alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012126EN.01001202.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/12

---

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Ellinika Nafpigeia v Commission

(Case T-391/08) (1)

1

(State aid - Shipbuilding - Aid granted by the Greek authorities to a shipyard - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Misuse of aid)

2012/C 126/24

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE (Skaramagka, Greece) (represented by: I. Drosos, K. Loukopoulos, A. Chiotellis, C. Panagoulea, P. Tzioumas, A. Balla, V. Voutsakis and X. Gkousta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and M. Konstantinidis, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Article 1(2), Article 2, 3, 5 and 6, Article 8(2) and Articles 9, 11 to 16, 18 and 19 of Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 concerning State aid C 16/2004 (formerly NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005) granted by Greece to Hellenic Shipyards SA (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 104).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ellinika Nafpigeia AE to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ellinika Nafpigeia AE to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

1

---
| Name of Subsidiary                                         | Country of Incorporation |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
| SQM      Industrial S.A.                                   | Chile                    |
| SQM      Nitratos S.A.                                     | Chile                    |
| SQM      Salar S.A.                                        | Chile                    |
| Minera      Nueva Victoria S.A.                            | Chile                    |
| Servicios      Integrales de Transito y Transferencia S.A. | Chile                    |
| Soquimich      Comercial S.A.                              | Chile                    |
| SQM      North America Corp.                               | USA                      |
| SQM      Europe N.V.                                       | Belgium                  |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Bolden, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred W. Eggert, J.), rendered on or about August 3, 1989, unanimously reversed for the reasons stated in *People v Timmons*(175 AD2d 10 [decided herewith]). No opinion. Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                            Names Under
                                                      State or Other Jurisdiction of        Which the Subsidiary
Subsidiary                                            Incorporation or Organization         Does Business
----------                                            ------------------------------        --------------------

<S>                                                   <C>                                   <C>
Bogen Corporation                                     Delaware                              Bogen Corporation
  (a) Bogen Communications, Inc.(1)                   Delaware                              Bogen Communications, Inc.
  (b) New England Audio Resource Corp.(2)             Delaware                              New England Audio Resource Corp./NEAR

Speech Design GmbH                                    Gremering, Germany                    Speech Design GmbH
  (c) Satelco AG(3)                                   Switzerland                           Satelco AG
  (d) Speech Design (Israel) Ltd.(4)                  Israel                                Speech Design (Israel)
  (e) Speech Design (UK) Ltd.(5)                      United Kingdom                        Speech Design (UK)
</TABLE>




(1) Bogen Communications, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bogen Corporation

(2) New England Audio Resource Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bogen
    Communications, Inc.

(3) Satelco AG is a 67% owned subsidiary of Speech Design GmbH

(4) Speech Design (Israel) Ltd. is a 100% owned subsidiary of Speech Design GmbH

(5) Speech Design (UK) Ltd. is a 100% owned subsidiary of Speech Design GmbH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           73,751
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   938,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                          453,704
<DEPRECIATION>                                  271,231
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,725,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                       1,000
<COMMON>                                          6,673
<OTHER-SE>                                   22,401,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,725,691
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             22,369,511
<CGS>                                        19,157,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3,792,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                631,167
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                196,105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,411,916)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,411,916)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,411,916)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.29)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Emanuel Kournianos, Respondent. H.M.G., Inc., Also Known as Harry’s Friendly Service Station, Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law §§ 1104 and 1104-a for judicial dissolution of a close corporation, the corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated October 4, 1989, which granted the petition without a hearing.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104 (a) (1) and (3), §§ 1104-a, and 1109, and a new determination in accordance herewith.

Pursuant to an agreement executed in 1976, the petitioner and Richard Olin each acquired one-third of the shares of the appellant corporation. The original owner retained a one-third interest in the corporation. The petitioner subsequently commenced this proceeding in 1989, seeking judicial dissolution of the corporation under Business Corporation Law § 1104 (a) (1) and (3), which permit the holders of one-half of the outstanding shares of a corporation to petition for its dissolution on the ground that the directors are divided with respect to the management of the corporation and that there is internal dissension among the shareholders. The petitioner alleged that he had purchased additional shares of the corporation from the original owner and now held one-half of the outstanding shares. The petitioner’s allegation was disputed by Olin, who claimed that the original owner, although retired, still retained a one-third interest in the corporation. In addition to the claim for dissolution based on his alleged status as a 50% owner of the corporation, the petitioner also sought dissolution under Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, which permits holders of more than 20% of the outstanding shares to petition for dissolution on the grounds, *inter alia,*of oppressive actions towards the complaining shareholders and waste of corporate assets by those in control of the corporation.

We find that the court abused its discretion in granting judicial dissolution without a hearing. The petitioner failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish that he owns one-half of the shares of the corporation and is therefore entitled to commence a proceeding under Business Corporation Law § 1104 *(see, Matter of Three Hours Plants & Flowers [Diacomanolis*— Palos], 135 AD2d 396). Furthermore, although the rec*130ord establishes that there is disagreement between Olin and the petitioner, a hearing pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1109 is required to resolve disputed issues of fact with respect to the merits of the petitioner’s application under Business Corporation Law §§ 1104 and 1104-a and the appropriate remedy *(see, Matter of MacDougall [Manhattan Ad Hoc Housewares],*150 AD2d 160; *Matter of Ricci v First Time Around,*112 AD2d 794; *Matter of Rosen [Hoftella Enters.],*102 AD2d 855). Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Attendee Report GoToWebinar

Webinar Name Webinar ID

Commercial/Industrial Pumps Working Group: 

Public Meeting and Webinar

379301784

Actual Start Date/Time Actual Duration (minutes) 

Dec 19, 2013 07:42 AM EST 441

Total Attended

12

Session Details

First Name Last Name Email Country Address City State Organization Zip Code

Brad Bergling US 9550 W Higgins Rosemont IL 60018

Jack Creamer US 8001 Knghtdale Blvd Knightdale NC Schneider Electric 27545

Amanda Gonzalez US 138 Noe St San Francisco CA Energy Solutions (on behalf of CA IOUs) 94114

Lin He US 1 cyclotron road berkeley CA 94720

Erica Johnson US 902 Battelle Blvd Richland WA 99354

Christopher Lau US 1200 19th ST NW Washington DC Navigant 20036

MArk Menzer US 11112 Chessington Pl Reston VA 20194

Laura Petrillo-Groh US 2111 Wilson Blvd, Ste 500 Arlingon VA AHRI 22201

constantin pitis CA 900-4555 kingsway burnaby BC BCHydro-PowerSmart V5H 4T8

Leslie Porter US 10 G St. NE #601 Washington, DC DC 20002

Prem Vuppuluri US 3180 George Washington 

Way Richland WA Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 99354

Markus Zeller CA 900-4555 Kingsway Burnaby BC BC Hydro V5H 4T8

General Information
#### Lucy Stamer, Appellant, *v.*Diana Hunt, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 4, 1959.

*Gustave I. Jahr*for appellant.

*Myles, Wormser & Koch (Howard F. Cerny*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The determination of the court below gives effect to defendant’s explanation of the writings evidencing the loans. These explanations are completely incredible and a decision giving them credit is against the weight of evidence.

The judgment should be modified by awarding plaintiff judgment in the sum of $492, plus interest in the sum of $127.92, or a total of $619.92, and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs to appellant.

Hofstadter, J. P. (dissenting).

I dissent and vote to affirm. It is incumbent on an appellate court to exercise its power of review to the utmost stretch to sustain a judgment, not to disturb it, and thus inflict what, the great master of procedural rule and regularity, Wigmore, has called ‘1 the monstrous penalty of a new trial.” Especially, it is not salutary for a court, with limited power of review of the facts, to unduly tend to overturn a judgment on factual grounds. So to exceed its rightful bounds is to do grave mischief — it inflicts injustice in order to do justice.

For, it is the function of the trial court to explore and find the facts. That an appellate Judge would have reached a differ*553ent result on the facts is no valid ground for discarding that reached below; that, in effect, is retrying the case on the record as a mere deposition. The process is not aided —nor justified —by condemning that as “ incredible ” which is not incredible in the eyes of another reasonable man. As Mr. Justice Stevens of our Appellate Division suggested in another setting, the true test is whether it can be justly concluded “ that by no rational process could the trier of the facts base a finding in favor of the [prevailing] party * * * upon the evidence presented.”

An appellate court may do no less than employ that candor in decision which is commended to counsel for argument. It may not disturb a finding as contrary to the weight of the evidence when what it is really doing is to strike down one of a number of results reached'by the trial court simply because it was not the one it might have chosen. Robert Jackson, great Judge as well as great advocate, warned against a temptation to decide a case according to the court’s predilection as to what it would have decided if it had been the trial judge.

Even as the advocate is adjured to “ deal gently with his case ”, lest he damage it by violence, so an appellate court must be mindful to deal discreetly with a trial court’s determination lest it violate the essential dignity of the judicial process itself — a consideration which supersedes a given result in any litigation.

Concur — Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.; Hopstadter, J. P., dissents in memorandum.

Judgment modified, etc.
# C_2015046EN.01004002.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission

Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others

Commission

(Case T-562/08) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements - Paraffin waxes market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and division of markets - Proof of the existence of the agreement - Duration of the infringement - 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Equal treatment - Presumption of innocence - Whether unlawful conduct attributable - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption in the case of a 100 % shareholding))

(2015/C 046/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, formerly Repsol Lubricantes YPF y Especialidades, SA (Madrid, Spain); Repsol Petróleo, SA (Madrid); and Repsol, SA, formerly Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid) (represented by: J. M. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate, J. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate and S. Rivero Mena, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Castilla Contreras and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) and application for a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, Repsol Petróleo, SA, and Repsol, SA, to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, Repsol Petróleo, SA, and Repsol, SA, to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
----

**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 Tari Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his knowledge:

|        |    |                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | 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. |

Date:  November 14, 2008

/s/ Theodore Tsagkaris

--------------------------------

Theodore Tsagkaris

President, C.E.O. and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

----
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4616 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide for 

a temporary moratorium on the employer mandate and to provide for 

a delay in the implementation of the excise tax on high cost employersponsored health coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2017 

Mr. NUNES (for himself and Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to provide for a temporary moratorium on the employer 

mandate and to provide for a delay in the implementation of the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored 

health coverage. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MORATORIUM ON EMPLOYER MANDATE. 

4 Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4616 IH

1 ‘‘(e) SUSPENSION.—This section shall not apply to 

2 any month beginning after December 31, 2014, and before 

3 January 1, 2019.’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF EXCISE TAX ON 

5 HIGH COST EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH 

6 COVERAGE. 

7 Section 9001(c) of the Patient Protection and Afford8 able Care Act is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 

9 2019’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2020’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2009180EN.01004901.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/49

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Guedes — Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — Espai Rural de Gallecs (Gallecs)

(Case T-151/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Gallecs - Earlier national and Community figurative marks GALLO, GALLO AZEITE NOVO, GALLO AZEITE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Lack of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2009/C 180/91

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs (Gallecs, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 (Case R 986/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA and Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4542 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4542

  To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a distracted 
        driving education grant program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 4, 2017

 Miss Rice of New York (for herself and Mr. Krishnamoorthi) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a distracted 
        driving education grant program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Distracted Driving Education Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. DISTRACTED DRIVING EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Establishment.--Not later than October 1, 2018, the Secretary 
of Transportation shall establish a distracted driving education grant 
program.
    (b) Grant Authority.--In carrying out the program established under 
subsection (a), the Secretary may make a grant, on a competitive basis, 
to a nonprofit organization.
    (c) Eligible Projects.--A grant made under subsection (b) shall be 
used to provide education to the public regarding the risks of 
distracted driving, including texting or otherwise using a personal 
wireless communications device while driving.
    (d) Applications.--To be eligible for a grant made under subsection 
(b), a nonprofit organization shall submit to the Secretary an 
application in such form, at such time, and containing such information 
as the Secretary determines appropriate.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to make grants under subsection (b) 
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 and 2020.
                                 <all>
```