alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter of Agreement between NFS & GMFCT



 Exhibit 10.40 
 Mr. Mark Thresher 
 President and Chief Operating Officer 
 Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc. 
 One Nationwide Plaza 
 Columbus, OH 43215 
 RE: Money Market Funds Agreement 
 Dear Mr. Thresher: 
 For consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned, on behalf of Gartmore Mutual Funds Capital Trust
(“GMFCT”), does hereby confirm and agree that, beginning October 1, 2005, GMFCT shall be obligated to pay to Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. (“NFS”), respecting the classes of shares (each such class, a
“Class”, and such classes, collectively, the “Classes”) offered by the open-end investment companies (each such company, a “Fund”, and such companies, collectively, the “Funds”) as set forth below, an annual
amount to be determined in respect to each Class by multiplying .15% times the average daily net assets corresponding to such Class. Payments shall be made quarterly, in arrears, based on the average daily net assets of the respective Classes of the
Funds during the then most recently completed calendar quarter. The first such quarterly payment shall be due after and in respect of the calendar quarter ending December 31, 2005. 
 Name of Funds (and Classes) 
 Gartmore Money Market Fund

 Prime Shares 
 Service Shares

 Institutional Shares 
 Gartmore GVIT Money Market Fund 
 Money Market Fund Class I 
 Money Market Fund Class IV 
 Money Market Fund Class V 
 Gartmore GVIT Money Market Fund II 







 GMFCT’s obligation to make the aforementioned payments shall be in addition to GMFCT’s
obligations respecting the Funds to make similar payments to NFS pursuant to the Fund Agreements (dated as of October 1, 2002 and May 2, 2005, respectively) and payments hereunder shall remain an obligation of GMFCT only for so long as:
(i) the payments hereunder and their receipt shall be permissible under all applicable law; (ii) GMFCT shall continue to be an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company; and (iii) GMFCT shall continue to
provide services to a Fund under GMFCT’s Investment Advisory Agreement with such Fund in effect on October 1, 2005. 
 Although not
obligated under contract to do so, GMFCT represents that it has informed the Boards of Trustees for the Funds of the payment obligations set forth herein. 
 Please confirm NFS’ agreement to the above by signing and dating this letter in the space provided below. 
 Sincerely yours, 
  

	
	 /s/ Gerald J. Holland

	 Gerald J. Holland

	 Senior Vice President

	 Gartmore Mutual Funds Capital Trust


  

			
	 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

	
	 NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 Mark R. Thresher

	 	 	 Mark R. Thresher

		
	 Its:
	 	 President & COO

		
	 Dated:
	 	 12/21/05
Exhibit
10.1


 


March 2, 2006


 


 


Mr. Gregory E. Hyland


8315 Bar Harbor Lane


Charlotte, NC 28210


 


Dear Greg,


 


We are amending your offer letter dated September 9, 2005 as
follows:


 


In place of paragraph 2,


 


“You and your spouse do not need to relocate to Tampa, Florida.  Once the location of the new Mueller Water
Products, Inc. headquarters is established, you and your spouse will
relocate to the new location within 120 days of the corporate office becoming
operational.”


 


In place of the first sentence of the final bullet point in paragraph
4(g):


 


“The Company will reimburse you for all out of pocket costs of your
relocation to the area where the new Mueller Water Products, Inc.
headquarters is established (the “New Headquarters Area”), including moving of
household effects, temporary living expenses in Tampa and the New Headquarters
Area for up to 120 days after the new corporate office becomes operational,
reasonable house hunting expenses for you and your spouse, transportation of
your family to the New Headquarters Area, closing costs on the sale of your
home in North Carolina, and costs associated with the purchase of another home
in the New Headquarters Area, and if you choose, within 60 days of receiving an
offer from the Company based upon appraisals, use of the Company’s third party
relocation service to sell your home in North Carolina.”


 


In place of paragraph 7,


 


“The Company desires to have you, as chief executive of the Company,
make a meaningful investment in the Company. 
In this regard, as soon as practicable, but within the next 12 months
(until September 9, 2006) you shall invest at least $150,000 in Walter
Industries, Inc. or Mueller Water Products, Inc. common stock.  This investment should be made in
consultation with the Company’s General Counsel in order to avoid any concerns
regarding insider information concerning the Company and its businesses.”


 

















 


A new paragraph 15 is added as follows:


 


“15.  You agree that Walter
Industries, Inc. may assign this agreement to Mueller Water Products, Inc.
or its successor, effective upon the spin off of Mueller Water Products, Inc.
from Walter Industries.”


 


If you are in agreement, please sign and return one copy of this letter
and retain one for your records.


 


Very truly yours,


 


 


	
  /s/ Donald N. Boyce

  	
   

  
	
  Donald N. Boyce

  
	
  For the Board of Directors

  
	
   

  
	
  Agreed and Accepted:

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ Gregory E. Hyland

  	
   

  
	
  Gregory E. Hyland

  
	
  Chairman, President & Chief
  Executive Officer
#### James Wayne PICKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 26300.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 18, 1953.

Alex P. Pope, Tyler, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, six *months in*jail.

Accompanying the record is an affidavit in proper form, executed by appellant, requesting the dismissal of the appeal.

The request is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:

# AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

      ( print page 63249)    

# DATE AND TIME:

October 25, 2000 (Following Regular Commission Meeting).

# PLACE:

Room 2C 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Docket No. IN01-1-000, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, Columbia Energy Services Corporation.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

David P. Boergers, Secretary, Telephone (202) 208-0400.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27252  Filed 10-19-00; 12:38 pm]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### BRADSHAW v. STATE.

No. *25505.*

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 14, 1951.

H. J. Bernard, Houston, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is negligent homicide in the second degree; the punishment, ninety days in jail and a fine of $500.

 The State’s Attorney has confessed error herein, calling our attention to the fact that the complaint was sworn to seventeen days prior to the alleged date of *587the offense shown therein. An information based upon a void complaint is itself void. Art. 414, Subd. 6, C.C.P.; 23 Tex.Juris., p. 601.

Attention is further directed to the fact that the information charges the operation of a *Chevrolet delivery*truck while the proof does not support this allegation.

Because of the fatal defect in the complaint, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
#### STURDIVANT v. STATE.

No. 24833.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of the offense of assualt with intent to rape. The jury assessed his punishment at 15 years confinement, in the penitentiary.

All proceedings in this matter appear to have been regular. The record is brought forward without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
exv10w18



 





Exhibit 10.18




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

THE SANTARUS, INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED 2004 EQUITY INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SANTARUS, INC. AMENDED AND RESTATED 2004 EQUITY INCENTIVE AWARD
PLAN (this “Amendment”), dated as of February 9, 2006, is made and adopted by SANTARUS, INC., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan (as defined below).



RECITALS




     WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Santarus, Inc. Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive
Award Plan (the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth below;




     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14.1 of the Plan, the Plan may be amended by the Board of
Directors of the Company; and



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved this Amendment pursuant to
resolutions adopted effective February 9, 2006.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Company hereby amends the Plan as
follows:



     1. A new Section 11.7 is hereby added to the Plan as follows:



          “11.7 Acceleration of Awards Held by Certain Members of the Board. Notwithstanding
anything in this Plan or in any Award Agreement to the contrary, in the event of a Change of
Control, one hundred percent (100%) of the unvested Awards held by each member of the Board who is
not an Employee and who continues to serve on the Board immediately prior to such Change of Control
shall become fully exercisable and/or payable as applicable, and all forfeiture restrictions on
such Awards shall lapse, immediately prior to such Change of Control.”




     2. This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan. All
other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified
herein. The Plan, as amended by this Amendment, is hereby ratified and confirmed.



     I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of
Santarus, Inc. on February 9, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Debra P. Crawford
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Debra P. Crawford
	 

	 	Title:
	 	SVP, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                                          |  |                                            |  |                     |  
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------- | -
|                                                          |  | State or OtherJurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | PercentageOwnership |  
|Parent                                                    |  |                                            |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                           
|BCSB Bankcorp, Inc.                                       |  | United States                              |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                           
|Subsidiary (1)                                            |  |                                            |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                           
|Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B.                     |  | United States                              |  | 100                 | %
|                                                          |  |                                           
|BCSB Bankcorp Capital Trust I                             |  | Delaware                                   |  | 100                 | %
|                                                          |  |                                           
|BCSB Bankcorp Capital Trust II                            |  | Delaware                                   |  | 100                 | %
|                                                          |  |                                           
|Subsidiaries of Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B. (1) |  |                                            |  |                     |  
|                                                          |  |                                           
|Ebenezer Road, Inc.                                       |  | Maryland                                   |  | 100                 | %

---

|(1) | The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to Stockholders attached hereto as
Exhibit 13.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### WILLIS et ux. v. DEAN et al.

No. A-2620.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 22,1950.

Milton Greer Mell, Gilmer, for petitioners.

Florence & Florence, Gilmer, D. S. Meredith, Jr., Longview, for respondents.

GRIFFIN, Justice.

This cause is a suit brought by the petitioners against respondents in the nature of a trespass to> try title action and for the value of timber taken 'by respondents from the tract of land in question and which land petitioners claim to own. Generally speaking, the petitioners, C. B. Willis and wife, owned a tract of land lying immediately east of a tract of land owned by respondents, the heirs of John Warren, deceased. The map shown in the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, 228 S.W.2d 215, correctly shows the location of the lands owned by the respective parties and the boundary line in dispute. The opinion also correctly states the nature and result of the suit.

Trial was to a jury in the trial court and on findings of the jury that the line claimed by petitioners (the line farthest west) was the true boundary, judgment was for petitioners. On appeal the Court of Civil Appeals held that since the calls relied upon by petitioners were only general calls for course and distance, these calls were subordinate to those for a fixed point (the corner of the Metcalf tract) relied upon by respondents, and reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment for respondents for the farthest east line as the true boundary. Petitioners in this court contend that the location of the true boundary was a jury question and since there is evidence in the record to sustain the jury’s verdict (and consequently the trial court’s judgment), it was error for the Court of Civil Appeals to disregard the jury verdict and trial court’s judgment, and to hold the location of the boundary line was a matter of law and to give Judgment for respondents.

We have carefully read the statement of facts and fail to find therein any markings found on the ground by petitioners’ witness, McClelland, which show that any surveyor ran the line claimed by petitioners as the dividing line between the parties’ land until the 1940’s. On the other hand, the undisputed evidence shows that since 1898 the southwest corner of the Metcalf (Blundell) land has been recognized on the ground as the fence corner made by the intersection of the fence on the west and the south lines of the Metcalf (Blundell) lands. The deeds under which petitioners received their title called for this corner to be “thence north 838 varas *to a stake*at the southwest corner of a tract formerly owned by T. J. Metcalf (now owned by Blundell),” and being the fence corner as it then (1945) existed on the ground. This call had been in the deeds to the land since at least 1928, and as said above, the corner was in existence in 1898. Such being the *565facts there is no need to write further, as the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals correctly states the law applicable, and also correctly disposes of the cause.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The
Bombay Company, Inc. quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the nine months
ended October 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000096287
<NAME> THE BOMBAY COMPANY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                            5498
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     112178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                129777
<PP&E>                                          108457
<DEPRECIATION>                                   60211
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  191904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            36647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38150
<OTHER-SE>                                      109936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    191904
<SALES>                                         251304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                251304
<CGS>                                           183859
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   259326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (787)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7235)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2859)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4376)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4376)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
#### LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN SEWER DIST. v. B. F. GOODRICH CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 12, 1951.

See also 312 *Ky.*37, 223 S.W.2d 887.

*622Blakey Helm, Louisville, for appellant.

Ogden, Galphin & Abell, Louisville, for appellee.

STEWART, Justice.

After the decision of this case by this Court on a former appeal, on its return to the Jefferson circuit court, chancery branch, second division, and at the time the mandate was filed, appellant, Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, tendered an amended answer and counterclaim. The Chancellor refused to allow this pleading to be filed, and appellant appeals from this order of the lower court.

In the recent opinion of The B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, 307 Ky. 689, 211 S.W.2d 867, we held, so far as pertinent here, that appellee, The B. F. Goodrich Company, had been granted the right to use without charge as an outlet for the disposal of its sewage the sewer built by appellant across appellee’s property. Reference is made to the above reported case for a full statement of the facts involved in the instant litigation.

Appellant contends now that there is a limitation on the extent of the use by ap-pellee of the sewer in question free of charge, which is that the use of the sewer without charge is limited to the amount of sewage arising from appellee’s property in its condition and according to its use on June 12, 1929, the date the right to use of the sewer without charge was created by judgment and deed, but that this use by appellee of the sewer without charge does not extend to and include the increased volume of sewage resulting from any structures or other improvements built on ap-pellee’s property since June 12, 1929.

. We believe and we therefore hold that the issue to be determined on this appeal was decided by The B. F. Goodrich Company case referred to above. It follows that the Chancellor properly refused to permit the amended answer and counterclaim to be filed.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.4


Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Rua Paraiba, 1.122 - 20(0) andar
30.130-141 - Belo Horizonte - MG
Brasil
                                                                  Deloitte
Telefone: (31) 3269 - 7400                                        Touche
Facsimile: (31) 3269 - 7470                                       Tohmatsu
www.deloitte.com.br




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the use, in this Annual Report of Prime Prestadora de Servicos
S/C Ltda. on Form 20-F filed on June 30, 2003 (File No. 333-8128-03), which is
incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 filed on
August 24, 2001 (Registration No. 333-13852-03), of our report dated March 14,
2003.



Belo Horizonte, Brazil

    June 30, 2003

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu