alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.23

AMENDED AND RESTATED CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT

This Amended and Restated Change of Control Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into on April 30, 2003 by and between Tina D. McKnight, 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.

| |  |                |                                                                  
| |  | -------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Tina McKnight 
| |  | MAGNETEK, INC.
| |  | By:            |                                                                  
| |  |                | Name: Andrew G. Galef
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

---

QuickLinks
# C_2022011EN.01001301.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/13

---

Appeal brought on 12 July 2021 by Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2021 in Case T-637/19, Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO — Carpathian Springs (AQUA CARPATICA)

(Case C-425/21 P)

(2022/C 11/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (represented by: M. Maček, odvetnica)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Carpathian Springs SA

By order of 11 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd should bear its own costs.

---
# C_2022171EN.01003201.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR)

(Case T-171/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FOR HONOR - Earlier EU word mark HONOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ubisoft Entertainment (Carentoir, France) (represented by: J.B. Bourgeois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 January 2021 (Case R 1297/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Huawei Technologies and Ubisoft Entertainment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ubisoft Entertainment to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ubisoft Entertainment to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
DATED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,593,224
<SECURITIES>                                25,971,448
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,474,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,049,183
<PP&E>                                       2,526,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,141,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,807,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       103,766
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,230,136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,141,631
<SALES>                                      2,688,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,688,034
<CGS>                                        1,748,881
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,320,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                712,353
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            712,353
<DISCONTINUED>                            (11,519,468)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,807,115)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Ambassadors International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, John Ueberroth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Timothy Fogarty, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|/s/ John A. Ueberroth   |  | 
|                        |  | 
|John A. Ueberroth       |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|May 13, 2003            |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  | 
|/s/ Timothy T. Fogarty  |  | 
|                        |  | 
|Timothy T. Fogarty      |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|May 13, 2003            |  | 

18
# C_2021513EN.01001901.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 September 2021 — UniCredit Bank Austria AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation

(Case C-555/21)

(2021/C 513/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: UniCredit Bank Austria AG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Question referred

Is Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the sum of interest to be paid by the borrower and the costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement to be proportionally reduced in the event that the borrower exercises the right to repay the amount of credit, either fully or partially, prior to the expiry of the agreed term, with no corresponding rule for costs that are not dependent on the duration of the agreement?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 60, p. 34.

---
#### COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY v. E. Lee AGERTON, Collector of Revenue.

No. 53552.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: E. Lee Agerton, Collector of Revenue applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 275 So.2d 834.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 97-20185

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MASSOOD DANESH PAJOOH; ALI REZA DADI; and

ANDY AHMAD BOUJABADI,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CR-149-1)

______________________________________________________

February 10, 1998

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants challenge their convictions for conspiracy to

obstruct justice and aiding and abetting each other in committing

the substantive offense, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and

1503. Appellants raise the following issues on appeal:

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction;

whether the district court abused its discretion in giving its

instruction to the jury regarding the charge of obstruction of

justice; whether the district court abused its discretion in

denying defendants' motion for a mistrial based on an alleged
 

1 Dadi is not without a remedy for his ineffective assistance

of counsel claim. He may seek collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. §

2255. See United States v. Ugalde, 861 F.2d 802, 809 (5th Cir.

1988).

2

Giglio violation by the government; whether the district court

erred in refusing to disclose a witness' presentence report to

defendants for impeachment purposes; whether the district court

abused its discretion in admitting appellant Dadi's prior

conviction; and whether appellant Dadi received ineffective counsel

in violation of his Sixth Amendment right.

After reviewing the record, the briefs of the parties, and

argument of counsel, we decline to consider Dadi's ineffective

assistance of counsel argument because it was not adequately

presented to the district court.1 

We have considered the other arguments on the merits and find

them without merit.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022318EN.01001001.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 — Danske Slagtermestre v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-99/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Contributions scheme for the collection of waste water - Complaint - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Locus standi - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern)

(2022/C 318/12)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Appellant: Danske Slagtermestre (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Nymann-Lindegren, V. Pasternak Jørgensen, M. Søndahl Wolff and L. Teilgård, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 1 December 2020, Danske Slagtermestre v Commission (T-486/18, not published, EU:T:2020:576); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 1 December 2020, Danske Slagtermestre v Commission (T-486/18, not published, EU:T:2020:576);

| 2. | Declares the appeal at first instance admissible; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares the appeal at first instance admissible;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the merits; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the merits;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
#### Shirley DUNCAN et al., Appellants, v. BIG SAUL NEW & USED CARPET EXCHANGE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-750.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 29, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1131 Referred in House (RFH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1131

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 1993

       Referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend the method of computing the average subscription charges 
   under section 8906(a) of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
               Federal employee health benefits programs.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF METHOD OF COMPUTING AVERAGE SUBSCRIPTION 
              CHARGES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--The Act entitled ``An Act relating to the method 
by which Government contributions to the Federal employees health 
benefits program shall be computed for 1990 or 1991 if no Government-
wide indemnity benefit plan participates in that year'', approved 
August 11, 1989 (5 U.S.C. 8906 note; Public Law 101-76; 103 Stat. 556) 
is amended in subsection (a)(1) by striking out ``contract years 1990 
through 1993'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``contract years 1990 
through 1996''.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
nothing in this section should be considered to reflect any view on the 
appropriateness, merits, or timing, or any other aspect of any 
comprehensive health care reform legislation.

            Passed the Senate July 28 (legislative day, June 30), 1993.

            Attest:

                                             WALTER J. STEWART,

                                                             Secretary.
```
-  Aging      -  Healthy Aging 
  -  10th Anniversary National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease        -  Milestones and Achievements Timeline 
  -  Caregiver Resources & Long-term Care 
  -  Elder Justice 
  -  Retirement Planning & Security 
  -  Resources Near You 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Aging

More than 10,000 people turn 65 every day in the United States, and people are living longer, healthier lives. Healthy lifestyles, planning for retirement, and knowing your options for health care and long-term care are more important than ever before.

##                       I would like info on...                  

                                - Caregiver resources
                                - Social Security benefits
                                - Medicare enrollment
                                - Medicaid coverage
                                - Age discrimination

##             Healthy Aging          

Adopting healthy habits and behaviors, staying involved in your community, using preventive services, managing health conditions, and understanding all your medications can contribute to a productive and meaningful life.

##             Caregiver Resources and Long-term Care          

Long-term care—through in-home assistance, community programs, or residential facilities—enables you to stay active and accomplish everyday tasks.

##             Elder Justice          

Millions of older Americans experience abuse, neglect, exploitation, or discrimination each year. Take steps to protect your physical, mental, and financial security.

##             Retirement Planning & Security          

It's important to plan for retirement so that you can enjoy financial security later in life without the risk of outliving your assets.

##             Resources Near You          

Resources to support older adults and their caregivers can vary from state to state. See what is available to you.

Content last reviewed April 27, 2022
#### In the Matter of Richard Fasanaro, Respondent, v County of Rockland, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 876]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to, in effect, review a determination of the appellant County of Rockland which denied the petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland *437County (Miller, J.), dated October 30, 1995, which, after a hearing, annulled the determination and directed the appellant to classify the petitioner’s disability as work-related and to grant the petitioner benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We find no merit to the various procedural arguments raised by the appellant. The parties charted their procedural course, and there is no reason to relieve the appellant of the resulting judgment *(see, e.g., Too Pyo Hong v Byung Wha Yoo,*231 AD2d 657; *D'Aloia v Travelers Ins. Co.,*207 AD2d 820, *affd*85 NY2d 825; *Davis v Trey,*187 AD2d 409). Moreover, the evidence at the hearing supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur. *[See,*166 Misc 2d 152.]
# C_2022213EN.01003801.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background IV)

(Case T-279/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark - Representation of three-pointed stars on a black background IV - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 213/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 (Case R 1898/2020-5) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing three-pointed stars on a black background IV as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Daimler AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
#### F. R. E., INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. CITY OF BOCA RATON, Florida, etc., Respondent, and Myron B. Phipps et al., Respondents-Intervenors.

No. 44498.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 15, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 283 So.2d 48.

ROBERTS, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN and BOYD, JJ., dissent.
#### Henry vs. Green.

Where no motion for a now trial has been made, nor any question of law reserved at the trial, there is nothing' before this court for adjudication.

The rule established in *State Bank vs. Conway,*13 *Ark.*344 — which *is simple, and easily understood and followed*— applies as well to cases submitted to the court, as to a jury, and to cases where there is an agreed statement of facts, as where the facts are proven by witnesses.

*Appeal f rom Yell Circuit Court.*

Hon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.

Hollowell, for appellant.

Jordan, for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment in this case must be affirmed under the rule of practice settled in *State Bank vs. Conway,*13 *Ark.*344.

The issues were submitted to the court, sitting as a jury, and finding for defendant. The plaintiff excepted to the finding, and without moving for a new trial, but merely taking a bill of exceptions setting out the evidence, appealed. No question of law is legitimately presented for the decision of this court, See also *Gardner vs. Miller, et al., (present term.)*
#### Pedro BARRUETA, Appellant, v. SEAFERRO COMPANY, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-899.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 17, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.