alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

Annex A 
 AMENDED AND
RESTATED SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT (this “Restated
Amendment”) is made and entered into as of March 17, 2014, by and between BIOLASE, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and COMPUTERSHARE, TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as successor to U.S. Stock Transfer Corporation, a
California corporation (the “Rights Agent”), and amends and restates in its entirety the Second Amendment to Rights Agreement, dated as of February 4, 2014, by and between the Company and the Rights Agent. 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Rights Agent entered into a Rights Agreement dated as of December 31, 1998 (as amended, the
“Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, for the avoidance of doubt with respect to the effectiveness of the Second Amendment to the Rights
Agreement, dated as of February 4, 2014, in implementing the intended increase in the triggering level from 15% to 20%, the Company desires to further Amend and Restate the Second Amendment; 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company hereby agrees to amend the Agreement as
follows in accordance with the approval of the Board of the Directors as required by Section 27 thereof and directs the Rights Agent to execute the Restated Amendment: 

1. Section 1 is hereby amended by replacing “15% Ownership Date” with “20% Ownership Date”. All references in the
Agreement to “15% Ownership Date” shall be amended and replaced with “20% Ownership Date”. 
 2. Section 1 is
hereby further amended by replacing “15% Stockholder” with “20% Stockholder”. All references in the Agreement to “15% Stockholder” shall be amended and replaced with “20% Stockholder”. 

3. Section 1 is hereby further amended by replacing “15%” with “20%”. All references in the Agreement to
“15%” shall be amended and replaced with “20%”. 
 4. Exhibit A to the Agreement is amended by replacing “15%
Stockholder” with “20% Stockholder”. All references in Exhibit A to “15% Stockholder” shall be amended and replaced with “20% Stockholder”. 

5. This Restated Amendment is effective as of February 4, 2014, the date of the Second Amendment. 

Except as modified hereby, the Agreement is reaffirmed in all respects, and all references therein to “the Agreement” shall mean the
Agreement, as modified hereby. Tgus 
 [Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Restated Amendment to be duly executed as
of the date first written above. 
  

			
	BIOLASE, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Frederico Pignatelli

	Name:	 	Federico Pignatelli
	Title:	 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	
	COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Dennis Moccia

	Name:	 	Dennis Moccia
	Title:	 	Manager, Contract Administration
# C_2021382EN.01003501.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/35

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Les Éditions P. Amaury v EUIPO — Golden Balls (BALLON D’OR)

(Case T-478/21)

(2021/C 382/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Éditions P. Amaury (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and M. Laborde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BALLON D’OR — European Union trade mark No 4 226 148

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2021 in Case R 1073/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially set aside the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009.

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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         529,307
<SECURITIES>                                 4,903,825
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,930
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    216,243
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,796,760
<PP&E>                                         872,621
<DEPRECIATION>                               (322,095)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,461,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          226,843
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,696
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,193,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,461,588
<SALES>                                         64,940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,940
<CGS>                                           32,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               710,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,055,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,055,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,055,365)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2022318EN.01003201.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/32

---

Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-718/20, Wizz Air v Commission

(Case C-440/22 P)

(2022/C 318/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, S. Rating, abogado, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal; and

| — | annul the Decision C(2020) 1160 final of the Commission of 24 February 2020 concerning State Aid SA.56244 (2020/N) — Romania — Rescue aid to TAROM (1); and order the Commission to pay the costs; or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Decision C(2020) 1160 final of the Commission of 24 February 2020 concerning State Aid SA.56244 (2020/N) — Romania — Rescue aid to TAROM (1); and order the Commission to pay the costs; or

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.

First, the General Court erred in law by finding that the condition of existence of an important service which is hard to replicate within the meaning of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (2) (the ‘Guidelines’) is satisfied.

Second, the General Court misapplied the Guidelines regarding the evidence of the difficulty for a competitor to step in.

Third, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the free capacity on the market and the capacity of low fares airlines to operate on domestic routes.

Fourth, the General Court made an error in law by finding that capital increases cannot relate to a restructuring plan.

Fifth, the General Court distorted the clear sense of the evidence produced before it when assessing the duration of TAROM’s restructuring period.

Sixth, the General Court erred in law by concluding that there was no need for the Commission to verify if existing aid has become new aid.

Seventh, the General Court erred in law regarding the Commission’s failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 C 310, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2014 C 249, p. 1.

---
# C_2023329EN.01002301.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2023 — mBank v EUIPO — European Merchant Bank (EMBANK European Merchant Bank)

(Case T-261/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark EMBANK European Merchant Bank - Earlier EU figurative mark mBank - Earlier national word mark mBank - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Document submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal)

(2023/C 329/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: mBank S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska, M. Stępkowski and M. Oleksyn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: European Merchant Bank UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by G. Pranevičius, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and the alteration of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 February 2022 (Case R 1845/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders mBank S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders mBank S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         906,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,195,000
<PP&E>                                      79,183,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,530,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,409,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,819,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (6,031,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,409,000
<SALES>                                      9,394,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,670,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,394,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,501,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,338,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,338,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,338,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.30)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022380EN.01000502.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2022 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v GS, represented by the parents

(Case C-484/22)

(2022/C 380/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: GS, represented by the parents

Interested party: Die Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding, without exception, the lawfulness of a return decision adopted in respect of a minor third-country national, accompanied by a refusal of his or her application for international protection and setting him or her a time limit for voluntary departure of 30 days from the date on which the decision becomes final, where, for legal reasons, neither parent can be returned to a country referred to in Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC in the foreseeable future and the minor cannot therefore reasonably be expected to leave the Member State either, on account of his or her family life which is worthy of protection (Articles 7 and 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (2) Article 8 of the ECHR), or is it sufficient that, on the basis of a national statutory provision, the child’s best interests and family life within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/115/EC are to be taken into account, following the adoption of the return decision, by virtue of a suspension of the removal?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

(2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 JB Oxford  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Michael J. Chiodo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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.


/s/  Michael J. Chiodo
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
November 22, 2004
# C_2022109EN.01002601.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/26

---

Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)

(Case T-4/22)

(2022/C 109/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd (Seongsan-gu, Changwon-si, South Korea)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark PUMA — Application for registration No 11 376 209

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2021 in Case R 1677/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Doosan Machine Tools Co., Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Doosan Machine Tools Co., Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2021382EN.01003101.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/31

---

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — Baumberger v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

(Case T-466/21)

(2021/C 382/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dino Baumberger (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Lío in golden yellow and black colour — European Union trade mark No 14 194 872

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 1221/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025762 C); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025762 C);

| — | reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 14 194 872 registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 14 194 872 registered;

| — | decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube SL. |
| --- | --- |

—

decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube SL.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [FR ID 80999]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# DATES:

The agency must receive comments on or before June 7, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rolanda F. Smith, 202-418-2054.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: CHRISTOPHER W JOHNSON, WAMI(AM); Fac. ID No. 66212, FROM OPP, AL, TO JACKSON'S GAP, AL, File No. BP-20220318AAI; IHM LICENSES, LLC, KVDU(FM), Fac. ID No. 34528, FROM HOUMA, LA, TO GONZALES, LA, File No. 0000187347; KENNEDY BROADCASTING, LLC, NEW(FM), Fac. ID No. 762447, FROM NEW ALBANY, MS, TO BRUCE, MS, File No. 0000186755; QBS BROADCASTING, LLC, WBQO(FM), Fac. ID No. 191581, FROM ST. SIMONS ISLAND, GA, TO DARIEN, GA, File No. 0000185843; CALL COMMUNICATIONS GROUP,                           ( print page 20859)                        INC., WMFL(FM), Fac. ID No. 61088, FROM FLORIDA CITY, FL, TO PALMETTO BAY, FL, File No. 0000186693; and GOLDEN ISLES BROADCASTING, LLC, WSSI(FM), Fac. ID. No. 36929, FROM DARIEN, GA, TO ST. SIMONS ISLAND, GA, File No. 0000185840. The full text of these applications is available electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System,                     *https://licensing.fcc.gov/​prod/​cdbs/​pubacc/​prod/​app_​sear.htm*                     or Licensing and Management System (LMS),                     *https://apps2int.fcc.gov/​dataentry/​public/​tv/​publicAppSearch.html.*

Federal Communications Commission.

Nazifa Sawez,

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 2022-07508 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P