=20 sitting by=20 assignment.

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8F87F.DBDC44C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8F87F.DBDC44C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/images/icons/close.gif R0lGODlhFwAPAMQAAMDAwP//nP/OnPf39+/v5+/e3ufn5+fWxt7e3s7OY6+vMpycAISEhISEAFlN MkpCQkpCOTEhAAAAhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEA AAAALAAAAAAXAA8AQAVxICCOJMCU6KgMQesGArwYUTouCTMAgzQMBkijYRMtYkgYTLCoFQGLqA74 eIoU0aw2ijBUbYuXEsl0Fh3otNqKYgTZt0Rut/PCF25DQUKQHAxBRCkKIj88IwIJCwcIXyhhLTFj iU1FYZJJSJWWW51mIiEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8F87F.DBDC44C0 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8F87F.DBDC44C0--