alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 403.756 Sunset provision. ( a ) *Effective date.* Beginning with FFY 2002, if the level of estimated expenditures for all RNHCIs exceeds the trigger level for 3 consecutive FFYs, CMS will not accept as the basis for payment of any claim any election executed on or after January 1 of the following calendar year.
( b ) *Notice of activation.* A notice in the Federal Register will be published at least 60 days before January 1 of the calendar year that the sunset provision becomes effective.
( c ) *Effects of sunset provision.* Only those beneficiaries who have a valid election in effect before January 1 of the year in which the sunset provision becomes effective will be able to claim Medicare payment for care in an RNHCI, and only for RNCHI services furnished during that election.
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.170 General provisions. ( a ) *Basis.* ( 1 ) This subpart is based on certain provisions of section 1862(b) of the Act, which impose specific requirements and limitations with respect to— ( i ) Individuals who are entitled to Medicare on the basis of age; and
( ii ) GHPs of at least one employer of 20 or more employees that cover those individuals.
( 2 ) Under these provisions, the following rules apply: ( i ) An employer is considered to employ 20 or more employees if the employer has 20 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current calendar year or the preceding calendar year.
( ii ) The plan may not take into account the Medicare entitlement of— ( A ) An individual age 65 or older who is covered or seeks to be covered under the plan by virtue of current employment status; or
( B ) The spouse, including divorced or common-law spouse age 65 or older of an individual (of any age) who is covered or seeks to be covered by virtue of current employment status. (Section 411.108 gives examples of actions that constitute “taking into account.”)
( iii ) Regardless of whether entitled to Medicare, employees and spouses age 65 or older, including divorced or common-law spouses of employees of any age, are entitled to the same plan benefits under the same conditions as employees and spouses under age 65.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Determination of “aged”.* ( 1 ) An individual attains a particular age on the day preceding the anniversary of his or her birth.
( 2 ) The period during which an individual is considered to be “aged” begins on the first day of the month in which that individual attains age 65.
( 3 ) For services furnished before May 1986, the period during which an individual is considered “aged” ends as follows: ( i ) For services furnished before July 18, 1984, it ends on the last day of the month in which the individual attains age 70.
( ii ) For services furnished between July 18, 1984 and April 30, 1986, it ends on the last day of the month *before* the month the individual attains age 70.
( 4 ) For services furnished on or after May 1, 1986, the period has no upper age limit.
[54 FR 41734, Oct. 11, 1989. Redesignated and amended at 60 FR 45362, 45370, Aug. 31, 1995]
No. 99-518.

#### Zahran et ux. *v.*Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2006022EN.01001802.xml

| 28.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/18

---

Action brought on 16 October 2005 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-408/05)

(2006/C 22/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: Alessandro Distante, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the implied decision rejecting the request of 11 October 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision rejecting the request of 11 October 2004;

| — | annul, so far as necessary, the decision of 4 August 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as necessary, the decision of 4 August 2005;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the additional sum of EUR 381.04 needed to make up 100 % (one hundred per cent) reimbursement of medical expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the additional sum of EUR 381.04 needed to make up 100 % (one hundred per cent) reimbursement of medical expenses;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest at the rate of 10 % (ten per cent), with annual capitalisation from 11 October 2004 until actual payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest at the rate of 10 % (ten per cent), with annual capitalisation from 11 October 2004 until actual payment;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case objects to the defendant's refusal to reimburse 100 % of the medical expenses incurred by him.

The pleas and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-18/04 Marcuccio v Commission
   (1).

Marcuccio

Commission

1

In particular, the applicant alleges absolute failure to state reasons, manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, the duty of non-discrimination and the principle of sound administration.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004, p. 38.

1

---
# C_2006036EN.01001902.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 11 November 2005 in VDP Dental Laboratory N.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-401/05)

(2006/C 36/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 11 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between VDP Dental Laboratory N.V. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Article 13.A[(1)](e) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that dental prostheses supplied by a taxable person who contracts out the manufacture thereof to a dental technician are covered by the notion of dental prostheses supplied by dental technicians? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 13.A[(1)](e) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that dental prostheses supplied by a taxable person who contracts out the manufacture thereof to a dental technician are covered by the notion of dental prostheses supplied by dental technicians?

1

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:
  Is Article 17(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which has exempted the abovementioned supplies from VAT must attach the right to deduct to those supplies in so far as (in particular under the first indent of Article 28b.B(1) of the Sixth Directive) they take place in another Member State which has excluded them from exemption pursuant to Article 28(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive, in conjunction with Item 2 of Annex E thereto? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:

Is Article 17(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which has exempted the abovementioned supplies from VAT must attach the right to deduct to those supplies in so far as (in particular under the first indent of Article 28b.B(1) of the Sixth Directive) they take place in another Member State which has excluded them from exemption pursuant to Article 28(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive, in conjunction with Item 2 of Annex E thereto?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
|   | (1) | The      Company's Annual Report on Form l0-K for the fiscal year ending January 3,      2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date      hereof (the "Annual Report"), fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ J. Robert Patterson          |
|----------------------------------|
| J.      Robert Patterson         |
| Vice      President, Finance and |
| Chief      Financial Officer     |
| April      20, 2009              |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       26,369
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        1,934
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             15,630
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  95,209
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              0
<LOANS>                                     351,731
<ALLOWANCE>                                   4,426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              513,742
<DEPOSITS>                                  413,256
<SHORT-TERM>                                  6,163
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           4,163
<LONG-TERM>                                  39,058
<COMMON>                                      1,217
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   49,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              513,742
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             33,140
<INTEREST-INVEST>                             4,970
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              1,587
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             39,697
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           16,235
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           19,004
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        20,693
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   903
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               11
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              15,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               9,999
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    6,651
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  6,651
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 4.64
<LOANS-NON>                                   1,251
<LOANS-PAST>                                    199
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              4,243
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   808
<RECOVERIES>                                     88
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             4,426
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          4,426
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005257EN.01000901.xml

| 15.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/9

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Atienza Morales v Commission

(Case T-99/03) (1)

1

(Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Meaning of ‘international organisation’)

(2005/C 257/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties:

Applicant(s): Maria Luisa Atienza Morales (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and V. Joris, agents)

Defendant(s):

:

Application for:

(i) annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 June 2002 refusing to grant the applicant payment of the expatriation allowance laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Commission's decision of 13 December 2002 rejecting the complaint brought to that end and (ii) payment of that allowance from 1 April 2002

Operative part of the judgment:

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the application;

| 2) | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 124, 24.5.2003.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.48 Limits on actual charges of nonparticipating suppliers. ( a ) *General rule.* A supplier, as defined in § 400.202 of this chapter, who is nonparticipating and does not accept assignment may charge a beneficiary an amount up to the limiting charge described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Specific limits.* For items or services paid under the physician fee schedule, the limiting charge is 115 percent of the fee schedule amount for nonparticipating suppliers. For items or services CMS excludes from payment under the physician fee schedule (in accordance with section 1848 (j)(3) of the Act), the limiting charge is 115 percent of 95 percent of the payment basis applicable to participating suppliers as calculated in § 414.20(b).
[58 FR 63687, Dec. 2, 1993, as amended at 62 FR 59102, Oct. 31, 1997]
# C_2005217EN.01005002.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/50

---

Action brought on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

(Case T-250/05)

(2005/C 217/106)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the OPOCE, to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the OPOCE, to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

| — | order the OPOCE to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Application, even if the current Application is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the OPOCE to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Application, even if the current Application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company filed a bid in response to the OPOCE's call for tenders No. 6019-1 for the AProvision of Services in Relation to the Collection, Production and Dissemination of Electronic Publications, in particular the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJS)@. By the contested decision the applicant's bid was rejected and the contract awarded to another bidder.

In support of its application the applicant contends that the contested decision was taken in violation of the principle of non-discrimination since the OPOCE failed to take action to investigate and remedy a problem brought to its attention by the applicant, namely that only a very limited number of companies producing CD-ROMs and located inside an approximate two-hours range from Luxembourg could supply the requested quantity within the framework imposed by the call for tenders, and that in this way tenderers were obliged to produce bids in collaboration with those companies and therefore be linked with them on price and quality issues. According to the applicant several alternatives existed but OPOCE failed to take any action and this led to a situation where only one bid could be accepted as fulfilling the technical evaluation criteria.

The applicant further invokes two alleged evident errors of assessment of the Evaluation Report, namely mistakenly considering that the price offered by the applicant was some EUR 800 000 higher than it actually was and noting, also erroneously, that the production did not seem realizable and that there was no information in the tender with regard to the CD-ROM.

Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to provide pertinent information and to state reasons.

---
Document

Exhibit 10.22

AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 
EMPLOYMENT AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is effective October 1, 2020 (“Effective Date”);


WHEREAS, Grosvenor Capital Management, LP, an Illinois limited partnership (the “Company”) has approved this Amendment to that certain Amended and Restated Employment and Protective Covenants Agreement between the Company and Frederick E. Pollock (“Employee”), dated as of October 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”), to ensure that such agreement complies with the provisions of Section 409A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.


NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows:


§1.    Section 409A. Section 12(j) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to include the following at the end of Section 12(j), which shall read as follows:


“If, at the time of Employee’s “separation from service” from Employer (within the meaning of Section 409A, a “Separation from Service”), Employee is a “specified employee” within the meaning of Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) (a “Specified Employee”), then, to the extent required by Section 409A, any payments and benefits constituting Section 409A deferred compensation to be paid or provided upon the Separation from Service of Employee shall be paid or provided commencing on the later of (i) the date that is six months after the date of such Separation from Service or, if earlier, the date of death of Employee (in either case, the “Delayed Payment Date”), or (ii) the date or dates on which such Section 409A deferred compensation would otherwise be paid or provided. All such amounts that would, but for this subsection 12(j), become payable prior to the Delayed Payment Date shall be accumulated and paid on the Delayed Payment Date.”


§2. No Other Amendment. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms.


§3. Governing Law; Counterparts. This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois without regard to any conflicts of laws principles that would result in the application of other law, and may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one document.


[signature page follows]










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the Effective Date.


EMPLOYER


GROSVENOR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.


By: /s/ Michael J. Sacks            
Name: Michael J. Sacks
Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### Merrill LAPLANT and Beatrice Laplant, Appellants, v. Walter W. CURRY and Lillie P. Curry, Appellees.

No. 74-486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 5, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2005229EN.01002301.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/23

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 12 July 2005

in Case T-163/04: Michael Schäfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for restitutio in integrum - Appeal before a Board of Appeal - Costs of proceedings - Apportionment)

(2005/C 229/50)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-163/04: Michael Schäfer, residing in Bergisch-Gladbach (Germany), represented by I. Reese, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being KoKa Verwaltung GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by T.E. Lampel, lawyer — action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2003 (Case R 93/2003-2) in so far as that decision orders that the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal be apportioned — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251 of 9.10.2004.

1

---