alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w40






Exhibit 10.40



Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this exhibit. The copy filed herewith
omits the information subject to the confidentiality request. Omissions are designated as “***”. A
complete version of this exhibit has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.




Addendum to ACCESS AGREEMENT




Between GAIN Capital Group, LLC and Questrade, Inc.




Dated December 2004



In consideration for the mutual promises contained herein and the consideration for the Agreement,
the parties hereto agree to amend and revise the Agreement as per Section 3 as follows:




SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED.




Payment for Order Flow



GAIN will compensate Questrade, Inc. *** per million on standard forex fixed spreads and USD ***
per million on forex fractional spreads per round trip base currency unit transaction executed by
Customers introduced to GAIN by Questrade. GAIN will compensate Questrade the Fee for all
customers · selected to participate in the Default Program. All other customers will not be affected
by this Addendum.



All volume calculations to determine the Fee will begin the first trading day of each calendar
month and end the last trading day of each calendar month. GAIN will make these fee payments to
Questrade for trade order flow during the initial term of the Agreement between GAIN and Questrade
provided both parties honor all terms and conditions of the Agreement and this Addendum.



All other terms under this provision are not affected by this Addendum.



To the extent this Addendum shall be deemed inconsistent with any terms or conditions of this
Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned hereby acknowledges having read this Addendum.
understands and consents to be bound by all its terms.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Questrade, Inc,	 	 	 	GAIN Capital Group, LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Edward Kholodenko	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Tom Levine	 	 
	Print Name: Edward Kholodenko	 	 	 	Name: Tom Levine	 	 
	Title: President & CEO	 	 	 	Title: Director	 	 
	Date: 7/23/07	 	 	 	Date: 7/2307
#### Louis L. Cage, as Executor of Isaac Wiseman, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Fannie Rosenberg, Appellant.

Submitted January 4, 1937;

decided January 12, 1937.

*Edwin R. Wolff*for motion.

*Moses H. Rothman*opposed.

Motion denied, with leave to renew upon argument.
§ 1626.18 Filing of private lawsuit. ( a ) An aggrieved person may file a civil action against the respondent named in the charge in either Federal or State court under section 7 of the ADEA.
( b ) An aggrieved person whose claims are the subject of a timely pending charge may file a civil action at any time after 60 days have elapsed from the filing of the charge with the Commission (or as provided in § 1626.12) without waiting for a Notice of Dismissal or Termination to be issued.
( c ) The right of an aggrieved person to file suit expires 90 days after receipt of the Notice of Dismissal or Termination or upon commencement of an action by the Commission to enforce the right of such person.
( d ) If the Commission becomes aware that the aggrieved person whose claim is the subject of a pending ADEA charge has filed an ADEA lawsuit against the respondent named in the charge, it shall terminate further processing of the charge or portion of the charge affecting that person unless the District Director; Field Director; Area Director; Local Director; Director of the Office of Field Programs; the General Counsel; the Director of Field Management Programs; or their designees determine at that time or at a later time that it would effectuate the purpose of the ADEA to further process the charge.
[68 FR 70152, Dec. 17, 2003, as amended at 71 FR 26831, May 9, 2006]
§ 1690.308 Notice of unresolved disputes. ( a ) The disputes resolution mechanism in section 1-307 of the Executive Order should be used only in extraordinary circumstances, and only when further good faith efforts on the part of the EEOC and the agency involved would be ineffective in achieving a resolution of the dispute. Before using the disputes resolution mechanism, the EEOC or the initiating agency must have fully participated in the coordination process, including giving notification to the EEOC and the affected agencies of its intention to publish in final within 15 working days.
( b ) EEOC or the affected agency shall then send written notification of the dispute and the reasons for it to the EEOC and to the other affected agencies. Thereafter, but within the 15 day notice period, the EEOC or the affected agency may refer the dispute to the Executive Office of the President. Such reference may be made by the Chair of the EEOC or the head of the Federal agency. If no reference is made within 15 working days, the decision of the agency which initiated the proposed issuance will become effective.
§ 29.975 Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents. ( a ) *Fuel tank vents.* Each fuel tank must be vented from the top part of the expansion space so that venting is effective under normal flight conditions. In addition— ( 1 ) The vents must be arranged to avoid stoppage by dirt or ice formation;
( 2 ) The vent arrangement must prevent siphoning of fuel during normal operation;
( 3 ) The venting capacity and vent pressure levels must maintain acceptable differences of pressure between the interior and exterior of the tank, during— ( i ) Normal flight operation;
( ii ) Maximum rate of ascent and descent; and
( iii ) Refueling and defueling (where applicable);
( 4 ) Airspaces of tanks with interconnected outlets must be interconnected;
( 5 ) There may be no point in any vent line where moisture can accumulate with the rotorcraft in the ground attitude or the level flight attitude, unless drainage is provided;
( 6 ) No vent or drainage provision may end at any point— ( i ) Where the discharge of fuel from the vent outlet would constitute a fire hazard; or
( ii ) From which fumes could enter personnel compartments; and
( 7 ) The venting system must be designed to minimize spillage of fuel through the vents to an ignition source in the event of a rollover during landing, ground operations, or a survivable impact.
( b ) *Carburetor vapor vents.* Each carburetor with vapor elimination connections must have a vent line to lead vapors back to one of the fuel tanks. In addition— ( 1 ) Each vent system must have means to avoid stoppage by ice; and
( 2 ) If there is more than one fuel tank, and it is necessary to use the tanks in a definite sequence, each vapor vent return line must lead back to the fuel tank used for takeoff and landing.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-26, 53 FR 34217, Sept. 2, 1988; Amdt. 29-35, 59 FR 50388, Oct. 3, 1994; Amdt. 29-42, 63 FR 43285, Aug. 12, 1998]
M14004 – Chemical 4 

CAS Name 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
637 A.2d 113

#### PACIFIC MORTGAGE AND INVESTMENT GROUP, LTD. v. James W. ROBERTSON, et ux.

No. 102,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 14, 1994.

Michael P. Zell, Baltimore, for petitioner.

Dana Whitehead (Gerald R. Walsh, Gerald R. Walsh, P.A., all on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.

Argued before ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, ROBERT M. BELL and RAKER, JJ., and CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Judge (Retired) Specially Assigned.

ORDER

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case having been granted and heard 332 Md. 480, 632 A.2d 446, it is this 14th day of February, 1994

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently granted.
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0591 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0591

**95/591/EC: Council Decision of 22 December 1995 concerning the conclusion of the results of negotiations with certain third countries under GATT Article XXIV:6 and other related matters (United States and Canada) **

*
Official Journal L 334 , 30/12/1995 P. 0025 - 0037 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 22 December 1995 concerning the conclusion of the results of negotiations with certain third countries under GATT Article XXIV:6 and other related matters (United States and Canada) (95/591/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113, in conjunction with Article 228 (2) first sentence thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the Community has entered into negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XXIV:6; whereas these negotiations have resulted in agreements with the United States of America and Canada;

Whereas it was also in the interest of both Parties to resolve certain outstanding issues in the agricultural sector with Canada;

Whereas the United States of America and Canada had initiated proceedings in the World Trade Organization (WTO) relating to the Community's import regime for cereals and rice;

Whereas the Community entered into discussions with these countries with the aim of resolving the issues in question; whereas the results of these discussions are contained in agreements with the countries concerned;

Whereas it is in the interest of the Community to approve these agreements,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following agreements and letters are hereby approved on behalf of the Community:

- Agreement for the conclusion of negotiations between the European Community and the United States of America under Article XXIV:6 (Annex I),

- Exchange of letters between the European Community and the United States of America on a settlement for cereals and rice (Annex II),

- Exchange of letters between the European Community and the United States of America on rice prices (Annex III),

- Agreement for the conclusion of negotiations between the European Community and Canada under Article XXIV:6 and an Exchange of Letters relating thereto (Annex IV).

The texts of the acts referred to in the first indent are attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the agreements and letters in order to bind the Community.

Done at Brussels, 22 December 1995.

For the Council

The President

L. ATIENZA SERNA
From: Teresa Clemons/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: Peter South/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, tsirigotis.peter@epa.gov 

Cc: Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Chuck 

French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred 

Thompson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 11/04/2011 11:37 AM 

Subject: Fw: OMB Completed Review: (11/4 - NESHAP for Primary Lead 

Smelting SAN 5471)

Pete - this is the package you have now for review. 

THANKS! 

Teresa Clemons 

Sector Policies and Programs Division, IO 

919-541-0252 

919-685-3157 (Fax) 

----- Forwarded by Teresa Clemons/RTP/USEPA/US on 11/04/2011 11:36 AM -----

From: Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US 

To: Teresa Clemons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 11/04/2011 11:32 AM 

Subject: Fw: OMB Completed Review: (11/4 - NESHAP for Primary Lead 

Smelting SAN 5471)

----- Forwarded by Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US on 11/04/2011 11:31 AM ----- 

From: Amy Cole/DC/USEPA/US 

To: Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lesley 

Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alexander 

Cristofaro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Kime/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J 

Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Mariana Cubeddu/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 11/04/2011 11:29 AM 
Subject: OMB Completed Review: (11/4 - NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelting 

SAN 5471) 

OMB has completed review for NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelting (SAN 5471, RIN 2060-

AQ43). 

RAPIDS has been updated. 

Amy L. Cole 

Regulatory Management Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Phone: 202.564.6535 

Office: 6440T ARN 
----- Forwarded by Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US on 11/04/2011 11:31 AM -----

From: Amy Cole/DC/USEPA/US

To: Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lesley Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alexander Cristofaro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin 

Kime/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alan 

Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Henigin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Mariana Cubeddu/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 11/04/2011 11:29 AM

Subject: OMB Completed Review: (11/4 - NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelting SAN 5471)

OMB has completed review for NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelting (SAN 5471, RIN 2060-AQ43). 

RAPIDS has been updated.

Amy L. Cole

Regulatory Management Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202.564.6535

Office: 6440T ARN
#### PHILLIPS v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 9, 1917.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Wm. E. Fort. •

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, P. J. —

Dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Amdocs Limited (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Dov
Baharav, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge and belief:

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

Dated: December 24, 2003

/s/  DOV BAHARAV
---------------------------------------------------------
Dov Baharav
Chief Executive Officer
Amdocs Management Limited
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Proposed resource managementplan and final environmental impact statement for the Lander Field OfficePlanning Area.**
 
Volumes: One | Two
 
SuDoc Number:I 59.53:L 23/
Item Number:0629-E-09 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000929684
 
March 27, 2018
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 23.1
 
              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-59959, 333-73015) pertaining to the 1998 Equity Incentive
Plan, 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1998 Non-Employee Directors Option
Plan of Actuate Software Corporation of our report dated January 11, 1999,
with respect to the financial statements of Actuate Software Corporation
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998
 
                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Ernst & Young LLP
 
Palo Alto, California
March 11, 1999
#### ROSE v GAGLIOTI and HONKONIN

Case No. 90-083 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

March 8, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Douglas H. Stein, Esquire and Charles M. Pasco, Esquire, for appellant.

Jeffrey R. Roth, Esquire, for appellees.

Before HENDERSON, LEVINE, GREEN, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GREEN, J.

This is an appeal of a final judgment taxing legal fees together with *20court costs against appellant STEFAN ROSE (“ROSE”) after Rose recovered a portion of his security deposit from appellees ROBERT GAGLIOTI (“GAGLIOTI”) and BRUCE HONKONIN (“HONKONIN”) in an action below. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.

Appellant ROSE had been a tenant and appellees had been landlords in a one year residential lease wherein ROSE had been required to post a $2,000 security deposit with GAGLIOTI and HONKONIN. Upon the expiration of the lease, GAGLIOTI and HONKONIN were to return this security deposit to ROSE minus any money owing and due appellees on account of any loss or damage to the rental property.

Upon the expiration of the lease, appellant demanded the return of the security deposit plus interest. When appellees refused to return any portion of the security deposit, appellant filed a complaint for the same.

Appellees answered the Complaint but sought no affirmative relief in the form of a counterclaim or otherwise. After a nonjury trial, the trial court awarded appellant only $708.73 of the security deposit and allowed appellees to retain the remainder.

Thereafter, appellees moved to tax legal fees and costs against ROSE pursuant to Florida State § 83.49(3)(c) (1989)1 and paragraph 8 of the lease agreement.2 After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court imposed legal fees and court costs against appellant and in favor of appellees.

We find that the trial court erred in taxing such costs pursuant to F. S. § 83.49(3)(c) because appellant was the prevailing party below notwithstanding the fact that this recovery did not equal the amount he sought against appellees. *Ashoka Enterprises, Inc. v Design Guilt, Inc.,*536 So.2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Further, appellees were not entitled to recover costs and attorneys fees pursuant to paragraph 8 of the lease agreement because appellees brought no affirmative action or counterclaim to enforce a breach of noncompliance of the lease agreement on the part of appellant. *Holman v Halford,*518 So.2d 442*21(Fla. 1st DCA 1988); *See also, Schwinder v Wilson,*503 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Reverse and Remanded.

1

 Florida Statutes § 83.49(3)(c) provides that:

If either party institutes an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate his right to the security deposit, the prevailing party is entitled to receive his court costs plus a reasonable fee for his attorney.

2

 Paragraph 8 of the lease agreement states:

. . . Lessee shall pay all costs and expenses and attorneys fees which may be incurred or expended by Lessor in enforcing the terms, covenants and conditions of this Lease, whether through legal proceeding, including appeals, actions or Lessors attorney or otherwise with such costs, expenses and attorneys fees to be payable to Lessor immediately upon demand.
#### Emma B. Taber, Appellant, *v.*First Citizens Bank and Trust Company of Utica, as Executor of William I. Taber, Deceased, et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Another.

Argued January 18, 1937;

decided March 9, 1937.

*540
      *Warnick J. Kernan*and *E. Howard Ringrose*for appellant.

*Gilbert R. Hughes*for First Citizens Bank and Trust Company of Utica, as executor of William I. Taber, deceased, et al., respondents.

*S. W. Brennan*for Samuel E. Taber, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Rhonda Underwood, (202) 314-6065.

Dated: May 10, 2000.

Rhonda Underwood,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-12178 Filed 5-10-00; 3:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
#### § 1602.53 Exemption from reporting requirements.

If it is claimed that the preparation or filing of the report would create undue hardship, the institution of higher education may apply to the Commission for an exemption from the requirements set forth in subparts O and P of this part by submitting to the Commission or its delegate a specific proposal for an alternative reporting system no later than 45 days prior to the date on which the report must be filed.
#### § 1602.14 Preservation of records made or kept.

Any personnel or employment record made or kept by an employer (including but not necessarily limited to requests for reasonable accommodation, application forms submitted by applicants and other records having to do with hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or termination, rates of pay or other terms of compensation, and selection for training or apprenticeship) shall be preserved by the employer for a period of one year from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. In the case of involuntary termination of an employee, the personnel records of the individual terminated shall be kept for a period of one year from the date of termination. Where a charge of discrimination has been filed, or an action brought by the Commission or the Attorney General, against an employer under title VII, the ADA, or GINA, the respondent employer shall preserve all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition of the charge or the action. The term “personnel records relevant to the charge,” for example, would include personnel or employment records relating to the aggrieved person and to all other employees holding positions similar to that held or sought by the aggrieved person and application forms or test papers completed by an unsuccessful applicant and by all other candidates for the same position as that for which the aggrieved person applied and was rejected. The date of *final disposition of the charge or the action* means the date of expiration of the statutory period within which the aggrieved person may bring an action in a U.S. District Court or, where an action is brought against an employer either by the aggrieved person, the Commission, or by the Attorney General, the date on which such litigation is terminated.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0040)

[37 FR 9219, May 6, 1972, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981; 56 FR 35755, July 26, 1991; 77 FR 5398, Feb. 3, 2012; 89 FR 11170, Feb. 14, 2024; 89 FR 46021, May 28, 2024]
ADDITIONAL APPEALS OPINIONS

#### MANLEY v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist., Montgomery Co

No. 838.

Decided Oct. 3, 1928.

Charles W Folkerth, Dayton, for Manley.

Ralph Hoskot, Pros. Atty, Rolla Galloway and Max Dice, all of Dayton, for State.

BY THE COURT.

In the Court of Appeals the question is raised as to the right to search the house without a warrant. It is clear that this question must be raised in the trial court but independent of the question so raised there was beer found in the lot enough to justify the conviction and also there was beer found even off the lot. None of this would have been protected by the warrant if it had been issued.

We are of the opinion that there was ample evidence to justify the conviction.

Ferneding, Kunkle and Allread JJ, concur.