alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022314EN.01000201.xml

| 18.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10758 – EIM / BROOKFIELD / NIELSEN)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 314/02)

On 13 July 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10758. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10758. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,414
<SECURITIES>                                    56,285
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,384
<PP&E>                                          87,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,753
<BONDS>                                         15,039
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        88,603
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,294
<SALES>                                        175,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               184,107
<CGS>                                          141,559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  216,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (32,550)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        73
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (32,623)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (32,623)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.18)


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

__________________________________________________________________

No. DA 19-0372

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICKEY RODNEY PAYNE,

Defendant and Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

ORDER

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension

of time to and including July 15, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 15 2020

06/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0372
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              54
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      451
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,529
<PP&E>                                           3,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,880
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,883
<BONDS>                                          1,535
<COMMON>                                           679
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              194
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,813)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,101
<SALES>                                          5,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,009
<CGS>                                            3,944
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    72
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 140 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (964)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (306)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (666)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (39)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (705)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (13.16)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (13.16)<F2>
<FN>
<F1> Represents basic earnings per share as defined in FASB Statement No. 128
<F2> Represents diluted earnings per share as defined in FASB Statement No. 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022069EN.01000801.xml

| 10.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/8

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
  )

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 69/08)

Decision granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holders of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2022)524 | 3.2.2022 | bis(2-methoxyethyl)ether (diglyme) EC No 203-924-4; CAS No 111-96-6 | Acton Technologies Limited | REACH/22/2/0 | As a carrier solvent in the formulation and subsequent application of sodium naphthalide etchant for fluoropolymer surface modification whilst preserving article structural integrity (in-house processes) | 3 February 2034 | In accordance with Article 60(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, risk is adequately controlled
  There are no suitable alternatives. |
| REACH/22/2/1 | As a carrier solvent in the application of sodium naphthalide etchant for fluoropolymer surface modification whilst preserving article structural integrity (downstream user processes) |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holders of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2022)524

3.2.2022

bis(2-methoxyethyl)ether (diglyme) EC No 203-924-4; CAS No 111-96-6

Acton Technologies Limited

REACH/22/2/0

As a carrier solvent in the formulation and subsequent application of sodium naphthalide etchant for fluoropolymer surface modification whilst preserving article structural integrity (in-house processes)

3 February 2034

In accordance with Article 60(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, risk is adequately controlled

There are no suitable alternatives.

REACH/22/2/1

As a carrier solvent in the application of sodium naphthalide etchant for fluoropolymer surface modification whilst preserving article structural integrity (downstream user processes)

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LORENZO WILES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1953

November 15, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 8, 2020

a0505 

# Order

Clerk May 8, 2020

157939 & (70)

SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 157939

COA: 336479

Kent CC: 13

- 008187

- NF

WOLVERINE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

By order of December 4, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the March 27,

2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in W A

Foote Mem Hosp v Mich Assigned Claims Plan (Docket No. 156622). On order of the

Court, the case having been decided on October 25, 201 9, 504 Mich 985 (2019), the

application is again considered and, it appearing to this Court that the cases of Pearce v

Eaton Co Rd Comm (Docket No. 158069) and Brugger v Midland Co Bd of Rd Comm’rs

(Docket No. 158304) are pending on appeal before this Cour t and that the decisions in

those cases may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we

ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those

cases. The motion to release hold on proceedings is DENIED

.
# C_2022123EN.01004501.xml

| 18.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/45

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10339 —KKR/Landal)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 123/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Sandy HoldCo B.V., (‘Roompot’, Netherlands), controlled by KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, US); |
| --- | --- |

—

Sandy HoldCo B.V., (‘Roompot’, Netherlands), controlled by KKR & Co. Inc. (‘KKR’, US);

| — | Vacation Rental B.V. (‘Landal’, Netherlands). |
| --- | --- |

—

Vacation Rental B.V. (‘Landal’, Netherlands).

Roompot acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Landal.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for KKR: a global investment firm that offers alternative asset management and capital markets and insurance solutions. Roompot, manages, operates and acts as a booking agent for holiday parks and campsites, |
| --- | --- |

—

for KKR: a global investment firm that offers alternative asset management and capital markets and insurance solutions. Roompot, manages, operates and acts as a booking agent for holiday parks and campsites,

| — | for Landal: owner, manager and franchisor of holiday parks under the Landal GreenParks brand. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Landal: owner, manager and franchisor of holiday parks under the Landal GreenParks brand.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10339 — KKR/Landal

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
#### GRAHAM v. STATE.

No. 19342.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1938.

S. O. Lovejoy, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for making serious threats to take human life, punishment being a fine of $100.

The prosecution was under article 1265 (1925), P.C. . A jury was waived and the trial had before the court.

No statement of facts is brought forward and no complaint appears as to any procedural matter.

The judgment is affirmed.
702 A.2d 223

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Richard S. LABOVITZ, Respondent.

Misc. Docket AG, No. 61,

Sept. Term, 1997.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 7, 1997.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the Petition for Ináctive Status by Consent submitted to this Court by Petitioner and Respondent, it is this 7th day of November, 1997

ORDERED by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the Joint Petition be, and it is hereby, granted and Richard S. Labovitz is to be placed on inactive status due to health reasons subject to further order of this Court, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Richard S. Labovitz from the register of attorneys in this Court until further order of this Court and shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State in accordance •with Rule 16-713.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 16, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60426

WEST IMPLEMENT COMPANY INC, A Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter DefendantAppellant,
v. DEERE & COMPANY; ET AL, Defendants, DEERE & COMPANY, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee,

- - - - - - - - DEERE & COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
v. REX MORGAN; ET AL, Defendants, WEST IMPLEMENT COMPANY INC, A Corporation, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

2:04-CV-136* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. 2 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant West Implement Company argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee Deere & Company with respect to its breach of fiduciary duty claim. Assuming arguendo that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties, because West has not raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Deere’s conduct violated any of their agreements, no breach was demonstrated. See Carter Equipment Company v. John Deere, 681 F.2d 386, 392 n.14 (5th Cir. 1982) (“activity in conformance with the terms of the contract cannot amount to misconduct that constitutes a breach of a fiduciary duty”) (citation omitted). The district court properly granted summary judgment as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. West next argues that the district court erred in allowing Deere to present its case in chief first. We find that West has failed to show that the court abused its broad discretion in controlling the order of proof. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988). Finally, West argues that the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Deere because although the jury could have awarded punitive damages, it declined to do so. Contrary to West’s3

argument otherwise, the Mississippi Supreme Court has made clear that so long as an award of punitive damages would be proper, “such
an actual awarding of punitive damages is not a prerequisite for the awarding of attorney fees.” Aqua-Culture Technologies, Ltd.

v. Holly, 677 So.2d 171, 185 (Miss. 1996). The district court’s award of attorney’s fees is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
Extension Letter dated October 27, 2004 from United National Bank



  EXHIBIT 10.20 
  October 27, 2004 
  
  
 Tony Sahbaz, President / C.E.O. 
 I/OMagic Corporation 
 4 Marconi 
 Irvine, CA 92618 
  
 Re: Business credit line 
  
  
 Dear Mr. Shabaz: 
  
 On behalf of United National Bank, I’m pleased to inform you that United National Bank
agrees to extend your company’s line of credit for one-month period until 12/01/2004 before completing the annual credit renewal of the said line of credit. Meanwhile, we’ll continue our credit review process of renewing your
company’s credit line with United National Bank within this one-month extension period. 
  
 If you have any question on the aforementioned matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (626) 281-5982. Again, we appreciate your patronage, and United National Bank is looking forward to continuing such
relation with your respectable company. 
  

			
	Sincerely yours,
	
	/s/    PAUL LIAW
	 Paul Liaw
 Vice President /
Manager
 International Department


  
  

	CC:	Andy Yen, President 

 Wilson Ngai, Executive Vice
President, Branch Administration 
 Donald Volkman, Senior Vice President, Credit Administration
COMMISSIONER 

DOUG GOEHRING 

September 13, 2012 

James B. Martin 

Administrator 

US EPA, Region 8 

NORTH DAKOTA 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

STATE CAPITOL 

600 E. BOULEVARD AVE. -DEPT. 602 

BISMARCK, ND 58505-0020 

., . .,.,. '·,L-~-•./\ -.L""'v--

ndda@nd.gov 

www.agdepactment.com 

1595 W.Joop Street 

Denver, C 80202-1129 

Dear Regi nal Administrator Martin, 

The North bakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) hereby request delegated authqrity from 

the Unitedt~ates Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce e-Risk Management 

Program ( P) requirements for agricultural anhydrous armnonia faci ities under Section 112(r) 

of the Cle Air Act (CAA). 

Section II (1) of the CAA establishes a framework for formal delegati n ofRMP enforcement 

authority t States when a State's program for implementing and enfor ing an accident 

prevention rogram is at least as stringent as the federal program. Ace rding to the February 

1998 doc ent, Risk Management Programs under Clean Air Act Sec 'on 112(r) Guidance for 

g Agencies, EPA can approve a State's request for delega on when: 

A. The authorities in the State program are adequate to ens e compliance by all 

sources within the State, 

B. The State demonstrates that it has adequate authority an adequate resources to 

implement the program, and 

C. The State's schedule for implementing the program iss fficiently expeditious. 

Enclosed ith this letter please find supporting information asserting y position that the NDDA 

has the nee ssary authority and resources to meet all three of the abov criteria. Supporting 

informatio includes: 

A. Summary of North Dakota's anhydrous armnonia regul tory authority and general 

components of a proposed RMP enforcement program 

B. Copy of North Dakota Century Code Chapter 19-20.2 

C. Copy ofNorth Dakota Century Code Chapter 19-20.3 

D. Letter from the North Dakota Attorney General asserti authority of the 

Agriculture Commissioner to enforce RMP provisions f the CAA 

E. Proposed memo of understanding (MOU) between EP and the NDDA 

F. Proposed RMP enforcement response policy 

G. Proposed administrative rule (N.D.A.C. 7-12-03) 

FAX 701-328-4567 Equal Opportunity in Employment and Services 

701-328-2231 

800-242-7535 
I 

Page 2 

Please notd that the Department intends to undertake rule-making to 4 CFR Part 68 by 

reference. lw e intend to begin rule-making immediately and_req.l!\<§t _ J. EPArevie.wthis 

delegation · oncurn:nt!y _With the rule-making process. A copy of the p posed administrative 

rule is encl sed with this package. 

I value the egulatory partnership that my office has already built with P A Region 8 to enforce 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The uccesses that we have 

seen with t e FIFRA program demonstrate that we can achieve high le els of compliance 

through co laboration and playing to each other's strengths. I am confi ent that we can achieve 

similar sue esses with the RMP provisions of the CAA. 

Please con 

concerns. 

17;/ /- ' ~L_,_ .... , 

Doug 

Agricultur, 

Goe 

Commissioner 

ing ~