alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




To the
Partners of NP-89 Limited Dividend Housing Association Limited
Partnership




We have
audited the accompanying balance sheet of NP-89 Limited Dividend Housing
Association Limited Partnership as of December 31, 2009 and the related
statements of profit and loss, changes in partners' equity and cash flows for
the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Partnership's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit.




We
conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. The Partnership is not required to
have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over
financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over
financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Partnership's internal control over
financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.




In our
opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of NP-89 Limited Dividend Housing
Association Limited Partnership at December 31, 2009, and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.




/s/BDO Seidman, LLPTroy,
      MichiganMarch
      12, 2010
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mrs. MALONEY:
        H.R. 6263.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
       The Congress shall have Power * * * To make all Laws which 
     shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the 
     foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the 
     Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in 
     any Department or Officer thereof.
```
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel H. Kaplan, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

June 19, 1959.

*Wein & Wein*for petitioner.

*James E. Page,*as special guardian.

John J. Dillon, S.

This is an independent proceeding to obtain a determination as to the rights of a child who was born subsequent to the execution of testator’s will. The testator died a resident of Westchester County on June 10, 1958 and his will dated November 10, 1949 was duly admitted to probate pursuant to a decree of this court dated June 27, 1958. The testator was survived by his spouse and two infant children, one who was born prior to the execution of the will and the other who was born on January 3,1951. Under the terms of the will, the testator devised and bequeathed his entire estate to his wife. Subsequent to the birth of the after-born child, the testator purchased four life insurance policies totalling $70,000 in value. Under the terms of such policies the wife was named as primary beneficiary and the two children were named as contingent beneficiaries in the event that the wife predeceased the testator. Section 26 of the Decedent Estate Law states that a child born after the execution of a will in which he is *922neither mentioned nor provided for and where he is “ unprovided for hy any settlement ” is entitled to an intestate share in his parent’s estate. The purpose of section 26 is to protect the interests of an after-born child against inadvertence and to make just provision for him where there has been a probable oversight. *(McLean*v. *McLean,*207 N. Y. 365; *Matter of Anderson,*205 Misc. 151.) It has frequently been held that it is not the function of the court to determine the adequacy of any settlement *(Matter of Faber,*280 App. Div. 394, affd. 305 N. Y. 200) and a provision in favor of an after-born child which is conditioned upon him surviving the testator’s wife, as in the instant case, constitutes ■ a settlement within the meaning of section 26 of the Decedent Estate Law. *(Matter of Schwabacher,*202 Misc. 15.)

Accordingly, the court determines that the testator’s after-born child, Theresa Kaplan, is not entitled to share in the testator’s estate.

Settle decree.
Exhibit 10.60

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO BERLITZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT
PLAN

This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the Berlitz International, Inc.
(the "Company") Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the "Plan") is adopted
effective as of December 7, 1999, the date on which the Amendment was approved
by the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors of the Company. Terms used
in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as set forth in the original Plan.

The Amendment is as follows:

1.      Effective on their retirements which is anticipated to occur in 1999 or
        2000, the Applicable Percentages with respect to the Participants named
        in Schedule 1 to this Amendment shall be forty percent (40%).

2.      Section 3.2.2. of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the period at
        the end of each sentence and adding the following: ", except as
        otherwise specifically provided in an Amendment to the Plan."

3.      Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, the Plan shall remain in full
        force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 1 to the BERLITZ
INTERNATIONAL, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN to be executed by its
duly authorized officers and its corporate seal to be hereunto affiixed on this
7th day of December, 1999.

BERLITZ INTERNATIONAL, INC.

BY: /s/ HIROMASA YOKOI
    ------------------
        Hiromasa Yokoi
        Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

BY: /s/ DAVID A HORN
    ----------------
        David Horn
        Vice President, Human Resources

SCHEDULE 1

Individuals designated to receive increased Applicable Percentage of 40% upon
retirement:

Hiromasa Yokoi, Vice Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

Henry D. James, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Robert C. Hendon, Jr., Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

David Horn, Vice President, Worldwide Human Resources and Training
# Natural and Cultural Assets - Appalachian Regional Commission

- New Research Identifies Opportunities and Challenges in Appalachia’s Tourism Economy Recommendations and Twelve Community Case Studies Available for Use in Local Tourism Planning&#160; WASHINGTON, D.C., February 10, 2021 – Today, Appalachian Regional Commission released Extending Our Welcome: Trends and Strategies for Tourism in Appalachia, a new report produced in partnership with University of Tennessee Knoxville and Collective Impact. Using qualitative and quantitative research, including publicly available data, surveys administered as part of [&#8230;]The post New Research Identifies Opportunities and Challenges in Appalachia&#8217;s Tourism Economy appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
#### Eng Hong, Appellant, *v.*Len Service Corp., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 11, 1959.

*Milton 8. Eisenstat*and *Alan Leonard Levy*for appellant.

*Raymond J. MacDonnell*and *Hewitt L. Rubel*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The court below properly granted the motion to set aside the verdict as excessive but in our view $250, the amount fixed by the court to be accepted by plaintiff, is inadequate.

Undoubtedly there was exaggeration of injuries and expenses for medical aid but the record reveals that plaintiff did suffer damages as a result of injuries received in an accident for which he was in no manner responsible.

*960We conclude, therefore, that a new trial should be held, limited to an assessment of damages, and so direct.

The order should be modified by directing a new trial for the sole purpose of assessing plaintiff’s damages, and as modified affirmed, with 10 costs and disbursements.

Concur — Hoestadter, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Order modified, etc.
# C_2021182EN.01002201.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/22

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 February 2021 — Pilatus Bank plc v European Central Bank

(Case C-701/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Appeal manifestly unfounded - Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Suspension measures taken by the national supervisory authority - Appointment of a contact person - Conditional communication with the European Central Bank (ECB) - Withdrawal of licence prior to the commencement of proceedings - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility - Absence of a sufficiently clear and precise summary of the pleas in law relied on before the General Court - Failure to demonstrate a legal interest in bringing proceedings - Incorrect classification as a preparatory act - Substitution of grounds)

(2021/C 182/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Pilatus Bank plc (represented initially by O.H. Behrends and M. Kirchner, Rechtsanwälte, and subsequently by O.H. Behrends)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Yoo, M. Anastasiou and A. Karpf, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Pilatus Bank plc is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Pilatus Bank plc is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

---
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

February 2, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-21-00059-CR

IN RE LEONARD TYRONE TEAL, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1091458

MEMORANDUM OPINION

January 26, 2021, relator Leonard Tyrone Teal filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Marilyn 

Burgess, Harris County District Clerk, to bring relator’s motion for DNA testing to 

the attention of the trial court. 
2

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the 

Texas Government Code. A court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus against 

(1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court 

in the court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district court who is acting as a 

magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure in the court of appeals district; or (3) an associate judge of a district or 

county court appointed by a judge under Chapter 201 of the Texas Family Code in 

the court of appeals district for the judge who appointed the associate judge. Tex. 

Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b). The courts of appeals also may issue all writs 

necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Id. § 22.221(a). 

The Harris County District Clerk is not among the parties specified section 

22.221(b). See id. § 22.221(b). Moreover, relator has not shown that the issuance 

of a writ compelling the requested relief is necessary to enforce our appellate 

jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of 

mandamus against the Harris County District Clerk

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. Relator’s motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Hassan, and Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
----

----

| 1.   | Fonix/AcuVoice,      Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned byFonix |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Fonix/Papyrus      Corporation, a Utah corporation, wholly owned by  Fonix |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Fonix      UK Ltd., a limited company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom,      wholly owned by Fonix |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | Fonix      Sales, Korea Group, Ltd., a Korean entity wholly owned by      Fonix |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | LTEL      Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by      Fonix |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 6.   | Fonix      GS Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by      Fonix |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 7.   | Fonix      Speech Inc., a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by  Fonix |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
# C_2020019EN.01004101.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/41

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — GE v Société Air France

(Case C-370/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/48)

Language of the case: Germany

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---
Draft Case Definition for West Nile Fever

West Nile Fever

Case Definition

(Notifiable)

1. Clinical Signs

1.1 Clinical Signs: West Nile Fever (WNF) is a zoonotic mosquito-borne viral disease caused by 

the West Nile virus (WNV), a Flavivirus of the family Flaviviridae. Many vertebrate species 

are susceptible to natural WNV infection; however, fatal neurological outbreaks have only 

been documented in equids, humans, geese, wild birds (particularly corvids), squirrels, 

farmed alligators, and dogs. Birds serve as the natural host reservoir of WNV. The 

incubation period is estimated to be three to 15 days in horses

Ten to 39 percent of unvaccinated horses infected with WNV will develop clinical signs. 

Most clinically affected horses exhibit neurological signs such as ataxia (including stumbling, 

staggering, wobbly gait, or incoordination) or at least two of the following: circling, hind 

limb weakness, recumbency or inability to stand (or both), multiple limb paralysis, muscle 

fasciculation, proprioceptive deficits, altered mental status, blindness, lip droop/paralysis, 

teeth grinding. Behavioral changes including somnolence, listlessness, apprehension, or 

periods of hyperexcitability may occur. Other common clinical signs include colic, lameness, 

anorexia, and fever.

2. Laboratory criteria: 

2.1 Agent isolation and identification: The virus can be identified by polymerase chain reaction 

(PCR) and virus isolation (VI). Preferred tissues from equids are brain or spinal cord. 

2.2 Serology: Antibody titers can be identified in paired serum samples by IgM and IgG capture 

enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), 

and virus neutralization (VN). Only a single serum sample is required for IgM capture ELISA, 

and this is the preferred serologic test in live animals. For paired serum samples, the first 

serum should be drawn as soon as possible after onset of clinical signs and the second 

drawn at least 14 days post-onset.

3. Case definition and Reporting Criteria

3.1 Presumptive positive case: An animal with clinical signs, history, or epidemiology consistent 

with WNF that has neutralizing serum antibodies as detected by PRNT without history of 

prior WNV vaccination

3.2 Confirmed positive case: A presumptive positive case with isolation of WNV from, or 

demonstration of specific viral antigen in, tissue, blood cerebrospinal fluid, or other body 

fluid; OR detection of IgM antibody against WNV by IgM-capture ELISA in serum (dilution 

dependent upon specific test used); OR an associated fourfold or greater change in IgGcapture ELISA or plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) antibody titer to WNV in 

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service

Veterinary Services

October 2018
Draft Case Definition for West Nile Fever

appropriately timed, paired serum specimens from an equid that is unvaccinated against 

WNV
##### 



Exhibit 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF
POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
 Jurisdiction ofIncorporation orName of Entity
    
    Formation101070338 Saskatchewan Ltd.
    
    Saskatchewan175360 Canada Inc.
    
    Canada609430 Saskatchewan Ltd.
    
    Saskatchewan628550 Saskatchewan Ltd.
    
    SaskatchewanAA Sulfuric Corporation
    
    LouisianaAugusta Service Company, Inc.
    
    DelawareCanpotex
Bulk Terminals Limited
    
    CanadaChilkap Resources Ltd.
    
    YukonEl Boldo Limitada
    
    ChileEl Roble Limitada
    
    ChileInversiones PCS Chile Limitada
    
    ChileInversiones RAC Chile Limitada
    
    ChileMinera Saskatchewan Limitada
    
    ChilePCS Administration (USA), Inc.
    
    DelawarePCS (Barbados) Holdings SRL
    
    BarbadosPCS (Barbados) Investment Company Ltd.
    
    BarbadosPCS (Barbados) Shipping Ltd.
    
    BarbadosPCS Cassidy Lake Company
    
    OntarioPCS Cassidy Lake Limited
    
    CanadaPCS Chesapeake LLC
    
    DelawarePCS Chile I LLC
    
    DelawarePCS Chile II LLC
    
    DelawarePCS Fosfatos do Brasil Ltda.
    
    BrazilPCS Hungary Holding Limited
    
    HungaryPCS Industrial Products Inc.
    
    DelawarePCS Joint Venture, Ltd.
    
    FloridaPCS Jordan LLC
    
    DelawarePCS L.P. Inc.
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen Ammonia Terminal Corporation I
    
    TexasPCS Nitrogen Ammonia Terminal Corporation II
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen Delaware LLC
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P.
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited
    
    TrinidadPCS Nitrogen Fertilizer Operations, Inc.
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen, Inc.
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen LCD Corporation
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen Limited
    
    TrinidadPCS Nitrogen Ohio, L.P.
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen Payroll Corporation
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen Trinidad Corporation
    
    DelawarePCS Nitrogen Trinidad Limited
    
    TrinidadPCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
    
    DelawarePCS Purified Phosphates
    
    VirginiaPCS Sales (Canada) Inc.
    
    SaskatchewanPCS Sales (Indiana), Inc.
    
    IndianaPCS Sales (Iowa), Inc.
    
    IowaPCS Sales (USA), Inc.
    
    DelawarePCS USA LLC
    
    Delaware




---



##### 



Jurisdiction ofIncorporation orName of Entity
    
    FormationPhosphate Holding Company, Inc.
    
    DelawarePotash Corporation of Saskatchewan (Florida) Inc.
    
    FloridaPotash Corporation of Saskatchewan Transport Limited
    
    SaskatchewanPotashCorp Finance (Barbados) Limited
    
    BarbadosPotash Holding Company, Inc.
    
    DelawareRAC Investments Ltd.
    
    CaymanTexasgulf Aircraft Inc.
    
    DelawareTG Corporation
    
    DelawareWhite Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
    
    Delaware
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/02 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
cnxr-ex101_7.htm





 

 

 

 
 
 

 

Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

SEPARATION PAY AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment No. 2 to Separation Pay Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of December 14, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), is by and between Connecture, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and James P. Purko

(the “Executive”).

 

WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company are parties to a Separation Pay Agreement dated and effective as of July 23, 2012 and Amendment No. 1 to the Separation Agreement dated April 29, 2015 (the “Separation Agreement”) pursuant to which Executive is entitled to nine (9) months’ severance in the event of his termination without cause (as defined in the Separation Agreement); and

 

WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company now wish to amend the Separation Agreement to extend the period of severance that Executive is entitled to in the event of his termination without cause to a period of twelve (12) months from the date of termination and to provide that Executive will receive an additional cash payment on Executive’s last day of employment.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows, effective as of the Effective Date:

 


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 3(B)(i) of the Separation Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:




 

“make payments to You in twelve (12) equal installments for a period of twelve (12) months (the “Separation Pay Period”) on the last day of each month (each such payment to be a “Separation Payment”). Each Separation Payment shall be for an amount equal to one twelfth (1/12) of Your then-current annual base salary. If the last day of the month falls on a weekend or a legal holiday, the respective Separation Payment will be paid on the business day immediately preceding such day. Except as provided in the previous sentence, under no circumstances will any Separation Payment to be made under this sub-paragraph be accelerated or deferred;”

 


	
 
	
2.
	
Section 3(B)(ii) of the Separation Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 




 

“reimburse Your and Your eligible dependents’ actual Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) premium under the Company’s major medical group health plan on a monthly basis for a period of twelve (12) months; and”

 


	
 
	
3.
	
Section 3(B)(iii) of the Separation Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:




 

“pay You a lump sum payment for Your accrued, unused vacation as of the date of termination (if applicable), well as a one-time payment of $12,500.”

 

 

 

 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

 

 

 





 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the Effective Date.

 

 


	
 
	
 
	
CONNECTURE, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
/s/ Jeffery A. Surges

	
 
	
 
	
Jeffery A. Surges

Chief Executive Officer and President

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
EXECUTIVE

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
/s/ James P. Purko

	
 
	
 
	
James P. Purko




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature Page to Amendment to Separation Pay Agreement