alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 56321.

protest 176499-K (New York).

#### International Film Foundation, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers failed to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
Exhibit 10.64
 RELIANT ENERGY, INC.
EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN
 First Amendment
   provided, however Each Eligible Employee is advised to
consult an attorney before signing a Waiver and Release.




---



##### 



14.
    
    Section 409A of the Code. With respect to any
benefits under the Plan that are subject to Section 409A of the
Code, it is the intent of the Company that the provisions of
the Plan comply with Section 409A of the Code and accompanying
Treasury regulations and guidance, including, without
limitation, in the case of a Participant who is a specified
employee within the meaning of Code Section 409A, a delay of
payment of any such benefits until a date that is six months
and two days after his or her Termination Date (or, if earlier,
the date of his or her death). Accordingly, notwithstanding
any provision in the Plan to the contrary, this Plan will be
interpreted, applied and, to the minimum extent necessary,
unilaterally amended by the Company, in its sole discretion,
without the consent of any Participant, as the Company deems
appropriate for the Plan to satisfy the requirements of Section
409A. The provision of welfare benefits under Section 6.1 of
the Plan that are subject to Section 409A of the Code shall be
made in accordance with Treasury Regulation
§ 1.409A-3(i)(1)(iv) such that the provision of such benefits
will be deemed payable at a specified time or on a fixed
schedule relative to a permissible payment event. The right to
such welfare benefits is not subject to liquidation or exchange
for another benefit.
  RELIANT ENERGY, INC.By:
    /s/ Karen D. TaylorKaren D. TaylorSenior Vice President  Human Resources  2
## 700

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS



## AUSTIN

## Hon.

u6lterC*waoawara,

- paE;e,

2



## few sol’thoourrent

fisti bLtmdtm,

you6x-e odrisea that uo adhero 

### to the eoncludon heretofore yessed in our op%nlon tie.o-117sr as iollows:

*Iierewe have no a pcoprlabthn but what 

### appe6m pcroly a all-e ation to tale togi8laturs lteelf to later make the 

### ap

It is @te 

## true, in this 

### oomeotlon,

## that the infen& of the law le the law the 6ourta Ere reW&, Sn Cullgently for the intfM%On Of tb efhen the infeat %.aplainly the etatuta, **It** oust **be** g.W IllOUF O@lhll, the &l&d8t pro~tion shaula be Imae in the aepartmontal agJpc@atd.cukb~ie plljslJsabalearly e3cgaWssad infbolfw$Wg0 uotjain the 

### onaoat abwe quotea, anu thwefara we 6re not at liberty to resort to wx3truetion~

sl~~ture,it is 

### tiensfor the

## BOIL.

alter C. Iloocluara

- page a

the



## etatutes **went tBe**  6tWiutea of t&e 8*rte of TM a thmt ally amountj seer or fmdo epprogwlatadtabe paSa out of loaal 

## or epaaialfees 

### or fur&, that the mmebe 80 pa&l 

### out of the saldloaalo epeohl Sees or funb Snetoetlof 

### beinff pa&l out of the gensml Mtae hmb. Thoefseetofth&Ii6topw¶dethatiifbo of-the 

### State of **PycaapeUdy+o** +a1 0~ ape&& Se00 or fimtm to me 

## PaJment of 0ertalnitemsof "p"""' amnmts approga-iat66 

### for payment OS suah items ahal ba
P 

### fratheuddqeoialorleoalSeemmimdm~ If 

### eappwp4.atlonisfP0mtheg~fMd~aadthe etatute **dedicates** lwal or spaojal faas or fuailato tha payment of SudI lteme, the pj?tieII quoted opermtee te apply mal lO@xLlGr rpcwisl feelIOS-funafIfoosrd fbe pEyBeat of wah apprapPlcb~befetorcraart~lmybabdfo %t"~ttii?& g~erpss aihauld**be gel&**  **Mly trolr**  AI& ip the 

### statutea eho?lldxpvnide dedlaate&laa8lorqeainlreesor~,thicr quoted pwwoa would operato to .xw&re the poJment Of aaain$s appvo)rAataa far l5uahitaI%etmaluaofvelyfrml sa%d loa8z or spa&ilfeoe or funds, inafaad oftrcwthe genf3ral SUM. Inother uord.s,itwemethotthlsriaa ~isionwas ZntSnaaaby fhebeg5sl~ture as ablanket p?oo;lau5aoorreet5ng *pproprSatSoao lnskivertently medo fro01 the general Sunl Mwaw epswiol See0 

### or Asrde are waSIable 

### fer their amd epproprbt5oue lnadv~ent1 Bade fmm only 1Seeorfumlwheretheatalbu 6 ?e of the 

### State a or spooial See the applUat;lon of other loea Ipopr5atlom ae well‘. tWWd the pO=t Of 8tWh Sp.

coourtrylnk the prwl~ quoted abwo srfm sr B. 80s. 404 aryf42'1togethfsr,we are OS the ophioa that it use the lee;lslntive

# intent ta mi* 

### that the

## 703
H. J. Res. 26

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

Joint Resolution

Providing for the reappointment of Barber B. Conable, Jr. as a citizen regent

of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance

with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

(20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress,

occurring by reason of the expiration of the term of Barber B.

Conable, Jr. of New York on April 11, 1999, is filled by the

reappointment of the incumbent for a term of 6 years, effective

April 12, 1999.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 10.40 
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO
CONSULTING AGREEMENT
​
This Amendment No. 02 TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into as of August 1, 2020 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­(the “Amendment Effective Date”) between Steven M. Paul, M.D.  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­(“Company”) and Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. (“Voyager”) and relates to the Agreement referred to below.
​
WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into a CONSULTING AGREEMENT, effective August 2, 2018, as amended by the AMENDMENT NO. 1, effective July 9, 2019 (the “Agreement”); and 
​
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.
​
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and obligations set forth below, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
​
1.The 1st sentence of Section 2 – Term and Termination shall be amended as set forth below:
​
“This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will expire on ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­December 31, 2020 unless earlier terminated in accordance with this Agreement or extended by mutual written agreement (the “Term”).” 
​
2The 1st sentence of Section 2 – Compensation of Exhibit A - Accounting of Services Form shall be amended as set forth below:
​
“Fees:  Voyager will pay Consultant consulting fees of $16,700 per month during the Term.”   
​
3.    The 1st sentence of Section 3 – Period of Performance of Exhibit A - Accounting of Services Form shall be amended as set forth below:
​
“Services are anticipated to be complete by December 31, 2020.”        
​
4.   Initially capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Agreement.
​
5.Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
​
6.This Amendment may be executed and delivered by facsimile or electronically transmitted signature and in two or more counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  The parties agree that upon being signed and delivered by the parties, this Amendment shall become effective and binding and that such signed copies will constitute evidence of the existence of this Amendment.
​



[Remainder of this page is intentionally left blank]



SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
CONSULTING AGREEMENT
​
​
 ​
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto entered into this Amendment by their duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date.
​
​
	VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS, INC.
	CONSULTANT­­­­­­­­­


​
​
By: /s/ Omar Khwaja​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​By: /s/ Steven M. Paul​ ​​ ​​ ​
​
Name: ​ ​Omar Khwaja, M.D., Ph.D.​ ​​ ​Name: ​ ​Steven M. Paul, M.D.​ ​​ ​​ ​
​
Title: Chief Medical Officer & Head of R&D
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 138 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 138 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 138 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 138 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 138 Filed 09/22/06 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 138 Filed 09/22/06 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 138 Filed 09/22/06 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 138 Filed 09/22/06 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03641-AB Document 138 Filed 09/22/06 Page 9 of 9
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7308

CLEON ELROY DILLARD, a/k/a Cleon Elroy Dillard, Sr.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LT. SMITH, Martinsville City Jail Correctional Officer,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00151-TTC-RSB)

Submitted: January 27, 2022 Decided: February 1, 2022

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleon Dillard, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Anthony Piasta, JOHNSON AYERS & 

MATTHEWS, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cleon Elroy Dillard appeals from the district court’s order entered upon the jury’s 

verdict finding in favor of the defendant on Dillard’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

excessive force following his arrest for public intoxication. Dillard claims on appeal that 

the evidence did not support the jury’s verdict. However, Dillard failed to file a Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law after entry of the jury’s verdict. “Absent 

such a motion, . . . an appellate court is powerless to review the sufficiency of the evidence 

after trial.” Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 189 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

See Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., 679 F.3d 146, 154-60 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining that 

postverdict motion challenging sufficiency of evidence supporting jury’s verdict is 

necessary to preserve issue for appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Dillard’s 

motions to seal, to quash oral argument, for summary disposition, and to quash false 

allegation in response brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,131-01

EX PARTE KYLE W. GUTHRIE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 13484 IN THE 118TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HOWARD COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Ex parte Fournier, 473

S.W.3d 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

FILED: January 27, 2016

DO NOT PUBLISH
1 Judge Rice recommended that we deny the petition

because each of the eighteen claims is either procedurally

defaulted and/or non-cognizable.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH D. FARACI : CIVIL ACTION

 : 

 v. :

:

JAMES L. GRACE, et al. : NO. 04-1163

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2007, upon

consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (docket entry # 1), the response opposing

that petition (docket entry # 12), the January 19, 2007 Report

and Recommendation of the Honorable Timothy R. Rice (docket entry

# 13), and petitioner's failure to object within ten days of

service of the Report and Recommendation, as required by 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the letter accompanying the Report and

Recommendation, and the Court, in any event, agreeing with Judge

Rice's cogent analysis,1 it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED;

3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this matter statistically;

and

4. Petitioner having failed to make a substantial

showing of the deprivation of a constitutional right, we DECLINE

to issue a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Stewart Dalzell, J. 

Case 2:04-cv-01163-SD Document 15 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32(ii)

                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 10-KSB of Dialog Group, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Vincent DeCrescenzo, Sr., the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:

      (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: November 18, 2005                        /s/ Vincent DeCrescenzo
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Vincent DeCrescenzo, Sr. CFO
EXHIBIT 32

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

     The undersigned, Richard Jordan, the Chief Financial Officer of Cimbix
Corporation (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY,pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

     1.     The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
September 30, 2005 (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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 6th
day of March 2006.


                                  By:  /s/ Richard Jordan
                                  --------------------------------
                                           Richard Jordan,
                                           Chief Financial Officer
uJ3-/' case 2:04-cv-00972-WY Document 33-3 Filed 01/03/2006 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

,.J
 

AND NOW, this 1 day of
 , 200~ upon consideration of Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Con t the Dismissal of This Case to a Dismissal 

With Prejudice, and, it is ORDERED that Motion is GRANTED, and the this action 

is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

BY THE COURT: 

?J _<fc.J-aerR. ~17)Y")

S. 'E.l:.-otr
 

T- H~~~"~j
 

W,Lc.r~e-""

AMALGAMATED BANK, as Trustee for 

THE LONGVIEW COLLECTIVE 

INVESTMENT FUND, Derivatively on Behalf 

of AMERISOURCEBERGEN 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. DAVID YOST, et al., 

Defendant, 

-andAMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, 

a Delaware corporahon, 

Nominal Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 04-CV-0972 

FILED 

JAN 04 2006 

:C~2-E. KUNZ, Clerlc 

~Dep. Cleric 

Case 2:04-cv-00972-WY Document 34 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,897
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                19,320
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    162,397
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          97,757
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            98,611
<LOANS>                                        593,938
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (13,641)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 945,973
<DEPOSITS>                                     685,784
<SHORT-TERM>                                    20,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,978
<LONG-TERM>                                    141,465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,693
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 945,973
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,686
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,627
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   391
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,704
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,938
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,108
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,596
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,504
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,504
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.63
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,991
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,555
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 19,121
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                14,031
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      802
<RECOVERIES>                                       112
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,641
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,011
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          6,630
        

</TABLE>
Payment Collection RIA SIA Zero Dollar Total

August 2016 30,609 88,181 2,988 109 1 121,888

September 2016 32,215 113,793 4,597 194 1 150,800

October 2016 21,822 73,149 2,705 76 - 97,752

Totals 84,646 275,123 10,290 379 2 370,440

 -

 50,000

 100,000

 150,000

 200,000

 250,000

 300,000

 350,000

 400,000

# of transactions

Transaction Type

IPAC Transaction Count

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

Totals
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0484

_____________________________

CLINTON FIELDS,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

May 1, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the circuit court’s denial 

of the writ of mandamus following the circuit court’s appellate 

review of final agency action by the Commission on Offender 

Review. See Sheley v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 720 So. 2d 216, 217 

(Fla. 1998). Because the circuit court provided the petitioner with 

procedural due process and applied the correct law, the writ is 

denied on the merits. See Florida Parole Comm’n v. Taylor, 132 

So. 3d 780, 783 (Fla. 2014); see also Currie v. Comm’n on Offender 

Rev., 295 So. 3d 339, 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (denying writ of 

certiorari; circuit court applied correct law to deny relief on 

appellate review of Commission’s extension of presumptive parole 

release date based on “new information”). 
2

DENIED. 

LEWIS, BILBREY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Clinton Fields, pro se, Petitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender 

Review, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARGARET STAMPER, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4321

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04321-JG Document 8 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 55827.

protest 166286-K (New York).

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protest.
# C_2017293EN.01001001.xml

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited

(Case C-368/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - National legislation providing, on certain conditions, for an injured person’s right to bring legal proceedings directly against the insurer of the person responsible for an accident - Agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and the party which caused the damage))

(2017/C 293/13)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Assens Havn

Applicant:

Defendant: Navigators Management (UK) Limited

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Point 5 of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, considered in conjunction with Article 14, point 2(a), thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a victim entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the party which caused the harm which he has suffered is not bound by an agreement on jurisdiction concluded between the insurer and that party.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

1

---