alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.32

 

AQUAVENTURE HOLDING LIMITED

 

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY

 

The purpose of this Director Compensation Policy of AquaVenture Holdings Limited (the “Company”), is to provide a total compensation package that enables the Company to attract and retain, on a long-term basis, high-caliber directors who are not employees or officers of the Company or its subsidiaries.  In furtherance of the purpose stated above, all non-employee directors shall be paid compensation for services provided to the Company as set forth below:

 

Cash Retainers

 

Annual Retainer for Board Membership:  $35,000 for general availability and participation in meetings and conference calls of our Board of Directors, to be paid quarterly.

 

Additional Retainer for Board Chairperson: $35,000

 

Additional Retainers for Committee Membership:

 

	
Audit Committee   Chairperson:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
20,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Audit Committee   member:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
10,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Compensation   Committee Chairperson:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
14,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Compensation   Committee member:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
7,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Nominating and   Corporate Governance Committee Chairperson:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
10,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Nominating and   Corporate Governance Committee member:
    	
 
    	
$
    	
5,000
    	
 
    


 

Note: Chairperson retainers are in addition to member retainers.

 

Equity Retainers

 

Annual equity grants:  Each continuing non-employee member of the Board who has served as a director is eligible to receive a grant of restricted stock units having a fair market value of $125,000, which will vest in full on the one-year anniversary of the grant date, provided, however, that all vesting ceases if the director resigns from our Board of Directors or otherwise ceases to serve as a director, unless the Board of Directors determines that the circumstances warrant continuation of vesting.

 

Expenses

 

The Company will reimburse all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by non-employee directors in attending meetings of the Board or any Committee.

 











 

ADOPTED:  September 22, 2016, subject to effectiveness of the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1.

 

2
# C_2021009EN.01000502.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 August 2020 — SP v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Direktion für Deutschland

(Case C-367/20)

(2021/C 9/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SP

Defendant: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Direktion für Deutschland

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1), read together with Article 3(5) of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of connecting flights, where there are two flights which are the subject of a single reservation, departing from an airport located outside the territory of any Member State (in a third country) for an airport located within the territory of a Member State via an airport in another [Member State], a passenger who suffers a delay of three hours or more in reaching his or her final destination, the cause of that delay arising in the journey’s first segment operated, under a code-share agreement, by an air carrier established in a third country, may bring his or her action for compensation under that regulation against the Community air carrier through which the flight was reserved in its entirety and which operated only the second segment of the journey?

By order of 12 November 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) ruled as follows:

Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read together with Article 3(1)(b) and (5) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of connecting flights, where there are two flights which are the subject of a single reservation, departing from an airport located within the territory of a third country for an airport located in a Member State via the airport of another Member State, a passenger who suffers a delay of three hours or more in reaching his or her final destination, the cause of that delay arising in the first flight operated, under a code-share agreement, by a carrier established in a third country, may bring his or her action for compensation under that regulation against the Community air carrier that performed the second flight.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
Keldrick Dewayne ADAMS, Tyrone Rashawn Vail, and Antonio Lashon Scott v. STATE

CR-16-0176

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017 Reh. denied August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2019025EN.01000501.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța — Romania) — Sindicatul Familia Constanţa, Ustinia Cvas and Others v Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială și Protecția Copilului Constanța

(Case C-147/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 31 - Directive 2003/88/EC - Scope - Derogation - Article 1(3) - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 2(2) - Work performed by foster parents))

(2019/C 25/06)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Sindicatul Familia Constanţa, Ustinia Cvas, Silvica Jianu, Dumitra Bocu, Cader Aziz, Georgeta Crângaşu, Sema Cutlacai

Respondent: Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială și Protecția Copilului Constanța

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, must be interpreted as meaning that the work performed by a foster parent under an employment contract with a public authority, which consists in taking in a child, integrating that child into his or her household and ensuring, on a continuous basis, the harmonious upbringing and education of that child, does not come within the scope of Directive 2003/88.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---
Richard CREED v. DOLPHIN SERVICES, L.L.C., Masse Contracting, Inc., Suncoast Fabrication Services, Inc., ABC Insurance Company, EFG Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company

NO. 2018-C-1557

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.
# C_2016260EN.01004601.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/46

---

Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA)

(Case T-262/16)

(2016/C 260/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Globo Media, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Estropá Navarro y J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘GLOBO MEDIA’ — Application for registration No 8 957 169

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14/03/2016 in Case R 561/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | As a consequence of the above, reject opposition No B1697179 and grant registration of the contested mark as regards the services requested in classes 35, 38 and 41; |
| --- | --- |

—

As a consequence of the above, reject opposition No B1697179 and grant registration of the contested mark as regards the services requested in classes 35, 38 and 41;

| — | Order EUIPO and the other interveners to pay the costs of these proceedings if they oppose them and reject their claims. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EUIPO and the other interveners to pay the costs of these proceedings if they oppose them and reject their claims.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Benjamin Paul FERMOR, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Rachel Jennifer DANIELS, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2530

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 31, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Jackie DOVE, AS TRUSTEE OF the JACKIE DOVE LIVING TRUST, U/T/D AUGUST 21, 2015, Herbert C. Mantooth and Janet M. Mantooth, Petitioners, v. William T. LAND, Ramona Land and City Council for the City of Live Oak, Florida, Respondents.

No. 1D18-1809

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# C_2016200EN.01003201.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/32

---

Action brought on 13 April 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament

(Case T-166/16)

(2016/C 200/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d’Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action and, accordingly, annul the contested measures as unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action and, accordingly, annul the contested measures as unlawful;

| — | consequently, order the European Parliament to repay EUR 12 000, together with interest and adjustment for inflation, or the higher sum which will be paid in compliance with the contested order in the course of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the European Parliament to repay EUR 12 000, together with interest and adjustment for inflation, or the higher sum which will be paid in compliance with the contested order in the course of the present proceedings;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Memorandum No D 302 681 of 11 February 2016 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, which contains the statement of reasons for Debit Note No 2016-207 of the same date appended thereto and concerning the recovery of sums alleged to have been unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance allowances.

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-677/15, Panzeri v Parliament and Commission (OJ 2016 C 27, p. 74).

Panzeri

Parliament and Commission

---
EXHIBIT 99.13



CONSENT OF MHA PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, INC.



We hereby consent to the reference to us in this annual report on Form 40-F of Enterra Energy Trust and all other references to our name included or incorporated by reference in: (i) Enterra Energy Trusts annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 and (ii) the registration statement on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-113609 and 333-115318) and the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-120996), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended as applicable.



Dated:  March 31, 2008

Lakewood, Colorado

Signed John P. Seidle

MHA Petroleum Consultants, Inc.
----

----

|  (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 13, 2008 | /s/ Charles B.      Crowell        |   |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Charles      B. Crowell            |   |
|                       | Chief      Executive Officer       |   |
|                       | (Principal      Executive Officer) |   |

----

----
PAM BASSEL STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

Bar No.01344800

860 Airport Freeway, Ste 150

Hurst, TX 76054

Phone: (817) 916-4710

Fax: (817) 916-4770

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

IN RE: CASE NO.: 24-42307-MXM-13

6721 MORNINGCREST CT

ARLINGTON, TX 76002

SSN/TIN: XXX-XX-1565

JORIS LYNN DIXON SR

LACHEKA CHONTA WINFREY

6721 MORNINGCREST CT

ARLINGTON, TX 76002

SSN/TIN: XXX-XX-8946

DEBTORS

TRUSTEE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE

NOW COMES Pam Bassel, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee and files this Trustee 's Response to Motion to Reinstate 

Case filed by Debtors. Trustee would respectfully show the Court as follows:

Debtor must comply with the Plan, Code, Rules and General Order, and resolve the issues that required 

dismissal of the case prior to reinstatement.

1.

WHEREFORE, Trustee prays that the Motion to Reinstate Case be DENIED and for general relief.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ethan S. Cartwright

 Ethan S. Cartwright, Staff Attorney

 Bar No. 24068273

 PAM BASSEL STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

 Bar No. 01344800

 860 Airport Freeway, Ste 150

 Hurst, TX 76054

 (817) 916-4710 Phone

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on or before the date of filing. Service was 

accomplished electronically on Debtors' attorney and all parties entitled to electronic notice and by first class mail on the 

Debtors and the parties listed below, if any.

By: /s/ Ethan S. Cartwright

 Ethan S. Cartwright

JORIS LYNN DIXON SR & LACHEKA CHONTA 

WINFREY

6721 MORNINGCREST CT

ARLINGTON, TX 76002

Page 1 of 1

TRUSTEE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE

Case 24-42307-mxm13 Doc 21 Filed 07/24/24 Entered 07/24/24 13:10:53 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
# C_2019263EN.01000501.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — ReFood GmbH & Co. KG v Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

(Case C-634/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Shipments of waste within the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Article 1(3)(d) - Scope - Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 - Shipments of animal by-products)

(2019/C 263/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Oldenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ReFood GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, must be interpreted as meaning that shipments of animal by-products falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation), are excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1013/2006, unless Regulation No 1069/2009 expressly provides for the application of Regulation No 1013/2006.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---
Theodore PULLIAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3716

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 28, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ANTHONY SCOTT JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

VS.

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas

Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:04-CV-1359-G

)

) ECF

)

)

)

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court finds that

the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct,

and they are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the court.

SO ORDERED.

January 4, 2006.

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01359-G Document 12 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 73
Frances MACK v. Alan ARBER

2160682

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1041V

UNPUBLISHED 

RENEE BROCKMAN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: August 12, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Entitlement; Tetanus-DiphtheriaAcellular Pertussis (Tdap); Brachial 

Neuritis.

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

Petitioner.

Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULIING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On July 18, 2019, Renee Brockman filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular 

pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on December 11, 2017, she suffered brachial 

neuritis within the timeframe set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. Petition at Preamble. 

Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine in the United States, that she 

suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that neither she 

nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for his injury. Petition 

at 1, ¶¶ 2, 11-12. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact 

medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from 

public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

On August 11, 2021, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer

(“Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer”) in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to 

compensation in this case. Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 3-4. Specifically, Respondent 

has “concluded that [P]etitioner has met the criteria for a Table claim” of brachial neuritis. 

Id. In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner 

is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In RE: ROBERT WYATT CONTRACTING, LLC § Case Number: 24-40747-ELM-11

§

Debtor(s) § Chapter: 11

REQUEST FOR NOTICE UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2002

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Ally Bank hereby gives notice as follows:

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §342(f)(1), AIS Portfolio Services, LLC hereby requests that:

(i) all notices given or required to be given in the case; and

(ii) all pleadings and correspondence served or required to be served in this case,

regarding Ally Bank should be directed to AIS Portfolio Services, LLC at the following mailing address effective

immediately:

Attn: Ally Bank Department

AIS Portfolio Services, LLC

Account: XXXXXXXX4877

4515 N Santa Fe Ave. Dept. APS

Oklahoma City, OK 73118

This request encompasses all notices, copies and pleadings referred to in Rules 2002, 9007 or 9008 of the

Bankruptcy Rules, including, without limitation, notices of any Orders, Motions, Demands, Complaints, Petitions,

Pleadings, Requests, Applications, Schedules, Statements, Plans, and any other documents brought before this court

in this case, whether formal or informal, written or oral, or transmitted or conveyed by mail, delivery, telephone,

telecopier, telex, or otherwise which affects or seeks to affect the above case.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Amitkumar Sharma

Amitkumar Sharma

Claims Processor

Bankruptcy Servicer for Ally Bank

AIS Portfolio Services, LLC

4515 N Santa Fe Ave. Dept. APS

Oklahoma City, OK 73118

(888)455-6662, Fax (817) 461-8070

ECFNotices@aisinfo.com

File # 1601113

Case 24-40747-elm11 Doc 19 Filed 03/06/24 Entered 03/06/24 05:39:36 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1