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










Exhibit 10.1


Third Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement
This Third Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of May 8, 2017 (this “Amendment”), made by and between Viking Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”), and Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (“Lender”), amends the terms of the Loan and Security Agreement, dated May 21, 2014, as amended on April 8, 2015 and January 22, 2016, by and between Borrower and Lender (the “Agreement”) pursuant to Section 25(c) of the Agreement as follows:
1.Definition of Maturity Date. The definition of “Maturity Date” in Schedule A to the Agreement is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:


““Maturity Date” means May 21, 2018.”
2.Required Prepayment.  A new Section 2(e)(iii) shall be added to the Agreement as follows:


“(iii)   Required Repayment.  No later than July 15, 2017, Borrower shall repay to Lender $200,000, which payment shall be comprised solely of cash (the “Required Repayment”). The Required Repayment shall be applied, first, to accrued and unpaid interest on the Loan and, second, to the unpaid principal amount of the Loan. Each $1.00 of value of the Required Repayment shall reduce the amount of accrued and unpaid interest and then unpaid principal amount on the Loan by $0.50.”
3.Addresses for Notices.  Section 22 of the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


(a)The reference to “11119 North Torrey Pines Road, Suite 50, San Diego, CA 92037” shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read “12340 El Camino Real, Suite 250, San Diego, CA 92130”
(b)The reference to “11119 North Torrey Pines Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92037” shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read “3911 Sorrento Valley Blvd, Suite 110, San Diego, CA 92121”.


4.All of the other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 


5.This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.  In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile, a portable document format (PDF) or similar electronic format, such signature shall create a valid binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) the same with the same force and effect as if such facsimile, PDF or other electronic format signature were the original thereof.


[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]





















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Third Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written.
BORROWER:
Viking Therapeutics, Inc.


By:  /s/ Brian Lian                    
Name:    Brian Lian, Ph.D. 
Title:      President and Chief Executive Officer


LENDER:
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated
By:  /s/ Matthew Korenberg                
Name:    Matthew Korenberg                
		
	Title: 
	Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
----

----

----

|                        |         |                                                                                    |
|-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Anniversary ofDate of Grant |    | Portion of Shares ThatAre Vested On or AfterSuch Anniversary andBefore Next Anniversary |
| First                       |    | 25%                                                                                     |
| Second                      |    | 50%                                                                                     |
| Third                       |    | 75%                                                                                     |
| Fourth                      |    | 100%                                                                                    |

----

----

----

----

----
#### § 720.1 Who should file.

Either the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a cosmetic product is requested to file Form FDA 2512 (“Cosmetic Product Ingredient Statement”), whether or not the cosmetic product enters interstate commerce. This request extends to any foreign manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a cosmetic product exported for sale in any State as defined in section 201(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. No filing fee is required.

[57 FR 3129, Jan. 28, 1992]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7588 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Administrator 

of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, to reassess certain food 

ingredients used in the preparation of meat, poultry, and egg products, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2024 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Ms. NORTON, Mr. KHANNA, and Ms. 

DELAURO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 

Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, 

to reassess certain food ingredients used in the preparation of meat, poultry, and egg products, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Food 

5 Chemical Reassessment Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7588 IH

1 SEC. 2. REASSESSMENT OF INGREDIENTS USED IN THE 

2 PREPARATION OF MEAT, POULTRY, AND EGG 

3 PRODUCTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December 31, 

5 2026, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Ad6 ministrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, 

7 shall— 

8 (1) determine whether each covered food ingre9 dient would make unfit for human food— 

10 (A) a meat food product, under section 

11 1(m)(2)(A) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

12 (21 U.S.C. 601(m)(2)(A)); 

13 (B) a poultry product, under section 

14 4(g)(2)(A) of the Poultry Products Inspection 

15 Act (21 U.S.C. 453(g)(2)(A)); or 

16 (C) an egg product, under section 

17 4(a)(2)(A) of the Egg Products Inspection Act 

18 (21 U.S.C. 1033(a)(2)(A)); and 

19 (2) initiate any rulemaking to amend appro20 priate regulations based on each determination 

21 under paragraph (1). 

22 (b) COVERED FOOD INGREDIENT DEFINED.—In this 

23 section, the term ‘‘covered food ingredient’’ means— 

24 (1) butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA); 

25 (2) butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT); 

26 (3) cetylpyridinium chloride; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7588 IH

1 (4) sodium aluminum phosphate; 

2 (5) sodium nitrite; 

3 (6) sulfuric acid; and 

4 (7) titanium dioxide. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
H. Res. 70 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 31, 2017. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 38) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection 

Rule. All points of order against consideration of the joint 

resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered 

as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered 

as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment 

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,831,886
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,446,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                    77,778
<INVENTORY>                                  8,671,843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,534,850
<PP&E>                                       9,250,122
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,798,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,822,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,622,178
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,186
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,547,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,822,474
<SALES>                                      1,715,937
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,935,781
<CGS>                                        1,406,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,631,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,418,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             131,741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                753,867
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            753,867
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   753,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Richard M. Sykes

*William D. Goodrich,*in support of the motions.

Submitted September 24

decided October 10, 1969

The motion by the defendant for review, being one to review a preliminary ruling in a matter as to which no final judgment has been rendered in the Superior Court in New Haven County, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion by the defendant for a stay of proceedings of the case in the Superior Court in New Haven County is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             590
<SECURITIES>                                    51,031
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,227
<PP&E>                                           2,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,835
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           113
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,306
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,844
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,621)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.00)


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 570

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part appear at 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023.

#### § 570.280 Submission of a supplement.

If circumstances warrant, you may submit a supplement to a filed GRAS notice after we respond to your notice by letter in accordance with § 570.265(b)(1) or cease to evaluate your notice in accordance with § 570.265(b)(3).
# C_2017078EN.01001702.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2017 — Commission v Verile and Gjergji

(Case T-104/14 P-INTP) (1)

1

((Proceedings - Interpretation of the judgment))

(2017/C 078/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) and Anduela Gjergji (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Request for interpretation of the judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14), must be interpreted as meaning that it covers both the costs relating to the appeal proceedings and those relating to the proceedings at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14), must be interpreted as meaning that it covers both the costs relating to the appeal proceedings and those relating to the proceedings at first instance;

| 2) | Mr Marco Veril and Ms Anduela Gjergji, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other, shall each bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interpretation; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Mr Marco Veril and Ms Anduela Gjergji, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other, shall each bear their own costs relating to the proceedings for interpretation;

| 3) | The original of this judgment shall be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The original of this judgment shall be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DENNIS FREDERICK MADDREY,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 428 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
**Exhibit23.1**

 

**Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

TheBoard of Directors and Shareholders

LOUDTechnologies Inc.:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-98720 and333-107060) on Form S-8 of LOUD Technologies Inc., of our report dated March27, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of LOUD TechnologiesInc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensiveincome and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annualreport on Form 10-K of LOUD Technologies Inc.

 
| /s/  KPMG LLP        |   |
|----------------------|--------|
|                 |   |
|                 |   |
| Seattle,  Washington |   |
| March 27, 2006       |   |
|                      |        |  |

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 860
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 860 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008, and at 86 FR 54846, Oct. 5, 2021.

§ 860.132 Procedures when the Commissioner initiates a performance standard or premarket approval proceeding under section 514(b) or 515(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. ( a ) Sections 514(b) and 515(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act require the Commissioner to provide, by notice in the Federal Register, an opportunity for interested parties to petition to change the classification of a device based upon new information relevant to its classification when the Commissioner initiates a proceeding to develop a performance standard for the device if in class II or to issue an order requiring premarket approval for the device if in class III.
( b ) If the Commissioner agrees that the new information submitted in response to a proposed order to require premarket approval of a device issued under section 515(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act warrants a change in classification, the Commissioner shall follow the administrative order procedures under section 513(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and § 860.130 to effect such a change.
( c ) If the Commissioner does not agree that the new information submitted in response to a proposed order to require premarket approval of a device issued under section 515(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act warrants a change in classification, the Commissioner will deny the petition.
( d ) The procedures under section 514(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are as follows: ( 1 ) Within 30 days after publication of the Commissioner's notice referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, an interested person files a petition for reclassification in accordance with § 860.123.
( 2 ) The Commissioner consults with the appropriate classification panel with regard to the petition in accordance with § 860.125.
( 3 ) Within 60 days after publication of the notice referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, the Commissioner either denies the petition or gives notice of the intent to initiate a change in classification in accordance with § 860.130.
[43 FR 32993, July 28, 1978, as amended at 83 FR 64457, Dec. 17, 2018]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 28,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10Q FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1997
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                          35,513
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,171
<PP&E>                                         255,759
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,022
<BONDS>                                        198,139
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,159)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   298,788
<SALES>                                        354,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               354,666
<CGS>                                           93,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  360,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,964
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       382
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,548)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.3


 


 





SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Second Amendment
to the Employment Agreement dated as of July 5, 2016 (the “Employment Agreement”), dated as of May 5, 2017 (this
“Amendment”), is by and among Lilis Energy, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and
Ariella Fuchs (“Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the parties
hereto desire to amend the Employment Agreement as hereinafter set forth.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth herein, and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally
bound hereby, agree as follows:


 


 1.       Cash Incentive Bonus. Section 5.3 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 




 


“5.3
       Reserved.”


 


2.       Additional
Representations and Warranties. This Amendment and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, constitute the legal, valid
and binding obligations of the parties hereto and are enforceable against each of the parties hereto in accordance with their respective
terms, subject only to the effect, if any, of (i) applicable bankruptcy and other similar laws affecting the rights of creditors
generally and (ii) rules of law governing specific performance, injunctive relief and other equitable remedies.


 


3.       Governing
Law. This Amendment shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with the Laws of the State of New York without
giving effect to the principles of conflicts of law thereof.


 


4.       Effect
on the Employment Agreement. The Employment Agreement is not modified or amended other than as expressly indicated herein,
and all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Employment Agreement,
as amended hereby, shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed. Except as expressly set forth herein,
the execution, delivery and effectiveness of this Amendment shall not operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of the
parties, nor constitute a waiver of any provision of the Employment Agreement (or an agreement to agree to any future amendment,
waiver or consent).


 


5.       Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall
be considered one and the same agreement.


 


 


[Signature on the
following page]


 




     



     


    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Lilis and Executive have caused this Amendment to executed as of the date first written above.


 


	 	LILIS ENERGY, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Abraham Mirman 	 
	 	 	Name: 	Abraham Mirman  	 
	 	 	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Ariella Fuchs  	 
	 	 	Name: 	Ariella Fuchs