alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AND THEIR COUNTRY OR STATE OF INCORPORATION/ORGANIZATION



|                                                   |  |                    
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|Asystum Participations BV                          |  | The Netherlands    
|Datastream FSC, Inc.                               |  | U.S. Virgin Islands
|Datastream Servicios Mexicanos, S. de R.L. de C.V. |  | Mexico             
|Datastream Systems (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.            |  | China              
|Datastream Systems (UK), Ltd.                      |  | The United Kingdom 
|Datastream Systems de Argentina S.A.               |  | Argentina          
|Datastream Systems de Chile Ltd.                   |  | Chile              
|Datastream Systems de Mexico S.A. de C.V.          |  | Mexico             
|Datastream Systems do Brasil Ltda.                 |  | Brazil             
|Datastream Systems International, Inc.             |  | Delaware           
|Datastream Systems Japan Kabushiki Kaisha.         |  | Japan              
|Datastream Systems Latinamerica SRL                |  | Uruguay            
|Datastream Systems Pte Ltd.                        |  | Singapore          
|Datastream Systems Pty Ltd.                        |  | Australia          
|Datastream Systems Sdn Bhd                         |  | Malaysia           
|Datastream Systems, BV                             |  | The Netherlands    
|Datastream Systems, GmbH & Co.                     |  | Germany            
|Datastream, SA                                     |  | France             
|iProcure, Inc.                                     |  | Delaware           
|Perville, SA                                       |  | Uruguay            
|Sikasso Pte Ltd.                                   |  | Singapore          
|SQL Group, B.V.                                    |  | The Netherlands    
|SQL System Participaties, BV                       |  | The Netherlands    
|Strategic Business Management Sdn Bhd              |  | Brunei
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the
Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/  Gerald D. KelferGerald D. KelferPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Acknowledgements


During the spring and fall of 2003, dozens of GSA experts from around the country


provided the reviews and comments that became this Guide’s voice. The


Site Selection Guide served as a model for this document, so much appreciation goes


to Gianne Conard and her Site Selection Task Force. Special thanks are also due


Curt Smith, who created early drafts of this Guide and lent his expertise throughout.


All told, more than 50 GSA associates—asset managers, architects, engineers, preser­


vation architects, estimators, project managers, and others—offered their expertise,


providing language for key topics and suggesting revisions in content and tone.


Regional experts supplied case studies, helped to clarify the message, and provided


the all-important connection between program intent and implementation. These


contributors included Dan Bailey, Curtis Berg, Debbie Bicker, Richard Bouchard,


Shirley Bozich, Donald Cobb, Tony Costa, Al DeLucia, Stephanie Downs,


Adel Eskander, Dave Frable, Lawrence Goldstein, Amy Hay, Camdon Hindes,


Richard Jobsky, Mike Lowell, Kin Moy, Bela Palfalvi, Ramon Riesgo, Kevin Rothmier,


Denise Ryerkerk, Kelly Sarver-Lenderink, Abby Smith, Beth Smith, Terri Tarr,


Mark Velsey, Steve Wallace, and Joan Wissbaum. Vinita Canright, Myron Goldstein,


and Don Melcher were especially thorough in their assessments and advice.


Here in Washington DC, experts addressed every program area that impacts the


Capital Program. Contributors included Caroline Alderson, Paul Andrade,


Rob Andrukonis, Wade Belcher, Jim Bergdahl, Gilbert Delgado, Marilyn Farley,


Bruce Hall, Susan Harrison, Don Horn, Casey Jones, David Jordan,


Cathy Kronopolus, Charles Matta, Frances Mazarella, Greg Segal, Les Shepherd,


Bryan Steverson, Ivan Swain, Mary Shearill-Thompson, and Bayard Whitmore.


Taylor Lednum, Catherine Slye and Alicia Weber were gracious in helping


with images. Finally, a big thanks goes to Mary Ann Lasch, of Gensler, who helped


bring this all together with tremendous patience and professionalism.


The Guide’s intent was to compile and share the combined wisdom of the GSA


associates who influence our agency’s Capital Program. It is my hope that this Guide


does them justice, recognizing and supporting them and the great work that they


do in shaping our federal legacy.


Frank Giblin, AICP


Office of the Chief Architect
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 376

Amending the Code of Official Conduct of the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that contributions to legal defense funds for the

benefit of Members shall be treated as campaign contributions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1994

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

RESOLUTION

Amending the Code of Official Conduct of the Rules of

the House of Representatives to require that contributions to legal defense funds for the benefit of Members

shall be treated as campaign contributions.

1 Resolved, That clause 7 of rule XLIII of the Rules

2 of the House of Representatives (relating to the Code of

3 Official Conduct) is amended by inserting before the pe4 riod at the end ‘‘, including proceeds received by a legal

5 defense fund for the benefit of a Member’’.

Æ
#### John C. BRAY v. Dr. C. E. BOYD et al.

No. 54225.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1974.

In re: Clarence Elmo Boyd applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 286 So.2d 508.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment complained of. '
EXHIBIT 23
  
  
  
  
  
                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
  
  
       As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the 
  incorporation of our report, dated January 28, 1997, on the consolidated 
  financial statements and supporting schedule of GTE Corporation and 
  subsidiaries included in GTE Corporation's Form 10-K filed on March 18, 
  1997, into the previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 of GTE 
  Corporation (File No. 33-20178)
  
  
  
  
                                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
  
  Stamford, Connecticut
  May 12, 1997
### Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart W

Meeting Documentation : Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States ( IPAMS ) 5/ 27 /10 Date Staff Contact In formation (Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability
, reporting requirements, etc.) Written Comments Provided? Did they also submit to Docket? Date sent to

EPA

- CCD

5 / 27 /10 Roger Fernandez
Akachi Imegwu

Kate Cardam one
Ragan Tate
Sandy Seastream, ICF Katie Schroder, Bjork Lindley Little

Gabriel Graham and Heidi Handy, Beatty & Wozniak
Patrick Flynn, Resolute Energy
Daniel Pringand and Doug Henderer, Buy s & Associates

Rick Matar, Jim Tangeman and Sarah Bartl ett, Williams
Brad Rogersand Mike Pontiff, Newfield

John Jacusand and Todd Weaver, DavisGraham & Stubbs
Dan Ryan, Andrea Dvorak, Catherine Fontainne and Craig Brown, See following pages W ritten comments were submitted prior to the meeting, see belowQuestar
Jagadeesan Sethuraman, Clay Tay lor, Tom Gibbons, and Elvera Berryman , Whitin g
Brian Lockard, Noble Energy

Peg Young, Bill Barrett Corp.
Kathleen Sgamma, IPAMSFrom: Kathleen Sgamma <KSgamma@ipams.org>

To: Roger Fernandez/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/25/2010 10:55 AM

Subject: Re: Meeting Confirmation

Roger

Here's a proposed outline for the call. We look forward to spe aking with y ou. Kathleen

1) Affect on Industry 2) Definitions: a) “Facilit y” (“Reporting Area”) b) “Natural Gas Processing Plant” c) Well Ty

pes (“conventional” and “unconventional”) 3) Sources: a) Gathering Pipeline Fugi tives (flow or intra

- facility gas lines) b) Component Counts c) Reciprocating Compressor Rod Packing d) Dissolved CO2 in Liquids (EOR) e) Portable Combustion Sourcesf) Standby Equipment g) Contracted Sources 4) Developme nt of Screening Levels and Screening Tool 5) Data Gathering: a) Direct Monitoring and Measurement b) Sampling Frequency c) Best Available Monitoring Methods 6) Reporting: a) Data Reporting Area (§98.236 requires reporting for each field in the basin) b) Use Data Gathered in First Year

– Emission Factor Development for Subsequent Years 7) Costs 8) Effective Date

Kathleen

### API / IPAMS Meeting Teleconference May 27 , 20 10 3 : 0 0 pm EDT
List of Issues Discussed

1. EP A should reconsider the short timeframe for implementation of subpart W 2. EPA should reconsider the definition of natural gas plants 3. EPA’s cost for subpart W is too low 4. EPA’s sampling requirements are too costly 5. EPA should exclude gathering pipeline fugitiv es 6. EPA should allow more emission factors and engineering me thods 7. EPA’s inclusion of portable combustion sources is unreasonable
#### Perry URBANO, Petitioner, v. J. T. C. CONSTRUCTION CORP., etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 43418.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed. 272 So.2d 878.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
# C_2020191EN.01003002.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/30

---

Action brought on 6 April 2020 — Bavaria Weed v EUIPO (BavariaWeed)

(Case T-178/20)

(2020/C 191/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bavaria Weed GmbH (Herrsching am Ammersee, Germany) (represented by: J. Wolhändler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark — Application for registration No 17 997 323

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2020 in Case R 1458/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Breach of the principles of equal treatment and good administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the principles of equal treatment and good administration.

---
Exhibit 31.5
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SkillSoft Public Limited Company;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.
    
    Omitted;4.
    
    Omitted;5.
    
    Omitted.
 Dated: September 17, 2008
    /s/ Charles E. MoranCharles E. MoranPresident and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2015245EN.01002301.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/23

---

Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Autoneum Germany v Commission

(Case T-295/14) (1)

1

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 245/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Autoneum Germany GmbH (Roßdorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme, M. Ringel and T. Wielsch lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

| 3. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 4. | Autoneum Germany GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Autoneum Germany GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 5. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

1

---
#### A. CURREY & N. DAVIS, trading as CURREY & DAVIS *vs.*MARY WARRINGTON, Executrix of Alexander Warrington, deceased.

The provision, Dig. 225, that “ obligations or contracts by several persons shall be joint and several, unless it is otherwise expressly stipulated,” docs not extend to partnership obligations, which are joint and not several, and must be enforced against the surviving partner.

This was an action on a bill drawn by Currey & Davis, on A. J. Warrington, for $71 83, accepted by them and taken up by the drawers; and on a promissory note of Alexander and John War*148rington, who were partners in business, to Carrey & Davis, for $200. The bill and note were drawn by the Warringtons, in the course of their business.

*Houston,*for plaintiff.

*Layton,*for defendant.

*Mr. Layton*

objected, that as this suit was against the executrix of a deceased partner, for a partnership transaction, the other partner still living, it could not be maintained. The bill and note do not raise a promise by one party to pay the partnership debt, until resort has been had to the surviving partner, unless the firm is shown to be insolvent; when resort may be had to the several partner *in equity. [Law. Lib.*294-5; *Cary on Partners.*118.]

*Mr. Houston*

did not controvert this position as at common law, but raised the question whether it is not varied by our act of assembly : whether the legislature has not thought proper to avoid the circuitous and expensive remedy in chancery, and give a remedy at law against the .executors of the deceased partner. The act of assembly, *[Dig.*224, section 11,] makes every obligation or contract made by several persons joint and several, unless it is otherwise expressly stipulated. It was, therefore, in the option of the plaintiffs in this case, to treat this note and accepted bill (for an accepted bill is a note,) as a several obligation; if this provision extends to partners, which is submitted, it does. There is nothing at least in the act to show that it does not.

*Mr. Layton*

replied that the act did not apply to partners ; nor could the executor of a deceased joint obligor be joined with the .survivor,

*The Court*

charged the jury that the act of assembly does not extend to partnership obligations, which are joint and not several and survive to and against the survivor; and directed a verdict for the defendant.

Verdict for defendant.
#### Arthur S. UPTON, Individually and Arthur S. Upton, as Executor of the Will of Juanita M. Upton, Deceased, Appellants, v. WILEY N. JACKSON COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. S-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 20, 1973.

George L. Hudspeth and William E. Williams, of Mahoney, Hadlow, Chambers & Adams, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Charles Cook Howell, III, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean & Hal-lowes, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

• WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32 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 Quarterly Report of Delhaize America, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form
10-Q), we, Pierre-Olivier Beckers and Carol M. Herndon, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:  (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company. Dated: May 18, 2004. /s/ Pierre-Olivier Beckers
Pierre-Olivier Beckers
Chief Executive Officer /s/ Carol M. Herndon
Carol M. Herndon
Chief Financial Officer A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 10.17

MEMORANDUM

To:  Jeff Newton

From:  Bill McCabe

Date:  August 12, 1996

Re:  Vice President Position
================================================================================

     As we have discussed, this letter sets forth the terms on which you are
offered the position of a Vice President of CBT Group plc.

     1.   Your annual compensation package will be structured to provide on-
          target earnings of $280,000.  This will be structured to have four
          components: base salary of $100,000, and an aggregate of $180,000 in
          commission, quarterly bonuses and annual bonus.  For the first year,
          total compensation of $280,000 on target earnings is guaranteed.

     2.   In connection with your relocation, you will also receive:

          $2,500 per month as a housing allowance beginning on the date of
          closing on your new home in the Bay Area and lasting for one year from
          that date.

          All reasonable and customary costs actually incurred by you for (i)
          selling your home in Chicago, including real estate commission and
          closing costs that are customarily paid by seller; (ii) points
          incurred in the purchase of your new home (up to 1.5 points on the
          amount financed) and other closing costs that are customarily paid by
          buyer; (iii) costs of moving to the Bay Area, including the costs of
          the movers (including packing and unpacking); and (iv) temporary (no
          more than 6 months) living expenses (including storage of household
          goods, if required) in the Bay Area before the move.

          A nonaccountable allowance for incidental expenses of $5,000.

          CBT will arrange to have a relocation company purchase your house in
          Chicago for the appraised value plus an amount equal to the lesser of
          (i) $20,000 or (ii) the amount by which the appraised value is less
          than $450,000.

          At CBT's election, either (i) the items in this section 2 will be
          structured so that they can be received by you without increasing your
          taxable income, or (ii) you will be grossed up to account for the
          income tax effect.

     3.   You will commence your duties as Vice President in January 1997.
          You will be performing your current duties (on your current pay plan)
          for the rest of 1996.

     4.   In the event that you are terminated by CBT without cause within one
          year of the date that you commence your vice president position in the
          Bay Area, your expenses of moving back to Chicago will be paid by CBT.
<PAGE>

     I am very excited about the prospect of your helping CBT move to the next
phase of its growth and development.  If you are in agreement with the above,
please so indicate by signing below.


Very truly yours,


William G. McCabe
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

     Accepted and agreed:


     ___________________________
     Jeff Newton
No. 45.

No. 46.

#### M. Frank Donohue *v.*The State of Maine; and Frank C. Power *v.*The State of Maine.

Error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Maine.

Submitted October 15, 1925.

Decided October 19, 1925.

*Per Curiam.*

Dismissed for want of jurisdic*532tion upon the. authority of (1) section 237 of the Judicial Code as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 726 ; (2) *United States v. Lanza,*260 U. S. 377, 382; *Twining*v. *New Jersey,*211 U. S. 78, 93; *Barron v*. *Baltimore,*7 Pet. 243.

*Messrs. Herbert E. Holmes*and *E. N.- Pike*for plaintiffs in error. *Messrs. Bansford W. Shaw*and *Edward W. Wheeler*for defendant in error.