alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.1


 


TERMINATION OF THE REPLACEMENT
CAPITAL COVENANT


 


TERMINATION OF THE REPLACEMENT
CAPITAL COVENANT, dated as of November 8, 2010 (this “Termination”), by
The Travelers Companies, Inc. a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”).


 


WHEREAS, on March 12, 2007, the
Company granted a Replacement Capital Covenant (the “Covenant”) in favor of
certain holders of the Company’s senior debt, which at all times during the
effectiveness of the Covenant have been the holders of the Company’s 6.75%
Senior Notes due 2036 (the “Notes”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4(a) of
the Covenant, the Covenant may be terminated if the holders of a majority in
aggregate principal amount of the Notes consent or agree in writing to the
termination of the Covenant and the obligations of the Company thereunder;


 


WHEREAS, on October 27, 2010,
the Company commenced a solicitation of consents (“Consent Solicitation”) from
the holders of the Notes of record on October 26, 2010 to the proposed
termination of the Covenant; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to the Consent
Solicitation, as of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on November 5,
2010, the expiration date for the Consent Solicitation, holders of a majority
in aggregate principal amount of the Notes validly delivered, and did not
validly revoke, their consent to the termination of the Covenant.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby
terminates the Covenant and the obligations of the Company thereunder, which
shall be of no further force or effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has
caused this Termination to be executed by its duly authorized officer, as of
the day and year first above written.


 

















 


	
   

  	
  THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Maria Olivo

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: 

  	
  Maria Olivo

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: 

  	
  Executive Vice President – Strategic Development and
  Treasurer
§ 19.6-5 Preliminary review. ( a ) Upon receipt of an application for payment under § 19.6-3, PER/ER/RET will determine whether— ( 1 ) The application is complete;
( 2 ) The applicant is an eligible beneficiary under this chapter; and
( 3 ) The court order is a qualifying order. If the application is completed, the beneficiary is eligible and the court order appears on its face to be a qualifying order, PER/ER/RET will provide the notification required by § 19.6-6, otherwise, it will notify the applicant of any deficiency or requirement for additional information, and if the order is determined to be non-qualifying, the basis for such determination.
( b ) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final decree of divorce, PER/ER/RET will determine whether— ( 1 ) It is a valid decree. Any decree recognized as valid by the parties will be considered valid for this purpose. In addition, any non-recognized decree will be considered valid for this purpose unless: ( i ) ( A ) Neither party was domiciled within the court's jurisdiction, and
( B ) The party denying recognition did not participate in the proceedings, or
( ii ) The party denying recognition was not afforded notice of the proceedings (actual or constructive);
( 2 ) A related court order has been submitted by either party; and
( 3 ) A pro rata share payment is or may become due the former spouse. If a divorce decree is deemed valid under this paragraph, a pro rata share payment is due a former spouse unless PER/ER/RET is in receipt of a court order which it has deemed qualified under paragraph (a) of this section, or a valid spousal agrement providing otherwise. If it determines that a pro rata share payment is due, it will provide the notification required by § 19.6-6, otherwise, unless action is being taken pursuant to a related court order, it will notify both parties to the divorce the reason a pro rata share payment is not payable.
[46 FR 12958, Feb. 19, 1981. Redesignated and amended at 46 FR 18970, Mar. 27, 1981]
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT LEE SWANSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00475-SI-1 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 22, 30

On May 20, 2016, defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. On May 24, 2016, the Court issued an order directing the government to respond within 

21 days to defendant’s motion by stating whether the government would oppose the motion, and if 

so to set forth an agreed-upon briefing schedule. The government missed this deadline. 

On July 6, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation proposing a new briefing schedule under 

which the government’s opposition would be due August 3, 2016. The Court approved the 

stipulation and adopted the proposed briefing schedule. The government neither filed an 

opposition on August 3, 2016 nor sought an extension of that deadline. On September 19, 2016, 

defendant filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the government’s failure to file a 

response to the section 2255 motion

The government is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than

September 26, 2016, why the pending section 2255 motion should not be granted. The 

government shall also explain why it has repeatedly failed to meet the deadlines in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2016 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00475-SI Document 32 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 1
#### § 103.20 Can someone help me with filing a claim?

HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity can help you in filing a claim, if you contact them directly. You, or anyone who acts for you, may also ask any HUD office or an organization, individual, or attorney to help you.

[64 FR 18540, Apr. 14, 1999]
Case 3:09-cv-00591-MMC Document 33 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:09-cv-00591-MMC Document32 Filed01/28/10 Page1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-00591-MMC Document 33 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:09-cv-00591-MMC Document32 Filed01/28/10 Page2 of 3
Case3:09-cv-00591-MMC Document32 Filed01/28/10 Page3 of 3

29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-00591-MMC Document 33 Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

NOTICE SETTING

STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court shall hold a status conference at 8:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010, in

Courtroom 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01936-WHA Document 62 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




November 5, 2010




Ms. Kathy Crusco

1473 Sauvignon Court

Livermore, CA 94550



Re: Amendment to Offer Letter



Dear Kathy,



With respect to the Offer Letter dated March 19, 2007 (“Offer Letter”) between you and Activant
Solutions Inc. (“Activant”), we agree that, effective
November 5, 2010:





	 	1.	 	Position. You are promoted to the position of Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer.
	 
	 	2.	 	Salary and Incentive Bonus. Your annual salary will be increased to $365,000
per year and your target incentive compensation under the Activant Amended and Restated
Incentive Bonus Plan will be increased to $182,500.
	 
	 	3.	 	Stock Options. You will be granted a stock option for 75,000 shares under the
Amended and Restated Activant Group Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, subject to the approval
of the Board of Directors and your execution of the applicable form of stock option
agreement.




Except as modified by this Amendment, the Offer Letter remains in full force and effect, with the
understanding that since the date of your Offer Letter, Activant has adopted, and you are a
participant in, the Amended and Restated Executive Severance Plan.



Please sign below to confirm your acceptance of the terms of this Amendment.




Sincerely,

ACTIVANT SOLUTIONS INC.




/s/ Pervez Qureshi



Pervez Qureshi

President and CEO




I agree to and accept the terms and conditions of this Amendment to the Offer Letter.




	 	 	 	 	 

	/s/ Kathy Crusco

	 	November 5, 2010	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Kathy Crusco

	 	Date
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.34 Property and mortgage assessment.

The requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 200, subpart E, regarding the mortgagor's responsibility for making those investigations, analysis and inspections it deems necessary for protecting its interests in the property apply to these programs.
#### Sebco Laundry Systems, Inc., Formerly Known as Sebco Corp., Appellant, v Oakwood Terrace Housing Corp. et al., Respondents.

[715 NYS2d 755]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to permanently,enjoin the defendants from removing, disconnecting, or replacing the plaintiff’s laundry equipment, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County *304(Owen, J.), dated October 28, 1999, which denied its motion to amend the complaint and appoint a receiver, and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a “statement for judgment” of the same court dated November 2, 1999.

Ordered that the appeal from the “statement for judgment” is dismissed, as no appeal lies therefrom *(see,*CPLR 5701); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

The agreements entered into by the parties pursuant to which the appellant, in the business of installing and operating coin-metered laundry equipment, was given the “sole and exclusive right” to install and maintain laundry equipment in the respondents’ apartment buildings, were licenses, not leases. The agreements did not convey sole and exclusive dominion and control over the areas where the machines were installed to the appellant *(see, Linro Equip. Corp. v Westage Tower Assocs.,*233 AD2d 824; *Dime Laundry Serv. v 230 Apts. Corp.,*120 Misc 2d 399), and did not contain descriptions of the specific areas of the respondents’ premises to be occupied by the appellant *(cf., Hi-Rise Laundry Equip. Corp. v Matrix Props.,*96 AD2d 930). While diagrams designating certain areas were attached to the agreements, the diagrams did not fully describe the areas where the appellant was to install laundry equipment, and thus were insufficient to establish a lease.

Moreover, the agreements expired on August 2, 1998, and the appellant did not demonstrate its compliance with General Obligations Law § 5-903 (2).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.50 Building loan agreement.

The mortgagor and mortgagee must execute a building loan agreement approved by the Commissioner, that sets forth the terms and conditions under which progress payments may be advanced during construction, before initial endorsement of the mortgage for insurance.
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

01731.51443/3570458.1 Case Nos. 08-cv-4909-SI (BZ), 09-cv-4919-SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SANOFI’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND, 

GMBH, 

Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant,

vs.

GENENTECH, INC. and BIOGEN IDEC 

INC.,

Defendants and 

Counterclaimants. 

CASE NOS. 08-cv-4909-SI (BZ), 

 09-cv-4919-SI 

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SANOFI’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIM 

CONSTRUCTION ORDER 

Honorable Susan Illston 

Case 3:08-cv-04909-SI Document 392 Filed 07/13/10 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

01731.51443/3570458.1 -2- Case Nos. 08-cv-4909-SI (BZ), 09-cv-4919-SI

[[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SANOFI’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Having considered Plaintiff Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmBH’s Motion for Leave to 

File Motion for Reconsideration of Claim Construction Order, all declarations cited therein, and 

all pleadings and other papers in support thereof, and Defendants Genentech, Inc. and Biogen Idec 

Inc.’s Opposition thereto, and all pleadings and other papers in support thereof, the Court 

concludes that good cause does not exist for Sanofi’s Motion. The Court therefore ORDERS that 

Sanofi’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July __, 2010 __________________________________________ 

 The Honorable Susan Illston 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-04909-SI Document 392 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Syracuse Milk Dealers, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. (Appeals from parts of order of Onondaga Special Term denying motions by the appealing defendants directed to the form and sufficiency of the complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpem, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 1ST QUARTER ENDED 3/31/97 CONTAINED IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT
ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          32,852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (362)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,566
<PP&E>                                           5,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,850)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76 
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,054
<SALES>                                         11,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,961
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,820
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    40
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,796
<INCOME-TAX>                                       710
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,086
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,086
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### Geraldine M. Fitzgerald, Appellant, v. Town of Oyster Bay et al., Respondents, and Harbour Green Civic Association, Inc., et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Motion by intervenors-defendants-respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the March Term, beginning February 27, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 27, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.71 Liens. The project must be free and clear of all liens other than the insured mortgage, except that the property may be subject to an inferior lien as provided by terms and conditions established by the Commissioner for an inferior lien: ( a ) Made or held by a Federal, State or local government instrumentality;
( b ) Required in connection with: an operating loss loan insured pursuant to a section 223(d) of the Act; a supplemental loan insured pursuant to section 241 of the Act; or a mortgage to purchase or refinance an existing project pursuant to section 223(f) of the Act; or
( c ) As otherwise provided by the Commissioner.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESCO MARINE, INC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SS PACIFIC STAR, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-5575 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR MONETARY AND

TERMINATING SANCTIONS 

On March 8, 2010, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Monetary and Terminating

Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed. Defendants’ March 15, 2010 response to the Order to Show Cause

provides no explanation for their contumacious behavior, and states that “defendants will produce the

documents requested by plaintiff, consistent with this Court’s previous order.” Thus, even as of March

15, 2010, defendants were apparently still in violation of the Court’s February 18, 2010 order requiring

defendants to produce documents necessary for the depositions of Mr. Choi, Ms. Falche, and Mr.

Naughton. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, district courts have the discretion to impose a broad

range of sanctions when a party has failed to comply with the rules of discovery or with court orders

enforcing those rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589

(9th Cir. 1983). The court may order that the action be dismissed “where the failure to comply is due

to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Wyle, 709 F.2d at 589. 

The Court finds that defendant has failed to comply with its discovery obligations in violation

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and multiple orders of this Court. The Court further finds that

the only reasonable inference to be drawn from defendants’ conduct is that defendants’ noncompliance

Case 3:08-cv-05575-SI Document 51 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

is willful. Defendants have repeatedly failed to comply with their discovery obligations and court

orders, and the Court previously advised defendants that terminating sanctions could be imposed if there

were further breaches of court orders. Defendants’ failure to comply with their discovery obligations

and court orders has resulted in significant delays in the litigation of this case.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of

$1,852.50, and terminating sanctions. (Docket No. 47). The monetary sanctions must be paid no later

than April 5, 2010. The Court will hold a case management conference on April 23, 2010 at 3:00 pm.

The parties’ case management conference statement, due April 16, 2010, shall address what further

proceedings are necessary to bring this case to a final resolution. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05575-SI Document 51 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 180.805 Judicial review of final decision.

A termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance is subject to judicial review as provided in the applicable statute.
[File

No. 6728.]

#### MAX GOLDBERG, Appellant, v. JOHN GRAY, as Tax Commissioner of the State of North Dakota, Respondent.

(297 N. W. 127.)

Opinion filed March 27, 1941.

*H. O. Young*and *Francis Murphy,*for appellant.

*Alvin G. Strutz,*Attorney General, *G. E. Brace,*Assistant Attorney General, and *T. A. Thompson,*for respondent.

Morris, J.

The plaintiff in this case is a resident of the state of North Dakota and a member of the same partnership as that involved in the case of J. H. Goldberg v. John Gray, as Tax Commissioner of the state of North Dakota, ante, 663, 297 N. W. 124. The issues in the cases are identical. This case, therefore, is controlled by that decision, and for the reasons set forth in that opinion, the order sustaining the demurrer in this case is affirmed.

Burr, Ch. J., and Christianson, Nuessle, and Burke, JJ., concur.
#### William Glazer et al., Appellants, v. New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 14, 1960, denying their application for a preference under ride 9 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Second Amendment to Executive Change of Control Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.1

 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT 

This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT, dated November 4, 2010, is by and between CIRCOR, Inc., a
Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), and Richard A. Broughton (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the
Company and the Executive entered into an executive change in control agreement made as of December 18, 2006, as amended on December 23, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to increase the benefits to which the Executive may become entitled to upon a Change in Control (as defined
in the Agreement). 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive, each intending to be legally bound hereby, do mutually
covenant and agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “one
(1) times” with the following: 
 “two (2) times” 

2. Section 3(a)(iv) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “one (1) year” with the following:

 “two (2) years” 
 3. The Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect as to all other provisions under said Agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  


			
	CIRCOR, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ A. William Higgins

	Name:	 	A. William Higgins
	Title:	 	Chairman, President & CEO
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Richard A. Broughton

	 Richard A. Broughton