alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021384EN.01000401.xml

| 22.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10442 – Advent International/Sobi)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 384/04)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Advent International Corporation (‘Advent’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Advent International Corporation (‘Advent’, USA),

| — | Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB (‘Sobi’, Sweden). |
| --- | --- |

—

Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB (‘Sobi’, Sweden).

Advent acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Sobi.

The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 2 September 2021.

2.

| — | Advent is a private equity investor based in Boston, USA. Advent focuses on the acquisition of equity stakes and the management of investment funds in various sectors, including healthcare, industrial, technology, retail, consumer and leisure, and business and financial services. |
| --- | --- |

—

Advent is a private equity investor based in Boston, USA. Advent focuses on the acquisition of equity stakes and the management of investment funds in various sectors, including healthcare, industrial, technology, retail, consumer and leisure, and business and financial services.

| — | Sobi is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden and is listed on the Nasdaq Stockholm stock exchange. Sobi is an originator pharmaceutical company focussing on the treatment of rare diseases, with its principal areas of focus on treatments in haematology and immunology. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sobi is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden and is listed on the Nasdaq Stockholm stock exchange. Sobi is an originator pharmaceutical company focussing on the treatment of rare diseases, with its principal areas of focus on treatments in haematology and immunology.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

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.10442 – Advent International/Sobi

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                 ENTERED INTO ON FEBRUARY 10, 1997 BY AND BETWEEN
 UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC. AND HENRY CISNEROS, (THE "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT")

                              December 22, 1997 

To:  Mr. Henry Cisneros
     c/o Univision Communications, Inc. ("UCI")

Dear Mr. Henry:

     Your Employment Agreement became effective on February 10, 1997 and will 
expire on February 9, 2000 (the "Term"). UCI desires to extend the Term 
through December 31, 2000. You and we hereby agree to amend the Employment 
Agreement as follows:

     1.  TERM. The Term is hereby extended through December 31, 2000. The 
Employment Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2000, unless earlier 
terminated in accordance with the terms set forth in the Employment Agreement.

     2.  SALARY. Your Base Salary shall continue at the annual rate of Five 
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) for calendar year 1998 and Six Hundred 
Thousand Dollars ($600,000) for calendar year 1999, as provided in the 
Employment Agreement. Your annual Base Salary rate in calendar year 2000 
shall be Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000).

     3.  OTHER. Except as provided in this Amendment No. 1, all other terms 
and conditions set forth in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full 
force and effect, and the parties hereby ratify and confirm the Employment 
Agreement, as amended.

     4.  EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT NO. 1. Upon its execution by you and UCI, 
this Amendment No. 1 shall become effective as of the date first written 
above.

     Please indicate your agreement to this Amendment No. 1 to the 
Employment Agreement by signing this letter amendment in the space provided 
below.

                                       UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC.

                                       By: /s/ ROBERT V. CAHILL
                                          ---------------------------
                                           Robert V. Cahill


I have read the preceding Amendment No. 3 and agree to its terms and 
conditions:

/s/ HENRY CISNEROS
---------------------
    Henry Cisneros
## NO. 12

- 18

- 00165

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOHNNY M. STAFFORD, APPELLANT

V.

BOWLES ENERGY, ET AL , APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 4TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RUSK COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPI

NION PER CURIAM
This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

On June 21 , 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the filing fee in this
appeal is due. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to remit the filing fee

on or before July 2 , 2018, would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, including

dismissal of the case without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). The date f or remitting
the filing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request.

Also on June 21 , we notified Appellant that h is notice of appeal failed to contain the
information specifically required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(d)

- (e).

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5, 25.1(d)

- (e), 37.1. The notice warned that, unless Appellant filed a
proper notice of appeal on or before July 2 , the appeal would be referred to the Court for

dismissal. The deadline has passed and Appellant has not filed a compliant notice of appeal or
otherwise responded to this Court’s June 21 notice.
Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rule s 5, 9.5, and 25.1(d)

- (e),
the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).
Opinion del ivered July 18, 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. ( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 18 , 2018

NO. 12

- 18

- 00165

- CV

JOHNNY M. STAFFORD, Appellant V. BOWLES ENERGY, ET AL,

Appellee s

Appeal from the 4th District Court
of Rusk County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2007

- 150)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is th erefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court

below for observance

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### In the Matter of Gold Seal Dairy Corporation, Petitioner, v Joseph Gerace, as Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets, et al., Respondents.

— Casey, J.

Respondent Fair Lawn Dairies, Inc. (Fair Lawn) contends that petitioner lacks standing to claim that respondent Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets’ determination is the product of undue influence arising from improper pressure tactics utilized by Fair Lawn. We conclude, however, that petitioner’s claim is directly related to the question of whether the Commissioner exceeded his authority or disregarded statutory standards and that, therefore, petitioner, a competitor, has standing under *Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley*(38 NY2d 6). We also reject Fair Lawn’s other arguments that petitioner is precluded from asserting its claim of bias.

Our scope of review in this proceeding brought by a competitor to challenge a determination granting an applicant’s *873request for an extension of a milk dealer’s license is limited to "whether the agency exceeded its authority or disregarded the statutory standards” *(Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, supra,*p 12). When the Commissioner grants a milk dealer’s application for a license extension on the basis of the absence of the findings referred to in Agriculture and Markets Law § 258-c, he clearly acts within the authority vested in him by statute *(Matter of Upstate Milk Coops. v State of New York Dept. of Agric. & Mkts.,*108 AD2d 951, *lv denied*65 NY2d 602). An examination of the record in general, and the Commissioner’s intermediate and final determinations in particular, conclusively establishes that the Commissioner gave careful consideration to whether a grant of the application would tend to be a destructive competition in a market already adequately served and whether the extension would not be in the public interest *(see,*Agriculture and Markets Law § 258-c). The record also establishes that the Commissioner granted the application on the basis of his consideration of the relevant statutory guidelines and not, as petitioner claims, due to the applicant’s improper pressure tactics. Petitioner’s conclusory allegations fall far short of the proof necessary to set aside an administrative determination on the ground of bias *(see, Matter of Warder v Board of Regents,*53 NY2d 186, 197, *cert denied*454 US 1125). The Commissioner’s determination is rational, authorized by statute and within the statutory guidelines; therefore, it cannot be disturbed *(see, Matter of Upstate Milk Coops. v State of New York Dept. of Agric. & Mkts., supra).*

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      15,715,726
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,431,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                   218,873
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,814,361
<PP&E>                                      20,331,075
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,568,062
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,951,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,628,428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       164,929
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,937,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,951,981
<SALES>                                     40,549,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,549,322
<CGS>                                       18,878,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               52,382,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             370,747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,884,164)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   892,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,776,164)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,776,164)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.80)


</TABLE>
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2015070EN.01006501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 70/65 |

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2010/183/EU of 16 March 2010 amending Decision 2009/459/EC providing Community medium-term financial assistance for Romania

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 83 of 30 March 2010](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2010_083_R_TOC)
)

Contents, Title:

for:

‘2010/183/EU:

Council Decision of 16 March 2010 amending Decision 2009/459/EC providing Community medium-term financial assistance for Romania
’

,

read:

‘2010/183/EU:

Council Decision of 16 February 2010 amending Decision 2009/459/EC providing Community medium-term financial assistance for Romania
’

;

on page 19, Title:

for:

‘
COUNCIL DECISION of 16 March 2010 amending Decision 2009/459/EC providing Community medium-term financial assistance for Romania (2010/183/EU)’

,

read:

‘
COUNCIL DECISION of 16 February 2010 amending Decision 2009/459/EC providing Community medium-term financial assistance for Romania (2010/183/EU)’

;

on page 19, Concluding formula:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 16 March 2010.’

,

read:

‘Done at Brussels, 16 February 2010.’

.

---
# L_2014106EN.01004502.xml

| 9.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 106/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 106/45

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2010/287/EU of 19 January 2010 on the existence of an excessive deficit in the Netherlands

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 125 of 21 May 2010
  )

In the contents and on page 42, in the title:

for:

‘Council Decision of 19 January 2010 on the existence of an excessive deficit in the Netherlands (2010/287/EU)’,

read:

‘Council Decision of 2 December 2009 on the existence of an excessive deficit in the Netherlands (2010/287/EU)’;

on page 43, concluding formula:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 19 January 2010.

For the Council

The President

E. SALGADO
  ’,

read:

‘Done at Brussels, 2 December 2009.

For the Council

The President

A. BORG
  ’.

---
Exhibit
23.1
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  To the
Board of Directors and Stockholders
 NexMed,
Inc.:
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-148060, 333-107137, 333-122114, 333-117717,
333-125565,  333-140110, 333-152591, 333-132611, 333-111894,
333-1055509, 333-96813, 333-46976, and 333-91957) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-152284,
333-138598, and 333-93435) of our report dated March 16, 2009, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements, schedule, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of NexMed, Inc. and Subsidiaries
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008.  Such report includes an uncertainty paragraph with respect to
the ability of Nexmed, Inc. to continue as a going concern.
  /s/
Amper, Politziner & Mattia, LLP
  
 Date:
March 16, 2009
 Edison,
New Jersey
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Environmental Safeguards, Inc., a Nevada corporation
("EVV"):

1.       National Fuel & Energy, Inc, a Wyoming corporation ("NFE")
         (100% owned by EVV)

2.       OnSite Technology, L.L.C., an Oklahoma limited liability company
         ("OnSite") (100% owned by NFE)

3.       OnSite Colombia, Inc., a Cayman Island corporation ("Colombia") (50%
         owned by OnSite)

4.       OnSite Venezuela, Inc., a Cayman Island corporation ("Venezuela")
         (100% owned by OnSite)

5.        Environmental Technology Services, Inc., a Cayman Island corporation
          ("ETSI") (100% owned by OnSite)

6.       Environmental Services, Inc, a Cayman Island corporation ("ES") (100%
         owned by Colombia)

7.       Environmental Leasing Company, a Cayman Island corporation ("ELC")
         (100% owned by OnSite)
Exhibit



                  Exhibit 10.3                            



AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO THE
BLUCORA, INC. 2016 EQUITY INDUCEMENT PLAN




This Amendment No. 3 to the Blucora, Inc. 2016 Equity Inducement Plan (this “Amendment”), is adopted by action of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Blucora, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) to be effective as the Effective Date (defined below). Terms used in this Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Blucora, Inc. 2016 Equity Inducement Plan (the “Inducement Plan”).


WHEREAS, Section 16.1 of the Inducement Plan permits the Board to amend the Inducement Plan at any time; 


WHEREAS, in order to have a consistent share usage application under the Blucora, Inc. 2018 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2018 Plan”), which was approved by the Company’s stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”), the Board desires to amend the Inducement Plan to remove the substantially similar fungible share provision; and


WHEREAS, the Board hereby resolves that this Amendment be adopted and that the Inducement Plan be amended as set forth herein, with such Amendment intended to be effective on the date of the Annual Meeting, or such other date as determined by an officer of the Company (such date, the “Effective Date”).


NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 16.1 of the Inducement Plan, the Company shall hereby amend the Inducement Plan as of the Effective Date as follows:


1.Section 4.3 of the Inducement Plan is hereby amended by deleting said section in its entirety.


2.Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof.


* * * * * * * *




1








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be duly executed as of March 31, 2020 by its President and Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to prior action taken by the Committee.


	
				
	 
	BLUCORA, INC.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	 
	 

	 
	Name:
	Christopher W. Walters
	 

	 
	Title:
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 












Signature Page to the Amendment No. 3 to the 
Blucora, Inc. 2016 Equity Inducement Plan
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2001 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under 

which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. MILLER of Florida (for himself and Mr. CONAWAY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as 

adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans 2nd Amend5 ment Protection Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2001 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PER2 SONS AS ADJUDICATED MENTALLY INCOM3 PETENT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 55 of title 38, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons 

8 as adjudicated mentally incompetent for 

9 certain purposes 

10 ‘‘In any case arising out of the administration by the 

11 Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person 

12 who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incom13 petent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness 

14 shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective 

15 under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 

16 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, 

17 or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that 

18 such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 at the beginning of chapter 55 of such title is amended 

21 by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 Nos. 333-12107, 333-15237, 333-88077 and 333-88078) pertaining to the
Company's Amended and Restated Omnibus Stock Plan and Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of our report dated August 16, 2000, with respect to the financial
statements and schedule of Ace*Comm Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2000.


Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia
September 25, 2000
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30249

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK D. LOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-42-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick D. Lomas was convicted of distribution of cocaine

base, conspiracy to tamper with a witness, tampering with a

witness, and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation

to a crime of violence. On appeal he asserts that his counsel

was ineffective for opening the door to unfavorable evidence. 

Generally, this court declines to review claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel on direct appeal and has “undertaken to
No. 98-30249

-2-

resolve claims of inadequate representation on direct appeal only

in rare cases where the record allowed [this court] to evaluate

fairly the merits of the claim.” United States v. Higdon, 832

F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). This is not such a case and we

will not review this matter in this appeal.

Lomas also argues that the district court clearly erred in

its calculation of the amount of drugs included in his relevant

conduct. See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th

Cir. 1993). Lomas contends that the information in the PSR was

unreliable because it stemmed from multiple hearsay from a

questionable source. The presentence report (PSR) is considered

reliable evidence for sentencing purposes. United States v.

Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995). A district court may

adopt facts contained in the PSR without further inquiry if the

facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does

not present rebuttal evidence. United States v. Puig-Infante, 19

F.3d 929, 943 (5th Cir. 1994). A defendant who objects to the

sentencing court’s consideration of information in the PSR bears

the burden of proving that the information is "materially untrue,

inaccurate or unreliable." United States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d

202, 205 (5th Cir. 1991). Lomas has submitted no evidence to

rebut the findings of the PSR. The district court specifically

found that the information in the PSR regarding the amount of

cocaine base attributable to Lomas was reliable and Lomas has not

produced anything to show that the finding was clearly erroneous. 

AFFIRMED.