alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1


                              THE NORTH FACE, INC.

                COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA EARNINGS PER SHARE (1)
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)



                                                            Twelve Months Ended
                                                                December 31,
                                                           1996            1995
                                                          ------         ------
Weighted average shares outstanding during the period:

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding....................... 4,739          3,238

Incremental shares from assumed 
exercise of stock options (2)..............................  439            553

Shares issued upon conversion of Series A 
Preferred Stock........................................... 4,008          3,643
                                                          ------         ------
Weighted average common and common
equivalent shares outstanding............................. 9,186          7,434
                                                          ======         ======
Income Before Extraordinary Loss......................... $5,664         $3,485

Extraordinary Loss.......................................  ($863)            $0
                                                          ------         ------

Net Income..............................................  $4,801         $3,485
                                                          ======         ======
Pro Forma Earnings per Share:
      Income Before Extraordinary Loss ....................$0.62          $0.47

      Extraordinary Loss, net of tax....................  ($0.10)         $0.00
                                                          ------         ------

      Net Income.......................................    $0.52          $0.47
                                                          ======         ======

(1)  Pro forma for all periods presented due to the assumed conversion, as of
     the beginning of the period, of all outstanding shares of Preferred Stock
     into Common Stock in conjunction with the Company's initial public offering
     in July 1996.

(2)  In accordance with the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
     common stock and common stock equivalents issued within one year prior to 
     the initial public offering effective July 8, 1996, have been considered 
     as outstanding for all periods using the treasury stock method (assuming a
     market price of $14.00 in prior years), even though they are anti-dilutive
     in loss periods.

                                       1
# C_2004118EN.01003201.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/32

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Third Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

in Case C-229/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monica Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (1)

1

(Preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 118/58)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-229/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Monica Herbstrith and Republic of Austria, on, first, the direct effect of ‘Community law concerning equal treatment of men and women at work and, more specifically, of Council Directive 76/207/EEC’ of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) or the circumstances in which a Member State may be liable to pay compensation for prejudice suffered by individuals as a result of infringements of Community law, and, second, ‘the rules on the burden of proof laid down in Article 4 of Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997’ on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 6) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of 7 April 2003 is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 47 of 21. 2. 2004.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 3.4**

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS**

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF BYLAWSOF UROGEN CORP.

        The Undersigned, being theChief Executive Officer of UroGen Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that Section 3.2 of the Bylaws of the Company was amended, effective July 10, 1998, by the Action by Unanimous Written Consent of the Boardof Directors to provide in its entirety as follows:

        “3.2  NUMBER OF DIRECTORS.  The number of directors of the corporationshall be not less than three (3) nor more than seven (7).  The exact number of directors shall be six (6) until changed, within the limits specified above, by a bylaw amending this Section 3.2, duly adopted by the board of directors or by thestockholders.  The indefinite number of directors may be changed, or a definite number may be fixed without provision for an indefinite number, by a duly adopted amendment to the certificate of incorporation or by an amendment to this bylawduly adopted by the vote or written consent of the holders of a majority of the stock issued and outstanding and entitled to vote or by resolution of a majority of the board of directors.

        No reduction of the authorized number of directors shall have the effect of removing any director before that director’s term of office expires.”

Date:  July 10, 1998

|   | /s/ Paul D. Quadros |
|--------|---------------------|
|   |                     |
|   | **Paul D. Quadros** |
# C_2004284EN.01001502.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 September 2004

in Case T-290/02: Associazione Consorzi Tessili (Ascontex) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(European Regional Development Fund - Community initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises - Organisation of ‘IBEX’ reverse exhibitions - Cancellation and demand for repayment of financial assistance - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Article 24 - Action for annulment)

(2004/C 284/31)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-290/02: Associazione Consorzi Tessili (Ascontex), represented by P. Mbaya Kapita and L. Denis, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents C. Giolito and L. Flynn, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 1702 of 12 July 2002 cancelling FEDER subsidy No 97.05.10.001 granted to the applicant by Decision SG(98)D/2251 of 18 March 1998 and ordering repayment of the sum advanced by the Commission in the context of a project relating to the organisation of an international exhibition in the textile and clothing sector on Capri (Euresprit project) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

1

---
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2075 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To adjust the eastern boundary of the Deschutes CanyonSteelhead Falls and Deschutes Canyon Wilderness Study 

Areas in the State of Oregon to facilitate fire prevention 

and response activities to protect private property, and 

for other purposes. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2075 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Crooked River Ranch 

3 Fire Protection Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) The Crooked River Ranch is an unincor7 porated community with a population of 5,000 resi8 dents. 

9 (2) The current lands located adjacent to 

10 Crooked River Ranch are managed by the Bureau of 

11 Land Management and are classified as a Wilder12 ness Study Area. 

13 (3) There is currently only one entrance/exit to 

14 the Crooked River Ranch. 

15 (4) Jefferson County and Crooked River Ranch 

16 have determined that the Wilderness Study Area 

17 lands are in the highest risk category for exposure 

18 to devastating wildfire due to overstocked juniper 

19 stands under the federally mandated and locally pro20 mulgated Jefferson County Community Wildfire 

21 Protection Plan (CWPP). 

22 (5) The current Wilderness Study Area classi23 fication prevents mechanical fire prevention activities 

24 within the overstocked juniper stands. 

25 (6) Advancing this proposed legislation will 

26 greatly enhance the life and safety of people and 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2075 RFS

1 property by reducing the extreme fire threat to these 

2 lands. 

3 SEC. 3. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, DESCHUTES CANYON4 STEELHEAD FALLS AND DESCHUTES CANYON 

5 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS, OREGON. 

6 (a) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED.—The Sec7 retary of the Interior shall adjust the eastern boundary 

8 of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness 

9 Study Area and the Deschutes Canyon Wilderness Study 

10 Area in the State of Oregon to exclude approximately 832 

11 acres, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Deschutes Canyon12 Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area’’ and dated April 

13 6, 2017, in order to facilitate fire prevention and response 

14 activities on the excluded public lands and adjacent private 

15 property. 

16 (b) EFFECT OF EXCLUSION.—Effective on the date 

17 of the enactment of this Act, the public lands to be ex18 cluded from the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wil19 derness Study Area and the Deschutes Canyon Wilderness 

20 Study Area pursuant to subsection (a) are no longer 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 2075 RFS

1 subject to section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 

2 Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)). 

Passed the House of Representatives July 11, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
----

Action brought on 23 September 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-389/04)

(2004/C 300/92)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 September 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by C.-D. Quassowski, acting as Agent, and G. Quardt, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of its action, the applicant submits that Article 88(2) EC does not permit the Commission to impose on the Member State in question measures for the reduction or removal of effects of State aid which distorts competition other than measures to recover that aid. Nor are the measures provided for in Article 2 of the contested decision valid as a modification of the aid, or as conditions or requirements which could be covered by Article 7(4) of Regulation 659/1999. As a result, the Commission has therefore exceeded its margin of discretion and infringed Article 10 EC, which imposes a duty of loyal cooperation between the Member States and the EC institutions, particularly since Germany has expressly stated that it is not in a position to guarantee compliance with the conditions.

The applicant further submits that the Commission has committed grave errors of assessment in its examination of the compatibility of the aid with the common market.

----
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Conservation Crop Rotation, Contour Farming, Integrated Pest Management, Nutrient Management, Residue and Tillage Management-Mulch Till, Residue and Tillage Management-No Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed, Residue and Tillage Management-Ridge Till, Residue Management-Seasonal.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsResearch Information Letters

# Contact Us About Research Information Letters

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, January 11, 2022
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                            [MANNATECH LETTERHEAD]



PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
-------------------------


March 15, 2001



Mannatech, Incorporated
600 South Royal Lane, Suite #200
Coppell, Texas 75019


Dear

The year 2000 was a particularly difficult one for the Mannatech business. While
2001 will also present challenges, I believe that we have many initiatives and
programs in place that can make it a successful one. However, this is only
possible with the diligent attention to business that executives like you bring
to the table. In order for us to achieve our budgetary targets, much creativity,
innovation and attention to detail is required.

I am pleased to inform you that the Board of Directors has approved your
participation in the 2001 Executive Bonus Plan. Only a select few have been
selected to participate in this program, so confidentiality is absolutely
                                         -- --------------- -- ----------
essential!!
-----------

The plan works like this. In order for any of us to participate in the plan, the
corporation must achieve a pre-tax income target (the profit target) of
$500,000. If we achieve this target, a sliding scale bonus program takes effect
that can award you up to a maximum of 50% of your base salary as a bonus.

     .    If we hit the $500K profit target, then you have earned a 10% bonus.
     .    If we earn $1 million as our profit target, then you will earn an
          additional 5% for a total of 15% of your base salary.
     .    For each additional $1 million of profit target achieved thereafter,
          you can earn an additional 5% of your base salary up to a maximum of
          50% of your base salary (a personalized schedule with additional
          detail is attached).

Again, this reward can only be achieved if we all pull together as a team to
achieve our goal, so let's pull together and go for it!!

Sincerely,

/s/ Robert M. Henry

Robert M. Henry
Chief Executive Officer

RMH/cds

Attachment
<PAGE>

                             PERSONALIZED SCHEDULE


This is a schedule based on your personal base salary of


Pre-Tax Income      % of Bonus          Amount Earned       Your
Level Achieved      Entitlement    =    At Each Level   =   Bonus
--------------      -----------         -------------       ------

$ 500,000              10%

1,000,000               5%

2,000,000               5%

3,000,000               5%

4,000,000               5%

5,000,000               5%

6,000,000               5%

7,000,000               5%

8,000,000               5%
                      -----
     MAXED OUT AT      50%


-  Please note: The percentage only kicks in after you hit the next "step
   target." No additional percentages awarded for partially exceeding target
   levels.

-  Payments will be made in March of the following year after year-end results
   are audited and certified.

-  You must be an employee at time of certification to receive the bonus!!!
# C_2004239EN.01001702.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/17

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 July 2004

in Case T-115/02: AVEX Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for a Community figurative mark comprising the letter ‘a’ - Earlier Community figurative mark comprising the letter ‘a’ - Likelihood of confusion)

(2004/C 239/35)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-115/02: AVEX Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by J. Hofmann, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and the intervener before the Court of First Instance being Ahlers AG, formerly Adolf Ahlers AG, established in Herford (Germany), represented by E.P. Krings, lawyer — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2002 (Case R 634/2002-1) relating to the opposition filed by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark comprising the letter ‘a’ against registration of a Community figurative mark comprising the letter ‘a’ — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

1

---
HomeSite HelpPrivacy Policy

# Privacy Impact Assessments

The E-Government Act of 2002 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) before developing or procuring information technology (IT) that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in identifiable form about members of the general public (not employees of the Federal Government). Similarly, Federal agencies must prepare a PIA before initiating a new electronic collection of information from 10 or more persons, consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act, when such collections will contain information in identifiable form. In addition, any PIA that involves the collection, maintenance, or dissemination of information in identifiable form about members of the general public will be made publicly available.

The NRC makes these PIAs available to the public via this Web page and in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 22, 2024
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 10.3

                              Executive Agreement


This agreement is entered into between William L. Beer ("Beer") and Maytag
Corporation ("Maytag") as of May 7, 2001.

WHEREAS, effective August 31, 2000, Mr. Beer resigned his employment with Maytag
as President, Maytag Appliances;

WHEREAS, upon such resignation, Mr. Beer received from Maytag $516,229 in
severance and long and short-term incentive compensation;

WHEREAS, Mr. Beer was entitled to $180,532 of that amount for his service in
2000 based on Maytag's long and short-term incentive compensation plans;
resulting in $335,697 in total severance and incentive benefits,

WHEREAS, effective February 1, 2001, Mr. Beer accepted re-employment with Maytag
as President, Maytag Appliances; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Beer desires to return $250,000 of the severance and incentive
benefits he received, given his return to employment with Maytag:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

     1.  Promptly after the execution of this Agreement, Mr. Beer will pay to
Maytag $250,000.  In determining the amount to be so paid, the parties recognize
that Mr. Beer would have been entitled to $180,532.00 in long and short term
incentive payments if he had not resigned in August 2000.  Therefore, Mr. Beer
will have returned about 75% of the enhanced severance and incentive payments
paid to him ($250,000/($516,229 - $180,532).

     2.  Mr. Beer will not have a break in service for purposes of vacation,
pension, service awards or other benefit plans of Maytag.

     3.  Medical and life insurance will be continued.


/s/ William L. Beer                                      Date: May 7, 2001
------------------------------------------------         -----------------
    William L. Beer, President Maytag Appliances



/s/ Jon O. Nicholas, Sr.                                 Date: May 7, 2001
-----------------------------------------------          -----------------
    Jon O. Nicholas, Sr. V.P. Human Resources
Exhibit15

 

 

Tothe PartnersDuke-Weeks Realty Limited Partnership

 

 

Gentlemen:

RE:  Registration Statements No. 333-37920

Withrespect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness ofthe use therein of our report dated July 25, 2001 related to our review ofinterim financial information.

Pursuantto Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not considereda part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or areport prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of sections 7and 11 of the Act.

 

 

KPMGLLPIndianapolis, IndianaAugust 14, 2001