alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4 Form of First Amendment to Restricted Stock Award for Outside
             Directors

                             ONEIDA FINANCIAL CORP.
                       2006 RECOGNITION AND RETENTION PLAN
                  FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
                               (Outside Directors)

         WHEREAS, on April 25th 2006, Oneida Financial Corp. (the "Company")
granted an award (the "Award") for a total of shares of Company common stock to
_________________ (the "Recipient"), subject in all respects to the terms and
provisions of the Oneida Financial Corp. 2006 Recognition and Retention Plan
(the "Plan"), which has been approved by the board of directors of The Oneida
Savings Bank (the "Bank") and the stockholders of the Company; and

         WHEREAS, the Plan provides that a committee consisting of at least two
non-employee directors of the Board (or the full Board) (the "Committee") may
amend any outstanding award made under the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Committee and the Recipient have agreed to amend the
Restricted Stock Agreement which evidences the Award (the "Agreement") to change
the definition of "Normal Retirement Age" that shall apply to the Award;

         NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         1. Paragraph B is amended in its entirety to read as follows, effective
as of the original date of the Award:

                  B. (1) The shares of common stock awarded hereunder shall bear
         a legend restricting the transferability of such common stock
         (hereinafter referred to as the "Restricted Stock"). The Restricted
         Stock awarded to the Recipient shall not be sold, assigned,
         transferred, pledged, or otherwise encumbered by the Recipient, except
         as hereinafter provided, until such Restricted Stock has vested (the
         "Restricted Period").

                  (2) Restricted Stock shall vest in equal installments over a
         five (5) year period, with the first installment vesting on December
         31, 2006 and succeeding installments vesting on each anniversary
         thereof through December 31, 2010.

                  (3) Notwithstanding the definition of "Normal Retirement" set
         forth in the Plan, for purposes of this Award, "Normal Retirement"
         means the Recipient's termination of service as a director on or after
         the date that the Recipient attains age 70 and has completed at least 5
         years of service as a director.

         2. All remaining provisions of the Restricted Stock Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.

<page>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee and the Recipient have executed this
First Amendment to the Restricted Stock Agreement, effective as of the original
date of the Award.


                                    ONEIDA FINANCIAL CORP.


---------------------               By:
Date                                    -----------------------------------

---------------------               ---------------------------------------
Date                                Recipient
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2304 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow chiropractors 

to provide items and services through private contracts under the Medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Ms. MIKULSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow 

chiropractors to provide items and services through private contracts under the Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chiropractors Equity 

5 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2304 IS

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING CHIROPRACTORS TO PROVIDE ITEMS 

2 AND SERVICES THROUGH PRIVATE CON3 TRACTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1802(b)(5)(B) of the So5 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395a(b)(5)(B)) is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of section 

7 1861(r)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1861(r)’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to contracts entered 

10 into on and after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));                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                T. FABER                                                                                          |
|                         | Robert                T. Faber*President                and Chief Executive Officer and**Chief                Financial Officer* |

----
#### In Re the Interest of W. L. C., an infant. Joseph Edward ARD and Mary Ard, his wife, Appellants, v. Shirley Mae GUSTAFSON and Division of Family Services, Appellees.

No. CC-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 22, 1977.

*66Seymour H. Rowland, Jr., Ocala, for appellants.

Phil Trovillo, P.A., Ocala, for appellee (Division of Family Services).

MILLS, Acting Chief Judge.

Joseph and Mary Ard (Ards) appeal from a final judgment denying their petition for custody and their petition for adoption of W. L. C., a minor, granting the cross-petition of Shirley Mae Gustafson (Gustafson) for adoption of the minor, and denying the petition of the Division of Family Services (Division) for termination of parental rights and for custody of the minor. The Ards contend the trial court erred in denying their petitions, in granting Gustafson’s petition and in finding that Gustafson was a person permitted to adopt under Chapter 63, Florida Statutes (1975).

No useful purpose would be served by reciting the evidence adduced at the various hearings held over a period of many months. Suffice it to say that the record discloses competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s denial of the Ard’s petition for custody and petition for adoption. We affirm.

Not only does the record fail to support the granting of Gustafson’s cross-petition for adoption but she is not a person permitted to adopt under Section 63.042(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1975). This section provides in pertinent part:

> “(2) The following persons may adopt:

> 

> (d) A married person without the other spouse joining as a petitioner, if the person to be adopted is not his spouse, and if:

> 1. The other spouse is a parent of the person to be adopted and consents to the adoption; or

> 2. The failure of the other spouse to join in the petition or to consent to the adoption is excused by the court for reason of prolonged unexplained absence, unavailability, incapacity, or circumstances constituting an unreasonable withholding of consent.”

Gustafson was married. Her husband did not join the petition nor did he consent to the adoption of the minor. The trial court did not excuse this failure to join or consent for any of the reasons set forth in Section 63.042(2)(d). We reverse.

The Division did not appeal the adverse ruling on its petition nor did the Ards assign this as error on their appeal. We affirm.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
# C_2014395EN.01004101.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — CEWE Stiftung v OHIM (SMILECARD)

(Case T-484/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SMILECARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 395/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CEWE Stiftung & Co. KGaA, formerly CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG (Oldenburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2012 (Case R 2279/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SMILECARD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CEWE Stiftung & Co. KGaA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CEWE Stiftung & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

---
#### Basil Briguglio et al., Respondents, v Rockefeller Center, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[612 NYS2d 70]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) the defendants Rockefeller Center, Inc., Rockefeller Center Management Corporation, and Rockefeller Group, Inc., appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered March 31, 1991, as granted the branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, and (2) the defendant Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc., appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of the same order as granted the branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 and denied the branch of the cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof directing the appellants to pay $5,000 to the plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to determine, in accordance with the requirements of 22 NYCRR part 130, whether and to what extent to award costs or to impose sanctions.

*504We agree with the appellants that modification is necessary because the Supreme Court failed to state the basis for its determination in this case. The Supreme Court also failed to state whether it was awarding costs or imposing sanctions. When awarding costs or imposing sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130, the court is required to issue "a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award [of costs] or [the] imposition [of sanctions] is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate” (22 NYCRR 130-1.2; *see, Martino v Martino,*194 AD2d 591; *Nowak v Walden,*187 AD2d 418). Moreover, sanctions are to be made payable to either the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection or to the State Commission of Taxation and Finance rather than to the opposing party *(see,*22 NYCRR 130-1.3).

Upon review of the record, we find that the court properly denied the branch of the appellants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
February 25, 1947

No. 6939.

Foulard Silks and Wool Cashmere for Neckties.

#### *United States*v. *McCurrach Organization, Inc.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. (Reap. Dec. 6765.) Motion by appellee.
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Andrew P. Calerich, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 of American Oil & Gas, Inc.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  May 6,  2004
/s/ Andrew P. Calerich
-----------------------
Andrew P. Calerich
Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Xyvision, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-56277, 333-19529, 33-54014, 33-54018,
33-41846, 33-15474) of Xyvision, Inc. of our report dated June 25, 1999
relating to the financial statements which appears in the Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                         /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P



PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.
Boston, Massachusetts
June 28, 1999


                                       1
No. 42194.

#### Protest 933861-G of A. W. Fenton Co.

Abstract 41721. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 31, 2014

h0127 

# Order

Clerk 

### January 31, 2014

147329

PATRICE PARSONS,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 147329

AGC: 1966

- 10

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and

relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested

relief.
<PAGE>

                                                  Exhibit 10.43b


          AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 1992 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT



      This Amendment No. 2 to  the  Stock Option Agreement dated as
of February 25, 1992, as  amended  by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated
as of April 1, 1996 (collectively  the "Agreement"), is made by and
between Eugene L.  Froelich  (the  "Executive") and Maxicare Health
Plans, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and dated as of
February 16, 1997 (the "Amendment No. 2").

      WHEREAS,  Executive  wishes  to  exercise  the  Stock  Option
granted to him pursuant to the Agreement;

      WHEREAS, certain  issues  have  arisen  with  respect  to the
notice and exercise provisions of Section 4(a) of the Agreement and
the computation of taxes due by  the Executive as a result thereof;
and

      WHEREAS, as a result  of  the  foregoing, the Company and the
Executive desire to make  certain  changes  to the Agreement as set
forth herein;

      NOW THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of  the  foregoing and the
mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, Executive and the
Company hereby agree as follows:


      1.   Section 4(a)  of  the  Agreement  is  hereby  amended as
follows:

           (a)   to delete on the second and third line thereof
"at least three, but no  more  than  ten, business days' prior" and
add in lieu thereof the following:

                 "on the date of exercise";

           (b)   to  add  on  the  fourth  line  of  the  carryover
paragraph on page 3 after "accompanied by a" the following:

                 "personal,"; and

           (c)   to delete on the fifth through the eighth  line of
the first  full  paragraph  on  page  3  the  parenthetical  in its
entirety, as follows:

                 "(or, if so requested  in  the notice to exercise,
registered in the name of the Executive and another person jointly,
with right of survivorship)".

                           185 of 193

<PAGE>

      2.   Except as expressly set  forth  herein, all of the terms
and conditions contained  in  the  Agreement  shall  remain in full
force and effect.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement has
been executed as of the date first above-written.


                                   MAXICARE HEALTH PLANS, INC.


                                   /s/ ROBERT J. LANDIS
                                   --------------------
                                       Robert J. Landis
                                          Treasurer


                                   EXECUTIVE


                                   /s/ EUGENE L. FROELICH
                                   ----------------------
                                       Eugene L. Froelich
                                   Executive Vice President

                           186 of 193
EXHIBIT 24.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
LADD Furniture, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-53341, 333-3129, 333-19565, and 333-19539) on Form S-8 of LADD Furniture,
Inc. of our report dated February 6, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of LADD Furniture, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 28, 1996 and
January 3, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended January 3, 1998, which report is included in the January 3, 1998
annual report on Form 10-K of LADD Furniture, Inc.



Greensboro, North Carolina
March 31, 1998
# C_2015198EN.01000702.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Hermann Lutz v Elke Bäuerle, acting as liquidator of ECZ Autohandel GmbH

(Case C-557/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 13 - Insolvency proceedings - Payment made after the date on which insolvency proceedings were opened on the basis of attachment carried out before that date - Action to set aside an act detrimental to the interests of the creditors - Limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set transactions aside - Procedural requirements for the action - Applicable law))

(2015/C 198/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hermann Lutz

Applicant:

Defendant: Elke Bäuerle, acting as liquidator of ECZ Autohandel GmbH

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a payment, challenged by an insolvency administrator, of a sum of money attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings was made only after the opening of those proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a payment, challenged by an insolvency administrator, of a sum of money attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings was made only after the opening of those proceedings.

| 2) | Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the defence which it establishes also applies to limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set aside transactions under the law governing the act challenged by the liquidator. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the defence which it establishes also applies to limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set aside transactions under the law governing the act challenged by the liquidator.

| 3) | The relevant procedural requirements for the exercise of an action to set a transaction aside are to be determined, for the purposes of the application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, according to the law governing the act challenged by the liquidator. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The relevant procedural requirements for the exercise of an action to set a transaction aside are to be determined, for the purposes of the application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, according to the law governing the act challenged by the liquidator.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

1

---