alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021098EN.01001701.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/17

---

Appeal brought on 27 January 2021 by European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-735/18, Aquind v ACER

(Case C-46/21 P)

(2021/C 98/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet, E. Tremmel, Agents, B. Creve, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Aquind Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part;

| — | if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

| — | order Aquind Ltd to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Aquind Ltd to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court upheld the applicant's fourth plea and ninth plea and, on that basis, annulled Decision A-001-2018 of the Board of Appeal of ACER, dismissed the remainder of the application, and ordered ACER to pay the costs. In the present appeal, ACER submits that the General Court committed the following errors of law:

| 1. | The General Court erred in law with regard to the intensity of the review undertaken by the Board of Appeal of ACER, in general and in the case at hand, with regard to errors in complex technical and economic assessments. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court erred in law with regard to the intensity of the review undertaken by the Board of Appeal of ACER, in general and in the case at hand, with regard to errors in complex technical and economic assessments.

| 2. | The General Court erred in law with regard to the interpretation of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation 714/2009. (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred in law with regard to the interpretation of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation 714/2009. (1)

---

(1)  Règlement (CE) no 714/2009 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 13 juillet 2009 sur les conditions d’accès au réseau pour les échanges transfrontaliers d’électricité et abrogeant le règlement (CE) no 1228/2003 (OJ 2009, L 211, p. 15).

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 13.2

                            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 of W.P. Stewart & Co., Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, 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
his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date:    March 15, 2004


/s/Rocco Macri
----------------------------
Rocco Macri
Deputy Managing Director--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.]
Exhibit 10.25

CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT

This Change of Control Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into on April 30, 2003 by and between Paul Schwarzbaum, an individual (the "Officer"), and
MagneTek, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").

RECITALS

WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") recognizes that the possibility of a Change of Control (as hereinafter defined) exists and that the threat or the occurrence
of a Change of Control can result in significant distractions of its key management personnel because of the uncertainties inherent in such a situation;

WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that it is essential and in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to retain the services of the Officer in the event of a threat or
occurrence of a Change of Control and to ensure the Officer's continued dedication and efforts in such event without undue concern for personal financial and employment security; and

WHEREAS,
in order to induce the Officer to remain in the employ of the Company, particularly in the event of a threat or the occurrence of a Change of Control, the Company desires to
enter into this Agreement with the Officer to provide the Officer with certain benefits in the event his or her employment is terminated as a result of, or in connection with, a Change of Control.

AGREEMENT

NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby
agree as follows:



---



---



---



---



---



---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date it is last executed below by either party.

| |  |                                     |                                                                                    
| |  | ----------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/PAUL SCHWARZBAUMPaul Schwarzbaum
| |  | MAGNETEK, INC.                     
| |  | By:                                 |                                                                                    
| |  |                                     | /s/ANDREW G. GALEFName: Andrew G. Galef
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

---

QuickLinks
#### Lennie Elizabeth PATE, Appellant, v. F. Churchill MELLEN, as Administrator of the Estate of Henrietta Farnham, Deceased, Appellee.

No. Q-9.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 9, 1971.

Phillips, Williams, McGraw & Cetti, Pensacola, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding seeks review by interlocutory appeal of an order denying her motion to set aside the foreclosure sale on the ground that it was prematurely held at an hour earlier than she expected and because the price bid was inadequate.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence adduced at the hearing on appellant’s motion to set aside the sale. From this evidence we conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court in its rendition of the order here assaulted. The order is accordingly affirmed and this appeal dismissed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-99070) pertaining to the Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc.
1995 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan of our report dated January
9, 1998, except for the 1998 stock split as described in Note 2, as to which the
date is February 11, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended November 30, 1997.


Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 2, 1998
#### Bruce R. Mang, Respondent, v Gail B. Mang, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[656 NYS2d 998]

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Matter of Eric D.*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Tenney, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 482 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 482

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 21, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3838) to amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and 
community development, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. After general 
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs now printed 
in the bill. The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by 
title rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points of 
order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply 
with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Order entered October 27 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00697
- CR
ALLEN MAURICE LITTLE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09
- 51721
- Y



### O RDER On September 2, 2014, this Court adopted the trial court’s finding that court reporter Sharon Hazlewood would file the reporter’s record within thirty days of the August 25, 2014 findings made by the trial court. We ord ered Ms. Hazlewood to file the complete reporter’s record, including exhibits, by September 26, 2014. When the record was not filed by October 8, 2014, we ordered Ms. Hazlewood to file the reporter’s record by October 24, 2014. We further
stated that no e xtensions would be granted and warned that failure to do so would result in the Court ordering that she not sit as a court reporter until the record is filed. Rather than filing the reporter’s record by October 24, 2014, on Sunday, October 26, 2014, Ms. Ha zlewood filed a request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. Theextension request, which is dated July 25, 2014, asks for an extension until September 1, 2014 to

file the reporter’s record. We DENY the extension request.
W e ORDER Shar on Hazlewood, official court reporter of the Criminal District Court No. 7, to file the complete reporter’s record, including exhibits, by NOVEMBER 5, 2014

. We further ORDER that Sharon Hazlewood not sit as a court reporter until the reporter’s record is filed in this appeal.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Michael Snipes, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 7; Sharon Hazlewood, official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 7; t he Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2021062EN.01003602.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/36

---

Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD)

(Case T-739/20)

(2021/C 62/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unite the Union (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor and M. Hommé, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark WATERFORD — European Union trade mark No 397 521

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 in Case R 2683/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision in such a way as to find that the trade mark WATERFORD should be revoked within the terms of Article 58 EUTMR; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision in such a way as to find that the trade mark WATERFORD should be revoked within the terms of Article 58 EUTMR;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(c) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(c) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 10.1





Summary of Compensation Agreement for Alex Incera





Title:                                       President, Gerber Coburn  (“GC”)


Vice President, Gerber Scientific, Inc. (“GSI”)


Base Salary:                           $190,000


Bonus Target:                         40%


Executive Severance:             8 months (Vice President Level)








Consequences of Material Change in GC Status





Notwithstanding anything in the Severance Policy for Senior Officers to the contrary (except as set forth in Clause (5) below), (1) if there is a significant change in the operating strategy of GC and Alex in not offered a comparable position to his current position within a GSI CT facility that (a) includes responsibility for a business unit with at the time not less than $30 million in annual sales; (b) reports to the CEO; and (c) includes a compensation package no less generous than his package as of this date, then Alex will receive the Severance Amount described below; or, (2) if GC is divested, and, upon, completion of the divestiture, Alex is offered a position with the acquirer that he chooses to accept, then he will receive the Sales Incentive described below, plus accelerated vesting of all shares of restricted stock and stock options then owned by him; (3) or, if GC is divested, and, upon completion of the divestiture, Alex is not offered a position with the acquirer, or he declines to accept a position with the acquirer in his sole discretion, but is offered a position with GSI, as described in the preceding Clause (1), then he will receive the Sales Incentive described below; or (4) if GC is divested, and, upon completion of the divestiture, Alex is not offered a position with the acquirer having comparable responsibilities and comparable total compensation to his current position and which does not require him to relocate; and he is not offered a position within GSI, as described in Clause 1 above, then he will receive the Severance Amount and Sales Incentive described below; or (5), if GC is divested, and upon completion of the divestiture, Alex is offered a comparable position with the acquirer having comparable responsibilities and comparable total compensation to his current position, which does not require him to relocate,and he declines to accept such position in his sole discretion, and he is not offered a position within GSI, as described in the preceding clause 1, then Alex will receive a severance amount that is standard for his position under the Severance Policy for Senior Officers (eight months) and Sales Incentive described below.








Severance Amount:
18 months at restored salary upon change in control or significant change of operating strategy of the GC business, including any earned bonus during this period; plus accelerated vesting of all unvested stock options and restricted shares; plus the continuation of insurance benefits provided for in the Severance Policy for Senior Officers.





Sale Incentive:                       1.0% of net sale price of GC
#### William Riley URQUHART, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Roy RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Ernest MORENO, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-521-70-526, 70-532-70-534.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 6, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             968
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           5,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,424
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,338
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                   (113,419)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,990
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  299,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (98,647)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,030
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (210,662)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (210,662)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>LESS THAN (.01)
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BONTEX,
INC.'S UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AS SET FORTH IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,096
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                       244
<INVENTORY>                                      5,801
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,992
<PP&E>                                          22,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,506
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,688
<BONDS>                                          2,813
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              157
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,292
<SALES>                                         35,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,815
<CGS>                                           24,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   922
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,439
<INCOME-TAX>                                       576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                863
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       863
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>