alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
adtn-ex103ae_284.htm



Exhibit 10.3(ae)

 


		
	

	
<<Date>>




 

 

Dear «Name»,

Congratulations! You have been awarded «Award» RSUs and «Award» PSUs for <<year>>! We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your hard work and dedication this year. We know how much effort you put into your job and are truly grateful to have you on our team.

Your grants are expected to be live on Morgan Stanley’s StockPlan Connect after <<date>>. Access StockPlan Connect at: https://www.stockplanconnect.com after <<date>> to review and accept your grant. If you have any issues accessing your account, contact Morgan Stanley at 1-877-227-1293 for assistance. 

Upon accessing your account, the ‘Alerts and Messages’ screen should appear. If it doesn’t, click on the ‘Alerts’ tab. This will guide you through viewing and accepting your new grant through a series of online instructions.

If this is your first time receiving an equity grant, you should receive an email by <<date>> from StockPlanConnect@morganstanley.com on how to activate your account.

PLEASE NOTE: You MUST accept your grant through StockPlan Connect for the grant to be valid. If you do not accept, it may result in cancellation of the grant.

To view the 2020 Employee Stock Incentive Plan Prospectus (terms and conditions), select ‘Document’ in your account and change the date range to “all” to access files.

Please contact Meaghan Morris at 256-963-6315 or meaghan.morris@adtran.com if you need further assistance.
# C_2016343EN.01001702.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/17

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

(Case C-55/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Common system of value added tax - Right to reimbursement - Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC - Conditions for obtaining reimbursement - Imposition of conditions other than those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 - Obligation to provide proof of payment of the tax - Whether permissible))

(2016/C 343/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Evo Bus GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in order to exercise their right to reimbursement of value added tax, taxable persons are subject to a general obligation to provide proof of payment of that tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TenFold
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Felton, Chairman of the Board, President,
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.



|                                                                                                         |  |  |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Robert W. Felton                                                                                     |  |  |  | 
|Robert W. Felton                                                                                         |  |  |  | 
|Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|August 1, 2007                                                                                           |  |  |  |
Exhibit
10.1


 




AMENDMENT
TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This
Amendment to Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is effective as of _______________, 2021 and is by and between
Rivulet Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Maker”) and ____________________ (“Holder”).
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Note (as defined below).


 


WHEREAS,
Maker executed a Promissory Note dated __________, 20___, payable to Holder in the original principal amount of $__________ (the
“Note”).


 


WHEREAS,
Maker and Holder now wish to amend the Note as set forth herein.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements, promises, covenants, and provisions contained in this Amendment, the parties agree
as follows:


 


1.       Amendment.
The Maturity Date is hereby extended, without penalty, to __________, 2021.


 


2.       No
Default. Holder acknowledges that no Event of Default under the Note has occurred.


 


3.       Note
Otherwise Remains In Effect. This Amendment amends the specific terms and conditions of the Note set forth herein. All other
provisions of the Note remain and continue in full force and effect.


 


4.       Modification
or Waiver of Amendment. No modification or waiver of this Amendment will be valid unless in a writing signed by all of the
parties.


 


5.       Counterparts.
This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which together
will constitute one and the same instrument.


 


6.       No
Rule of Strict Construction. The language of this Amendment has been approved by all of the parties and no rule of strict
construction will be applied against any party.


 


7.       Governing
Law. This Amendment will be construed in accordance with and any dispute or controversy arising from any breach or asserted
breach of this Amendment will be governed by the laws of the State of Arizona.


 


	 	MAKER:
	 	Rivulet
    Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 
	 	 	Michael
    Witherill, President and CFO
	 	 	 
	 	HOLDER:
	 	 
	 	Name:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7692

DARREN BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RANDALL WHITE, Correctional Officer II;

WILLIAM SMITH, Warden; RICHARD LANHAM,

Commissioner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-96-1392-JFM)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn T. Marrow, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brown

v. White, No. CA-96-1392-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 29, 1996). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2019255EN.01000201.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 May 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud and from the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers — Czech Republic, Belgium) — M v Ministerstvo vnitra (C-391/16), X (C-77/17), X (C-78/17) v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Joined Cases C-391/16, C-77/17 and C-78/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - International protection - Directive 2011/95/EU - Refugee status - Article 14(4) to (6) - Refusal to grant or revocation of refugee status in the event of danger to the security or the community of the host Member State - Validity - Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 78(1) TFEU - Article 6(3) TEU - Geneva Convention)

(2019/C 255/02)

Languages of the case: Czech and French

Referring courts

Nejvyšší správní soud and Conseil du contentieux des étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M (C-391/16), X (C-77/17), X (C-78/17)

Defendants: Ministerstvo vnitra (C-391/16), Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (C-77/17, C-78/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of Article 14(4) to (6) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of those provisions in the light of Article 78(1) TFEU and Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.

OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE : CIVIL ACTION

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA :

 :

v. :

 :

GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY : NO. 04-01065-JF

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM

Fullam, Sr. J. June 13, 2005

On June 9, 2005, after hearing argument on crossmotions for summary judgment, I entered a Memorandum and Order

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Because the

cross-motions for summary judgment had been filed on the eve of

trial, my explanation for the grant of summary judgment was

somewhat truncated.

After further review, I realize that the Memorandum can

be interpreted as adopting plaintiff’s theory that it was not

required to grant notice of any kind to the excess carrier until

after the jury’s verdict had been rendered. I adhere to the

view, expressed in my previous Memorandum, that written notice

was required in any event, and that the defendant would have been

entitled to summary judgment even if the jury’s verdict was the

triggering event. 

But it is appropriate to register now my firm

conclusion that, in the circumstances of this case, notice should

have been given in advance of trial. The case had been submitted

Case 2:04-cv-01065-JF Document 18 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 3
2

to mediation before a common pleas judge, who expressed the view

that, because plaintiff would have difficulty in establishing

liability before a jury, the case had a settlement value of

$500,000 to $600,000. Thus, it should have been clear to the

parties that “without regard to legal liability” (the governing

phrase in the policy of insurance), the case would likely involve

the excess policy. Plaintiff had already accumulated $40,000 in

medical expenses, and had sustained serious, permanent injuries. 

While on a bicycle in a crosswalk, she was injured by an armored

truck making a right turn. Plaintiff was obliged to notify the

defendant at that time, rather than wait until after the jury’s

verdict. The defendant was entitled to rely upon the express

provisions in its insurance policy; the defendant does not have

to show that the plaintiff acted in bad faith in failing to give

notice – merely that if plaintiff succeeded in establishing

liability, defendant’s excess policy might indeed be involved.

By way of further clarification, I have concluded that

the case would be decided the same way, regardless of whether

California law or Pennsylvania law is applied. If choice were

necessary, I conclude that California law governs the

interpretation and application of the insurance policy in

question. 

Case 2:04-cv-01065-JF Document 18 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 3
3

For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in my June

9, 2005 Memorandum, I conclude that summary judgment was properly

granted in favor of the defendant.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:04-cv-01065-JF Document 18 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 3
# C_2017195EN.01000501.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-142/16) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(3) - Conservation of natural habitats - Construction of a coal-fired power plant in Moorburg (Germany) - Natura 2000 areas situated upstream of that coal-fired power plant on the corridor of the Elbe river - Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site))

(2017/C 195/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, assisted by W. Ewer, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by authorising the construction of the coal-fired power plant in Moorburg, near Hamburg (Germany), without conducting an appropriate and comprehensive assessment of its implications, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by authorising the construction of the coal-fired power plant in Moorburg, near Hamburg (Germany), without conducting an appropriate and comprehensive assessment of its implications, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,590
<SECURITIES>                                     6,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,618
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,534
<PP&E>                                         151,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,901
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,317
<SALES>                                         31,192
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,192
<CGS>                                           30,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (748)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,406)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,406)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>(NOT ROUNDED TO THOUSANDS)
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.2
                                                                    ------------

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

                                 MARCH 28, 2006






The Board of Directors
GMX Resources Inc.
One Benham Place, Suite 600
9400 North Broadway
Oklahoma City, OK 73114

            Re:   Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers

To whom it may concern:

Sproule Associates Inc. hereby consents to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statement (No. 333-106311) on Form S-8 of GMX Resources Inc. and
registration statements (333-117256, 333-115571 and 333-127254) on Form S-3 of
the references to our report relating to the proved oil and gas reserves of GMX
Resources Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005, and to the reference to our
firm as experts in such registration statements with respect to such report.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       SPROULE ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                       /s/ L. S. O'Connor

                                       U.S. Manager
Document

AGREEMENT RESPECTING INDEMNIFICATION MATTERS


THIS AGREEMENT RESPECTING INDEMNIFICATION MATTERS is dated as of February 22, 2021, by Healthcare Trust of America, Inc. (the “Company”) for the benefit of the Former Director Indemnitees (as defined below) (this “Agreement”) based upon the approval of the Board Of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) on February 22, 2021.
RECITALS
The Company has entered into Indemnification Agreements with former members of the Company’s Board, as more particularly identified on Exhibit 1 attached hereto (each, a “Former Director Indemnitee” and collectively, the “Former Director Indemnitees”).
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby agrees as follows for the benefit of the Former Director Indemnitees:
1.The Indemnification Agreements applicable to each of the Former Director Indemnitees define “Proceeding” as follows in Section 1(g) thereof:
“(g) “Proceeding” means any threatened, pending or completed action, suit, arbitrator, alternate dispute resolution mechanism, investigation, inquiry, administrative hearing or any other proceeding, whether brought by or in the right  of the Company or otherwise and whether of a civil (including intentional or unintentional tort claims), criminal, administrative or investigative (formal or informal) nature, including any appeal therefrom, except one pending or completed on or before the Effective Date, unless otherwise specifically agreed in writing by the Company and Indemnitee.  If Indemnitee reasonably believes that a given situation may lead to or culminate in the institution of a Proceeding, such situation shall also be considered a Proceeding.”
2.For the benefit of the Former Director Indemnitees (and each Former Director Indemnitee), the Board has determined on behalf of the Company that it is advisable and in the best interests of the Company to interpret the definition of “Proceeding” in the Indemnification 


DM_US 174269433-1.111690.0017






Agreements for the benefit of all of the Former Director Indemnitees to include any third-party claim arising in connection with and/or as a result of, COVID-19, against one or more of the Former Director Indemnitees (the “COVID Matters”).
3.The Former Director Indemnitees shall be third-party beneficiaries of this Agreement and it shall not be amended or terminated without their consent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above.


“COMPANY”


Healthcare Trust of America, Inc.


By:/s/ Robert A. Milligan                    
      Robert A. Milligan


Its: Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and     Treasurer of Healthcare Trust of America, Inc.






2


DM_US 174269433-1.111690.0017







EXHIBIT 1
FORMER BOARD INDEMNITEES
1.    Larry L. Mathis
2.    Maurice J. DeWald    




DM_US 174269433-1.111690.0017
Case 2:02-cv-04074-BWK Document 8 Filed 10/14/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04074-BWK Document 8 Filed 10/14/2002 Page 2 of 2
# C_2016165EN.01000501.xml

| 10.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Dresden (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2016 — Ute Wunderlich v Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

(Case C-32/16)

(2016/C 165/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Dresden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ute Wunderlich

Applicant:

Defendant: Bulgarian Air Charter Limited

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is there a flight cancellation within the meaning of Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in the case where a scheduled flight departed on time and arrived at its scheduled destination with a delay of not more 3 hours but with an unscheduled stopover?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---