alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1








Exhibit 10.1




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

MARK THIERER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, Mark Thierer (the “Executive”) and SXC Health Solutions Corporation and its
subsidiary, SXC Health Solution, Inc. (collectively, the “Company”) executed an employment
agreement (“Agreement”) effective as of June 30, 2008;



WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”), through its Compensation
Committee (the “Committee”), has determined that the Agreement should be amended to clarify
the intent of the parties as to the acceleration of unvested units of equity in the Company held by
Executive in the event of termination for various reasons; and



WHEREAS, the Committee and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to fully clarify the intent of
the parties as aforesaid;




	NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with the foregoing recitals, the Agreement is
amended as follows:







	1.	 	Subsection 3.7(b) of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:






“b. Upon termination of Executive’s employment due to Executive’s Resignation for Good Reason,
Termination by the Company without Cause, Termination due to Death or Total Disability, or
Termination Arising Out of a Change of Control, all unvested units of equity in the Company held by
Executive, including stock options and restricted stock units, whether granted in this Agreement or
by separate agreement or document, shall immediately vest. For clarification, no unvested units of
equity in the Company held by Executive shall vest if Executive’s employment with the Company
terminates due to Termination by the Company for Cause or a resignation by the Executive that does
not constitute a Resignation for Good Reason.”



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Chairman of the Committee and Executive hereby adopt this Second Amendment
to the Agreement, which Amendment is effective as of September 1, 2010.



COMPANY:



	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SXC HEALTH SOLUTIONS CORPORATION	 	 	 
	and SXC HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Steven Cosler
	 	September 1, 2010	 
	 

	 	 

Chairman of the Compensation Committee
	 	 
Date	 
	 

	 	of the Company’s Board of Directors	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	EXECUTIVE:	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Mark Thierer
	 	September 1, 2010	 
	 

	 	 

Mark Thierer
	 	 
Date
OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable J. B. McDonald 

Gommleaioner, Depertaent 

of Agrioulture 

Austin, Texas c\ 

Mar Mr. MoDonald: Attention: Xr&$%3J B.\Eau@man 

Your request for 

made aa follows : 

thie department 

/or stallion to 

eok and Stallion 

o. 12, (Lms of Texas, 15th Lsgislat dsslfmg with the subjeab oi authorent selating to *State-owned jaoks and 

stalliorzs and the lease thereor.w There is nothlng In the 

Aot that would oonfer the authority mentioned in your inquiry. 

Morsover, in no event oould an expenditure be made 

by your dspartnient f?rom any fund or source whatsoever, in the 

ebsenoe of a speaific appropriation the-for, and an examination 02 the current papropr~iation tails to disclose any item 

that would cover the subject. The neareat approach, perhaps, 
I;onoradle J. E. MaDonald - page 2 

. ...: 

to such an gpproprlation is to be found in the fees appropriated under ~Item 108, and it will be seen that 

those rees are lor the apeclflo purposes of paying "additional sglarIes, equipment, autotioblles, trevellng expenses and other neoeasary expenses lnoldent to tkie administration of these ects (there!.n enuz,erated), and such 

fees collecte:" s!?sll be used for no other purposed." 

iYe trust this will be suifjcient answer to your 

inquiry. 

Very truly yours 

ATTCLRFIFX GZ?ERAL OF TEXiS 

By, (6) Ooie Spesr 

Assistant 

OS-m 

,os-JBs 

APPRQVRD. mm. .39.,..L1943~.. .Al?Fit0sw‘ ~exwa 

By (8) MB, Chairman
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11

ALLIN CORPORATION

CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

          (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months      Three Months     Six Months      Six Months
                                                            Ended             Ended           Ended           Ended
                                                           June 30,          June 30,        June 30,        June 30,
                                                             2000              2001            2000            2001
                                                        ----------------  --------------    ----------      ----------
<S>                                                     <C>               <C>               <C>             <C>
Net loss                                                  $    (1,059)    $   (11,721)      $   (1,040)     $  (12,719)

Accretion and dividends on preferred stock                        154             164              307             324
                                                          -----------     -----------       ----------      ----------

Net loss per common share - basic and diluted             $    (1,213)    $   (11,885)      $   (1,347)     $  (13,043)
                                                          ===========     ===========       ==========      ==========

Net loss shareholders - basic and diluted common          $     (0.20)    $     (1.71)      $    (0.22)     $    (1.87)
                                                          ===========     ===========       ==========      ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding -
         basic and diluted                                  6,010,973       6,967,339        6,006,746       6,965,374
                                                          ===========     ===========       ==========      ==========
</TABLE>
#### Irving L. Kessler, Respondent, v. Estelle Kessler, Appellant.

On the call of the calendar, appeal dismissed. There was no appearance for appellant, and appellant failed to comply with an order of this court, dated February 15,1962, requiring her to perfect her appeal for the April 1962 Term. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Michael Grassi, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County, imposed January 14, 1977, upon his conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the sixth degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of four years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to a five-year period of probation and case remanded to the County Court to fix the conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). In our opinion, the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Margett, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mollen, JJ., concur.
#### Bankers Trust Company, Appellant, v Sam Kline et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 22, 1977, denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion to dismiss certain defenses and counterclaims and for summary judgment on the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, and the motion of plaintiff-appellant granted to the extent of directing summary judgment to plaintiff-appellant on liability only, and remanding the matter for assessment as to the amount of the judgment to be entered in favor of plaintiff-appellant against defendants-respondents, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to plaintiff-appellant. Plaintiff bank loaned money to a corporation called First United Investment Company, the creature of and controlled by defendant-respondent Sam Kline, a real estate developer, who engineered the loan and, in consideration thereof, procured and *938brought to plaintiff the written unconditional guarantees of payment executed by all the defendants, including himself. After installment payments on the loan had been made for some time, and the corporation, fallen upon bad times, could not continue to pay, Kline, by means of a transaction favorable to one of plaintiff’s employees, in effect bribed him to insure a favorable credit rating, thus postponing the day of reckoning. Eventually, the corporation defaulted and plaintiff sued the guarantors. The defense interposed rests upon the fraud committed by plaintiff’s employee, without plaintiff’s knowledge, on his employer, and it is even hinted that plaintiff, by granting the corporate debtor a loan, had warranted its credit, thereby inducing defendants, to their detriment, to execute the guarantees. No further comment is required. We find no issue of fact as to the liability of defendants on the guarantee. There is, however, an issue as to the amount owing on the loan, there being a dispute as to the amount actually paid. This may be resolved at the assessment we order. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Lane, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
Ye

| | Crucial Winter 0 10 20 40 60 80 100
8 Crucial Year-Long Kilometers
Winter/Yearlong 0 5 10 20 30 40 50
Spring/Summer/Fall Miles
Yearlong
Map 2-54

Mule Deer Habitat

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

110405.1 1

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL 

OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

LAW OFFICES 

MESERVE, 

MUMPER & 

HUGHES LLP 

Linda M. Lawson (Bar No. 77130) 

LLawson@mmhllp.com 

Sasha Lankarani (Bar No. 234188) 

slankarani@mmhllp.com 

MESERVE, MUMPER & HUGHES LLP 

300 South Grand Avenue, 24th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071-3185 

Telephone: (213) 620-0300 

Facsimile: (213) 625-1930 

C. Mark Humbert (Bar No. 111093) 

markh@lifehealthlaw.com 

GREEN & HUMBERT 

The Mills Building 

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1418 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 837-5433 

Facsimile: (415) 837-0127 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA and UNUM GROUP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEPHEN D. BUCK D.D.S., 

Plaintiff,

vs.

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION 

WITH PREJUDICE, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C-08-5166 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 

DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION 

WITH PREJUDICE 

[F.R.C.P. 41(a)] 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action, Case No. C-08-5166 MMC, is 

dismissed in its entirety as to all defendants, with prejudice; and

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:08-cv-05166-MMC Document 35 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

110405.1 2

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL 

OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

LAW OFFICES 

MESERVE, 

MUMPER & 

HUGHES LLP 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own 

attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter. 

Dated: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney 

Judge, United States District Court 

April 27, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-05166-MMC Document 35 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3752. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3752 was editorially reclassified as section 10153 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Voelk,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tomy knowledge, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Robert L. Voelk     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Robert L. Voelk         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| August 14, 2008    |   |

 

----
#### (A) Viking Yacht Rental Corporation v. American Yachting Systems, Inc. (B) In the Matter of Anna Corbin, Deceased. Elaine Katz et al., Appellants; Sol O. Maltz et al., Respondents. (C) In the Matter of Jennie M. Speroni, Deceased. Leo Pollack, Appellant; Iride Donohue, Respondent.

[In each action] Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before December 5, 1960, with notice of argument for the January 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 209

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 209 appear at 68 FR 51361, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 209.2 Application of this part.

This part applies to all programs carried on within the United States by recipients of Federal financial assistance pursuant to any authority held or delegated by the Administrator of the Agency for International Development, including the types of Federal financial assistance listed in appendix A of this part. (appendix A may be revised from time to time by notice in the Federal Register.) It applies to money paid, property transferred, or other Federal financial assistance extended after the effective date of this regulation, even if the application for such assistance is approved prior to such effective date. This part does not apply to (a) any Federal financial assistance by way of insurance or guaranty contracts, (b) money paid, property transferred or other assistance extended before the effective date of this part, (c) any assistance to any individual who is the ultimate beneficiary, (d) any employment practice under any such program of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization, or (e) any procurement of goods or services, including the procurement of training. This part does not bar selection and treatment reasonably related to the foreign assistance objective or such other authorized purpose as the Federal assistance may have. It does not bar selections which are limited to particular groups where the purpose of the Federal financial assistance calls for such a limitation nor does not bar special treatment including special courses of training, orientation or counseling consistent with such purpose.
Amendment to Confirmation of OTC Additional Convertible Note-Goldman, Sachs & Co



  
 Exhibit 10.90

 Goldman, Sachs & Co. 
 200 West Street 
 New York, New York 10282-2198 

Telephone No.:   (212) 902-1000 
 August 30, 2010 
 To: Gilead Sciences, Inc.  

333 Lakeside Drive 
 Foster City, California
94404 

			
	 Attention:
	  	 Treasurer

	 Telephone No.:
	  	 (650) 522-5727

	 Facsimile No.:
	  	 (650) 522-3000


 Re: Additional
Call Option Transaction (2014) 
 Reference is made to the letter agreement Re: Additional Call Option
Transaction (2014) dated August 5, 2010 and entered into between into between Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“Dealer”) and Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Counterparty”) (the “Confirmation”).
Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Confirmation. 
 Whereas the Confirmation defined the Free Convertibility Date as April 1, 2014, but Counterparty and Dealer wish to define the Free Convertibility Date as February 1, 2014; 

Now therefore, Counterparty and Dealer do hereby agree that the definition of the Free Convertibility Date in the
Confirmation is hereby replaced in its entirety by February 1, 2014. 
 [Signature Page to Follow] 







  
 
			
	 Yours faithfully,

	
	Goldman, Sachs & Co.
		
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Jonathan Lipnick

	 Name:
	 	 Jonathan Lipnick

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President



 Accepted and
confirmed: 
 Gilead Sciences, Inc. 
  

			
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Brett A. Pletcher

	 Name:
	 	 Brett A. Pletcher

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President and General Counsel
Case 3:08-cv-05138-MEJ Document 25 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 2
24

Case 3:08-cv-05138-MEJ Document 25 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2703 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2703

  To suspend temporarily the duty on [2,2-Bi-1H-indole]-3,3-diol-, 
                         potassium sodium salt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on [2,2-Bi-1H-indole]-3,3-diol-, 
                         potassium sodium salt.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. [2,2-BI-1H-INDOLE]-3,3-DIOL, POTASSIUM SODIUM SALT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.12.20      [2,2-Bi-1H-indole]- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         3,3-diol,                                                          31/2008
                         potassium sodium
                         salt (CAS No.
                         207692-02-2)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3204.15.40)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE SENTENCING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY D. SCHINKEL,

Defendant.

Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

SENTENCING

This matter was previously set for sentencing on Tuesday, July 6, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. 

Today, on June 28, 2010, the parties learned for the first time of evidentiary issues that have 

arisen regarding Mr. Schinkelʼs sentencing. The parties plan to meet and confer immediately 

and complete their own investigation regarding these issues. Without the partiesʼ agreement, 

the parties foresee that a fully briefed motion and an evidentiary hearing will be necessary prior 

to sentencing. To conserve court resources, the parties respectfully request that they be 

afforded one last continuance.

The parties stipulate and request that the Court continue the sentencing hearing date in 

this case until Tuesday, August 3, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. 

Case 3:09-cr-00033-WHA Document 53 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE SENTENCING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

This will be the last request to continue to sentencing hearing date.

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

Dated: June 28, 2010 ______/s/______________________

OWEN MARTIKAN

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: June 28, 2010 _____/s/____________________

EDWIN PRATHER

Attorney for Defendant

JEFFREY D. SCHINKEL

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and per the partiesʼ stipulation, the sentencing 

hearing in this case is hereby continued until August 3, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________ _______________________________

HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

July 1, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cr-00033-WHA Document 53 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 513.320 Period of debarment. ( a ) Debarment shall be for a period commensurate with the seriousness of the cause(s). If a suspension precedes a debarment, the suspension period shall be considered in determining the debarment period. ( 1 ) Debarment for causes other than those related to a violation of the requirements of subpart F of this part generally should not exceed three years. Where circumstances warrant, a longer period of debarment may be imposed.
( 2 ) In the case of a debarment for a violation of the requirements of subpart F of this part (*see* 513.305(c)(5)), the period of debarment shall not exceed five years.
( b ) The debarring official may extend an existing debarment for an additional period, if that official determines that an extension is necessary to protect the public interest. However, a debarment may not be extended solely on the basis of the facts and circumstances upon which the initial debarment action was based. If debarment for an additional period is determined to be necessary, the procedures of §§ 513.311 through 513.314 shall be followed to extend the debarment.
( c ) The respondent may request the debarring official to reverse the debarment decision or to reduce the period or scope of debarment. Such a request shall be in writing and supported by documentation. The debarring official may grant such a request for reasons including, but not limited to: ( 1 ) Newly discovered material evidence;
( 2 ) Reversal of the conviction or civil judgment upon which the debarment was based;
( 3 ) Bona fide change in ownership or management;
( 4 ) Elimination of other causes for which the debarment was imposed; or
( 5 ) Other reasons the debarring official deems appropriate.
[53 FR 19179, 19204, May 26, 1988, as amended at 54 FR 4950, 4955, Jan. 31, 1989]