alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w11







Exhibit 10.11




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of June 5, 2008 (this “Amendment”) is entered
into by and between The Greenbrier Companies, Inc. (“Company”) and William A. Furman (“Employee”)
and amends that certain Employment Agreement between such parties dated as of September 1, 2004, as
previously amended of May 11, 2006 and November 1, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”). The purpose
of this Amendment is to ensure that the requirements of Internal Revenue Code §409A are satisfied,
to the extent the Agreement is subject to such Code requirements, and to conform the change of
control provisions to those used in the Company’s plans and agreements generally. To accomplish
these purposes, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:



     1. Definition of Change in Control. The definition of “Change in Control” in Section
5.7(c)(iv)(A) of the Agreement is amended by replacing “50 percent” with “30 percent” in that
paragraph.



     2. Change of Control Period. The definition of “Change of Control Period” in Section
5.7(c)(iii) of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:




“Change of Control Period” shall mean the period commencing on the effective date of a
Change of Control and ending on the second anniversary of such date.”



     3. Six-Month Payment Delay. A new Section 5.7(e) is added to the Agreement, to read
as follows:



     “(e). Six-Month Payment Delay.




Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, in the event that
Employee is determined to be a “specified employee” within the meaning of Treas. Reg.
§1.409A-1(i), then no severance payments shall be made to the Employee pursuant to Section
5 of this Agreement before the date that is six months after the date of the Employee’s
separation from service, as that term is defined in Treas. Reg. §1.409A-1(h).”



Amendment to Employment Agreement

Page 1




 









 






     Except as hereby amended, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Mark J. Rittenbaum
 	 
	 	 	Mark Rittenbaum, Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 
	 	 	                 /s/   William A. Furman
 	 
	 	 	William A. Furman 	 
	 	 	 
	 



Amendment to Employment Agreement

Page 2
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

RONALD STEPHEN SATTERFIELD, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9805-CV-00162

FILED

October 13, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

SR., )

 )

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

 )

 )

v. ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE

 ) KNOX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

 )

 )

 )

 )

GARY LONG and )

RICHARD M. SMITH, )

 ) HONORABLE DALE C. WORKMAN,

Defendants-Appellants.) JUDGE

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the majority opinion authored by Judge

Goddard. I write separately to disassociate myself from the

following statement in the opinion: “It is

well-settled...that expert opinions must be based upon a

reasonable degree of certainty.” I adhere to the position

expressed by me in the case of Reel v. Crawley, C/A No.

03A01-9402-CV-00071, 1994 WL 399566 (Tenn.App. E.S., filed at

Page 1
Knoxville August 2, 1994) (Susano, concurring opinion). In

that case, I opined that an “expert’s testimony that the nexus

between an event and an injury is probable or, stated a

different way, more likely than not, is all that is or should

be required.” Having said this, I hasten to add that I agree

with the majority’s conclusion that Dr. Justice’s testimony

was speculative and that the trial court acted within its

discretion in refusing to allow it into evidence.

_____________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001013167
<NAME>                                Smith Barney Mid-West Futures Fund L.P. II

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                     38,087,034
<SECURITIES>                                               (2,931,177)
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 151,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           35,306,936
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             35,306,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       1,119,587
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 34,187,349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               35,306,936
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          (16,149,424)
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            2,018,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (18,168,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (18,168,357)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    (407.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0



</TABLE>
EX-10.3






Exhibit 10.3




FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




          FOURTH AMENDMENT dated as of November 12, 2008 (this “Amendment”) to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as
of February 13, 2003, as amended (the “Agreement”) by and between TRW Automotive Inc. (the
“Company”) and                                          (“Executive”).




          WHEREAS, in order to extend the term of the Agreement, Executive and Company desire to amend the
Agreement as set forth below.




          In consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows:




          1. Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the
meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.




          2. Amendment to Section 1.b. of the Agreement. Section 1.b. of the Agreement shall be
amended to read in its entirety as follows:





b. Subject to the provisions of Section 7 of this Agreement, Executive shall
be employed by the Company for a period commencing on the Effective Date and
ending on December 31, 2011 (the “Employment Term”) on the terms and subject
to the conditions set forth in this Agreement; provided, however,
that commencing with January 1, 2012 and on each January 1 thereafter (each
an “Extension Date”), the Employment Term shall be automatically extended for
an additional one-year period, unless the Company or Executive provides the
other party hereto 60 days prior written notice before the next Extension
Date that the Employment Term shall not be so extended.



          3. No Other Amendments; Effectiveness. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the
Agreement is ratified and confirmed in all respects. This Amendment shall be effective as of the
date hereof.




          4. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of laws principles thereof.




          5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be signed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
agreement.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year
first above written.



TRW Automotive Inc.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	 	 	 	 	[Executive]	 	 
	Title:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          31,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,138,041
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,056
<PP&E>                                       2,639,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                 665,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,217,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          848,527
<BONDS>                                         11,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       350,407
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,006,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,217,725
<SALES>                                      1,442,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,441,457
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,390,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (921,468)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (267,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (654,468)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (654,468)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

ALEXANDER KIM TORPPE,

Petitioner, V. OP 20-0269

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR FLATHEAD COUNTY, and Hon.HEIDI J. ULBRICHT,Presiding,

Respondent. 

# FILED MAY 1 5 2020
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Petitioner Alexander Kim Torppe, via counsel, seeks a writ of supervisory control directing the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, to reverse an order denying Torppe's motion to dismiss in its Cause No. DC-17-645(C). Torppe alleges he is being illegally detained and subjected to forced medication and that the District Court is without jurisdiction over him. Torppe alleges supervisory control is necessary in this case. Having reviewed the Petition and the challenged Order,this Court deems it appropriate to obtain a summary response. Therefore, in accordance with M.R.App.P. 14(7), IT IS ORDERED that the Eleventh Judicial District Court and the State ofMontana,or both, are granted until June 4,2020,to prepare, file, and serve a response(s)to the petition for writ ofsupervisoty control. The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice ofthis Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel of record in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, Cause No. DC-17-645(C),and the Honorable Heidi J. Ulbricht,presiding. Dated this 15,lay ofMay,2020. 

# S

s-3
- 1 A4 ,,UL Justice 05/15/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0269
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BREANN WATERHOUSE and ROBERT

WATERHOUSE,

Appellants,

v.

FNU GOFIT,

Appellee, §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00124

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law Number 7

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 2021DCV1503)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellants and their sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5, for performance of the

judgment and all costs in this Court, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified

below for ob servance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ

, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
**To :**  **Cc: Bcc:**  **Subject: Re: Response to PM Data Request - Slaughter et al** 

**From: "'Lianne' Elizabeth Sheppard" <sheppard@u.washington.edu>**  **To: Beth Hassett-Sipple/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA**  **Cc: tlarson@u.washington.edu**  **Date: 07/20/2009 02:21 PM**  **Subject: Re: Fw: TO: Authors of recent U.S. and Canadian epidemiological studies evaluating health** 

**effects associated with exposure to fine and thoracic coarse particles REQUEST FOR PM AIR QUALITY DATA** 

My apologies for not responding to this request ear lier. My understanding is that the estimates provided by Tim Larson for Spokane should apply to the Slaughter, Kim et a l paper as well. The estimates for Seattle provided for the Shildcro ut et al paper on the CAMP study should apply to the Slaught er et al paper. While these are distinct analyses, the data set for Seattle has the same origin. This feature should b e taken into account in any compilation of health study results.

Please contact me if more information is needed.

--Lianne-- sheppard@u.washington.edu Lianne Sheppard, Ph.D. Professor Box 357232 Department of Biostatistics (and Environmental and Occupational Health Sci ences) University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-7232 tel: (206)616-2722 fax: (206)543-3286

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Hassett-Sipple.Beth@epamail.ep a.gov wrote: > Drs. Sheppard and Larson, > > In May, EPA requested additional air quality data for a number of > epidemiological studies as part of our review of the PM NAAQS. The > purpose of this email is to again request PM2.5 a nd/or PM10-2.5 data for > the following studies: > > Slaughter, J. C., E. Kim, et al. (2005). "Associa tion between particulate > matter and emergency room visits, hospital admiss ions and mortality in > Spokane, Washington." J Expo Anal Environ Epidemi ol 15(2): 153-9. > (Contact: Dr. Lianne Sheppard) > > Slaughter, J. C., T. Lumley, et al. (2003). "Effe cts of ambient air > pollution on symptom severity and medication use in children with asthma." > Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 91(4): 346-53. (Contac t: Dr. Lianne Sheppard) > > We would appreciate receiving the information req uested below. Please> feel free to call me if you have any questions

. Thank you in advance for

> your assistance with our request. > > Regards, > > Beth > > Beth M. Hassett-Sipple > Environmental Health Scientist > Ambient Standards Group (C504-06) > Health and Environmental Impacts Division > Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards > U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > 109 TW Alexander Drive > RTP, NC 27711 > > (919) 541-4605 > Hassett-Sipple.Beth@epa.gov > (919) 541-0237 (FAX)
Exhibit 10.1



 





Exhibit 10.1



Psilos Group Investors, LLC



October 19, 2004




MEMORANDUM




To: Mr. Ted Field Chairman of the Board




From: Stephen M. Krupa




Re: Artist Direct, Inc.




Dear Mr. Field,



I, Stephen M. Krupa, hereby resign for the Board of Artist Direct, Inc. as of
October 18, 2004.



Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.




Sincerely,



Stephen M. Krupa

Psilos Group Managers, LLC
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ ASTRAZENECA AB, Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC., Defendant

- Appellant

______________________
2022

- 2167

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:18

- cv

- 00664

- RGA

, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

______________________
O R D E R
The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). Case: 22-2167 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2022A STRA Z ENECA AB V

. Z YDUS P HARMACEUTICALS (USA) I NC

. 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

November 29, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 29, 2022 Case: 22-2167 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 11/29/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> OPUR1
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      936,213
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     10,542
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         187,480
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       152,129
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   1,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,288,009
<COMMON>                                        67,945
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      126,901
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            181,473
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 376,319
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     43,223
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           356,637
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 130,400
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       39
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      1,646
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   170
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 379,575
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,288,009
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      648,774
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            23,878
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     547,899
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     571,777
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         76,997
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            (15,912)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  61,085
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        31,579
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,506
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,800
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   26,706
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        35,229
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       23,215
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          67,763
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### J. W. SESSIONS, Appellant, v. NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 2564.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Jan. 31, 1935.

Fairchild & Redditt and Jas. W. Peavy, all of Lufkin, and M. M. Feagin and Campbell, Murphy & Cochran, all of Livingston, for appellant.

Worsham, Rollins, Burford, Ryburn & Hincks, of Dallas, and T. S. Christopher and M. W. Burch, both of Austin, for appellees.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This is a companion case with C. B. Pair-child v. National Surety Company et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 79 S.W.(2d) 162, in which National Surety Company remained a defendant. On identical facts with the Fairchild Case, pleas of privilege were filed by' all the defendants, the National Surety Company with prayer that the cause of action as to it be transferred to Dallas County, and prayers by the other defendants as in the Fairchild Case. The same order must be made as to the state of Texas and Standifer Bros, as •made in the Fairchild Case, with the further order that the ease as to National Surety Company be transferred to Dallas county.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74290-74291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20737]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--ODVA, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 26, 2024, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), ODVA, Inc. (``ODVA'') has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, OPTEX FA Co., 
Ltd., Kyoto, JAPAN; IDEC Corporation, Osaka, JAPAN; Baumer Electric AG, 
Frauenfeld, SWITZERLAND; Pizzato Elettrica S.r.l., Marostica, Vicenza, 
ITALY; Tsubakimoto Chain Co., Kita-ku, Osaka, JAPAN; Voegtlin 
Instruments GmbH, Muttenz, Basel Land, SWITZERLAND; and ZUKEN ELMIC, 
Inc., Shinyokohama, Kanagawa, JAPAN, have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    Also, FUTEK Advanced Sensor Technology, Inc., Irvine, CA; Panasonic 
Software Development Center Dalian Co., Ltd., Dalian, Liaoningsheng, 
TAIWAN; INGENIA-CAT, SL, Barcelona, SPAIN; SAMWON ACT Co., Ltd., Busan, 
SOUTH KOREA; Thermo Gamma-Metrics LLC, San Diego, CA; Packet Power, 
L.L.C., Minneapolis, MN; Shanghai Flexem Technology Co., Ltd., 
Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; MIDAS TECHNOLOGY Co., Ltd., Osan-
si, Gyeonggi-do, SOUTH KOREA; Power Electronics International, Inc., 
East Dundee, IL; IPDisplays, Allen, TX; and READY Robotics Corporation, 
Columbus, OH, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on February 
15, 1996 (61 FR 6039).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 4, 
2024. A

[[Page 74291]]

notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) 
of the Act on June 21, 2024 (89 FR 52092).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-20737 Filed 9-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P