alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF MANUGISTICS GROUP, INC.

     Listed below are the significant subsidiaries of the Company as of February
28, 1999 and their jurisdictions of organization. All of these subsidiaries are
wholly owned by the Company except TYECIN-INNOTECH which is 60% owned by the
Company.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        State or
                                        Jurisdiction
                                        of Incorporation     Name Under Which
Name                                    or Organization      Subsidiary Does Business
----                                    ---------------      ------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                  <C>
Manugistics, Inc.                       Delaware             Manugistics, Inc.

Manugistics California, Inc.            California           Manugistics California, Inc.

Manugistics France S.A.                 France               Manugistics France S.A.

Manugistics FSC, Inc.                   Barbados             Manugistics FSC, Inc.

Manugistics U.K. Ltd.                   United Kingdom       Manugistics U.K. Ltd.

Manugistics Canada Company              Nova Scotia          Manugistics Canada Company

Manugistics (Deutschland) GmbH          Germany              Manugistics (Deutschland)
                                                             GmbH

Manugistics European Holding            Netherlands          Manugistics European
Company B.V.                                                 Holding Company B.V.

Manugistics Services, Inc.              Delaware             Manugistics, Inc.

Manugistics Japan K.K.                  Japan                Manugistics Japan K.K.

Manugistics do Brasil Limitada          Brazil               Manugistics do Brasil
                                                             Limitada

Manugistics Singapore PTE LTD           Singapore            Manugistics Singapore PTE
                                                             LTD

Manugistics Australia Pty LTD           Australia            Manugistics Australia Pty
                                                             LTD

Synchronized Manufacturing LTD          United Kingdom       Synchronized Manufacturing
                                                             LTD

Manugistics Holdings Delaware, Inc.     Delaware             Manugistics Holdings
                                                             Delaware, Inc.

Synchronized Manufacturing Group,       United Kingdom       Synchronized Manufacturing
Ltd.                                                         Group, Ltd.
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<S>                                     <C>                  <C>
Synchronized Manufacturing SA           Belgium              Synchronized Manufacturing
                                                             SA

TYECIN-INNOTECH Corporation            Japan                TYECIN-INNOTECH Corporation
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     CONGRATULATING THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR NORTHERN VIRGINIA

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JAMES P. MORAN

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the Community 
Foundation for Northern Virginia on obtaining their National Standards 
for U.S. Community Foundations accreditation from the Community 
Foundations National Standards Board.
  The Community Foundations National Standards Board was established as 
a supporting organization of the Council on Foundations, a nonprofit 
membership association of grant making foundations and corporations, to 
administer the National Standards. This board is responsible for 
upholding the quality, value, and integrity of the National Standards 
for U.S. Community Foundations, the first and only accreditation 
program of its kind.
  In the United States, community foundations serve tens of thousands 
of donors, administer more than $40 billion in charitable funds, and 
address the core concerns of more than 700 communities and regions. 
With such a presence--nationally and within local communities--comes 
responsibility.
  Achieving confirmation and reconfirming compliance with National 
Standards is a rigorous process, guaranteeing that every community 
foundation that receives the designation has adhered to excellent 
philanthropic practice. This program requires community foundations to 
document their policies for governance, donor services, investments, 
grant making, community leadership, and administration.
  The Community Foundation for Northern Virginia has obtained its 
National Standards accreditation by demonstrating a commitment to 
operational quality, integrity, accountability, and adherence to the 
highest standards for grant making.
  On behalf of the residents of the 8th Congressional District of 
Virginia, I congratulate the Community Foundation for Northern Virginia 
on receiving its National Standards accreditation and commend the 
foundation's dedication to service to the 8th Congressional District 
and the communities of Northern Virginia.

                          ____________________
```
Letter Agreement, dated October 3, 2003



 Exhibit 10.53 
 

 
  
 THOMAS F. HELMS,
JR. 
 Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer 
  
 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
  
 October 1, 2003 
  
 Mr. Jack Africk 
 Evolution Partners LLC 
 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 211 
 Boca Raton, FL 33431 
  

Dear Jack: 
  
 We are pleased that you are willing to continue as a consultant to North Atlantic Trading Company, Inc. As I have often said, we greatly value your expertise and wisdom. 
  
 As discussed, the prior terms of your Consulting Agreement shall remain unchanged except that
the term shall be extended to December 31, 2004. Those terms will include your annual compensation of $100,000.00, Claudia M. Bayarri on the National Tobacco payroll at a salary of $26,800 plus applicable benefits, and a cellular phone for your use.

  
 If this letter accurately reflects our understanding, kindly so indicate by
signing one of the enclosed duplicate originals and returning it to my attention. 
  

							
	 Sincerely,
	 	 	 	 	 	 
				
	 /s/ Thomas F. Helms, Jr.
	 	 	 	 	 	 
				
	 /s/ Jack Africk
	 	 	 	 10/3/03    
	 	 
	 Jack Africk
	 	 	 	 Date
	 	 

  

 257 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10010 Ÿ (212) 253-8185 FAX (212) 253-8296
#### SHERMAN R. RING AND JACK B. BRODY, INDIVIDUALLY AND PARTNERS TRADING AS R. & B. TRUCK & PARTS CO., PROSECUTORS-APPELLANTS, v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF NORTH ARLINGTON, BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued September 20, 1948

Decided October 4, 1948.

*25*Mr. Abraham Alboum*argued the cause for the prosecutors-appellants.

*Mr. Milton Bruck*argued the cause for the defendant-respondent *(Messrs. Bruck & Bigel,*attorneys).

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed in ¿he former Supreme Court and reported in 136 *N. J. L.*494. In the course of that opinion, however, the following appears:

> “And if it be conceded *arguendo*that the provision for the fencing of vacant land devoted to such use (dealing in used cars) is invalid and unenforcible (we express no opinion as to this), the ordinance would not thereby be .invalidated, for it embodies a clause that an ineffective or unconstitutional provision shall be deemed severable and shall not affect the remainder of the enactment.”

The appellants on the oral argument waived the ground of appeal directed to the validity of the fencing provisions of the ordinance, and upon this subject we express no opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Oliphant, Burling and Ackerson—5.

*For reversal:*None.
# Clay - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission Executive Director Lori Hodge Sokol Email &#x6c;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x69;&#x2e;&#x73;&#x6f;&#x6b;&#x6f;&#x6c;&#x40;&#x65;&#x61;&#x72;&#112;&#100;&#99;&#46;&#111;&#114;&#103;The post East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
07/07/2014 09:59 8472947498 FAA GLRC 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of Hearings 

Washington, O.C. 

Regent Aerospace Corporation 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP*not yet assigned* 

EIR 2010·GL-11-0030 

Civil Penalty Action 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND 

PAGE 02/04 

There is currently pending a Motion for Summary Judgment in the matter captioned above filed 

by the Respondent. The time for the Agency to respond bas not yet run. However, the Agency 

Attorney assigned to th.is matter underwent a medical procedure late last week which included an 

injection into his left knee. The Agency Attorney has suffered a severe reaction to the injection 

and is currently unable to walk without assistance. It is believed that this reaction will subside 

over the next three or four days and he can return to work. 

Th.erefore, the Agency Attorney, Chris G Zurales, does hereby request that the time allowed to 

respond to the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment be eJ;:tended to Thursday, July 17, 

20l4. The Agency Attorney has discussed this request with counsel for the Respondent, and Mr. 

Clement has indicated they have no objection to granting this extension oftime. 
07/07/2014 09:59 8472947498 FAA GLRC 

Respectfully submitted this ih day of July 2014. 

Brian Khan for, 

Chris G. Zurales, Agency Attorney 

Senior Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 600 18 

Phone: · (847) 294-7713 

Fax: (847) 294-7498 

Email: chris.g.zuraies@faa.gov 

PAGE 03/04 

2 
07/07/2014 0g:5g FAA GLRC 

Certificate of Service 

2010-GL-11-0030 

PAGE 04/04 

3 

I hereby certify that the fore.!foing Motion To Extend Time to Respond, has been mailed by First 

Class Mail and Faxed this 7 day of July 2014, to: 

Original and One Copy: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilber Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

One Copy to each: 

The Honorable Richard C Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-31 0) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Telephone (Staff Assistant): 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Mr. John Scott Hoff 

Jeffrey F Clement 

Hoff Law Group 

135 S LaSalle St, Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: 

Fax: 

(312) 346-8111 

(312) 853-3924 

Dated this 7th day of July 2014. 

FAA Great Lakes Region
#### PLUNKETT v. PLUNKETT.

No. 35532.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 15, 1953.

Smith & Rogers, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

C. R. Nixon, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

ARNOLD, Justice.

Appellant filed suit for divorce, division of property, alimony, child custody and support money for the child. The defendant answered and cross petitioned asking for divorce.

Each alleged grounds for divorce against each other.

In the course of the trial the plaintiff withdrew her demand for divorce and-instead thereof asked for separate maintenance.

At the trial the testimony of the parties went into detail as to their marital life, property accumulated, the character of work done by each of them during cover-ture, etc. They each showed grounds of divorce against the other.

At the conclusion of the trial and in consideration of all the testimony introduced by -both parties the court found that each had been guilty of acts constituting grounds for divorce; that the situation between the parties and the good of society demanded that a divorce be granted and in conformity with this determination granted the defendant a divorce; that the plaintiff should have the household furniture free and clear; that she should likewise have the homestead subject to the unpaid portion of the mortgage thereon; that the defendant should pay her $350 which the trial judge determined necessary in order to make the division of the property equal; that no alimony should be allowed; that an attorney’s fee of $250 should be paid by the defendant to plaintiff’s attorney and that he should pay the costs of the action; and that he should also pay $75 a month for the support of the minor child; that the earning capacity of the .parties, she a teacher and he a partner in a laundry establishment, was about equal.

*222'All the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law are amply sustained by the testimony. The plaintiff urges that the judgment should be reversed and vacated because it is contrary to the great weight of the evidence, is grossly unjust and because the trial judge looked at the business building or property that the defendant had an interest in.

 Both of the parties are well educated persons and as indicated above the district judge heard the detailed testimony covering the entire marital relationship of the parties. We cannot say as a matter of law that the judgment or decree is clearly against the weight of the evidence. In a divorce action if the judgment entered is in all respects equitable it is not necessary that alimony be decreed and it is not reversible error' for a trial judge to exercise the discretion of looking at the property which has been described to him during tlie course of the trial. Like a jury who views the premises during the course of the trial a trial judge may taire into consideration such things as are visible and which have a relationship 'to the determination of the value thereof.

Affirmed.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1


December 6, 2016


____________
____________


Dear ___________:
It is my pleasure to inform you that you will be a participant in the 2017 Knoll, Inc. Incentive Compensation Program.
We are counting on you to help us build on the positive momentum we created in 2016 across each of our business segments.  We must strive to continue to gain share, improve our profitability, target under-penetrated markets, expand our reach into consumer and decorator channels and build a responsible and technologically efficient infrastructure across all our businesses to position Knoll for success in 2017 and beyond.
Your 2017 incentive payout will be based on your achievement of your individual goals and Knoll’s achievement of its 2017 operating profit plan as follows:
--If Knoll achieves at least seventy-five percent (75%) of its 2017 operating profit plan, you will qualify for a total target incentive payout of fifty percent (50%) of your base salary.
--If Knoll achieves its 2017 operating profit plan but does not achieve one hundred ten (110%) of plan, you will qualify for a total target incentive payout of one hundred percent (100%) of your base salary.
--If Knoll exceeds its 2017 operating profit plan by one hundred ten percent (110%), you will qualify for a total target incentive payout of one hundred twenty percent (120%) of your base salary. 
This award is subject to the approval of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors), which may exercise discretion in adjusting your award up or down based on factors the Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors) deems appropriate, including Knoll’s performance relative to the industry, other macroeconomic factors and your individual performance, but such award cannot exceed one hundred twenty percent (120%) of your base salary in any event.  You must be employed by Knoll on the date this award is distributed in order to receive this incentive.
I have great confidence in your ability to contribute to our success in 2017 and look forward to being able to present you with your award in early 2018.
Thank you for all that you do for Knoll.
Sincerely,
__________________
# C_2009044EN.01004901.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/49

---

Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Mologen v OHIM (dSLIM)

(Case T-504/08)

(2009/C 44/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mologen AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by C. Klages, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 September 2008 in Case R 1077/2007-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 September 2008 in Case R 1077/2007-4;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘dSLIM’ for goods and services in classes 1, 5, 10, 42 and 44 (Application No 5 355 136).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that the sign neither lacks distinctive character nor involves a descriptive indication.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
**Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2010 – Germany v Commission**

**(Case T-571/08)**

Action for annulment – State aid – Information injunction – Non-actionable measure – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures –
Not included – Commission decision in the context of the administrative investigation procedure in relation to an aid measure
directing the Member State to provide information – Preparatory measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 22-23, 31)*

2.                     *State aid – Administrative procedure – Possibility for the Commission to base its decision on the information available –
Condition (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 5(2), 10(3), and 13(1)) (see paras 26, 29, 39-40)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision of the Commission to initiate
a formal investigation procedure in relation to State aid accompanied by provisional classification as new aid (Arts 107(1)
TFEU, 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 33-34)*

4.                     *State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Possibility for the Commission to
base its decision on the information available – Limits (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 13(1)) (see
para. 43)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs. |
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – Gres La Sagra v OHIM – Ceramicalcora (VENATTO
MARBLE STONE)**

**(Case T-130/08)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark VENATTO MARBLE STONE – Earlier national figurative marks VENETO CERÁMICAS – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 51-53)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 1609/2006-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ceramicalcora, SA and Gres La Sagra, SL. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Gres La Sagra, SL |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark VENATTO MARBLE STONE for goods and services in Classes 19, 21, 39 and 40 – Application No 3109006 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Ceramicalcora, SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Spanish trade marks including the sign VENETO CÉRAMICAS Nos 2115543, 2056688, 2056689 and 2056699 for goods and services in Classes 27, 19, 21 and 39 respectively |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld in part. The Opposition Division held that there was a likelihood of confusion in the relevant territory for the goods and services at issue in Classes 19, 21 and 40, but that there was no such likelihood of confusion in relation to those services at issue in Class 39 |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Gres La Sagra, SL to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 119 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5719-H5720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 CORRECTING THE ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 4240

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House a concurrent resolution 
(S. Con. Res. 58) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
to make a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 4240.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 58

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 4240) 
     an Act to reauthorize the North Korean Human Rights Act of 
     2004, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives shall make the

[[Page H5720]]

     following correction: in section 7, insert ``is amended'' 
     before ``by striking''.

  The concurrent resolution was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```