alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST

December 22, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Assistant Secretary of the CFTC

for FOIA, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance 

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments – Updates to Risk Parameters Established by ICC 

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulation 40.6(d)

Dear Assistant Secretary:

In conjunction with the notice submitted by ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) today, December 22, 2023, to the 

Secretary of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of 

the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulation 40.6(d), ICC submits the attached confidential 

documents. 

The attached document contains updated risk parameters established by ICC in consultation with the ICC 

Risk Committee, Trading Advisory Group and/or Risk Working Group. During the week ending December

22, 2023, changes were made to the following parameter: 

• Recovery Rate for North American Single Name Risk Factor 

***********************

Under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC Section 552, Section 809(g) of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and pursuant to Commission Regulation 145.9(d), Federal 

Reserve Board Regulation 261.15 and any other applicable regulations under or implementing FOIA, ICE 

Clear Credit hereby respectfully requests that confidential treatment be maintained for the document 

which bear Bate number 12.22.2023-000001-CFTC1 until further notice. In accordance with Commission 

Regulation 145.9(d)(4), every page of the confidential information bears the designation “Confidential 

Treatment Requested by ICE Clear Credit LLC.” 

ICE Clear Credit also requests that the Commission or the Board notify the undersigned immediately after 

receiving any FOIA request for such documents or any other court order, subpoena or summons for the 

same. Finally, ICE Clear Credit requests that it be notified in the event the Commission or the Board intends 

to disclose such documents to Congress or to any other governmental agency or unit pursuant to Section 8 
of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (“CEA”) or other applicable law. ICE Clear Credit does not 

waive its notification rights under Section 8(f) of the CEA or other applicable law with respect to any 

subpoena or summons for such document(s).

The basis for the request is that disclosure of these document(s) would reveal confidential commercial 

and financial information of ICE Clear Credit, the disclosure of which could have a material adverse effect 

on, and cause injury to, the operations and competitive position of ICE Clear Credit. This request is not to 

be construed as a waiver of any other protection from disclosure or confidential treatment accorded by 

law, and ICE Clear Credit will rely on and invoke any such confidentiality protection.

***********************

Please direct any questions or requests for information to the attention of the undersigned at 

Olivia.bazor@ice.com or 904-855-5580. 

Sincerely,

Olivia Bazor

Staff Attorney
# C_2018161EN.01004101.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/41

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 26 February 2018 — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

(Case C-149/18)

(2018/C 161/45)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agostinho da Silva Martins

Appellant:

Respondent: Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must it be understood that the national legislation in force in Portugal prevails as an overriding, mandatory rule within the meaning of Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must it be understood that the national legislation in force in Portugal prevails as an overriding, mandatory rule within the meaning of Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation? (1)

1

| 2. | Does that rule constitute a provision of Community law laying down a conflict-of-laws rule within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rome II Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does that rule constitute a provision of Community law laying down a conflict-of-laws rule within the meaning of Article 27 of the Rome II Regulation?

| 3. | In the light of Article 28 of Directive 2009/103/EC, (2) must it be concluded that the limitation period set out in Article 498(3) of the Portuguese Civil Code is applicable where a Portuguese citizen suffers a traffic accident in Spain? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the light of Article 28 of Directive 2009/103/EC, (2) must it be concluded that the limitation period set out in Article 498(3) of the Portuguese Civil Code is applicable where a Portuguese citizen suffers a traffic accident in Spain?

2

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).

1

(2)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).

2

---
# C_2018427EN.01007601.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/76

---

Order of the General Court of 20 September 2018 — Správa železniční dopravní cesty v Commission and INEA

(Case T-815/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial assistance - Project of common interest in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks - Preliminary planning services for the new Dresden-Prague high-speed rail line - Decision on eligible costs - Incorrect identification of the defendant - Not directly affected - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/102)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Korbel, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and Z.Malůšková, acting as Agents), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo and I. Barcew, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of INEA’s letter of 11 October 2017 relating to the final financial statement of the eligibility of the sums claimed from the EU financial assistance granted to the project of common interest ‘Services relating to the preliminary planning of a new Dresden-Prague high-speed rail line’.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland.

| 3. | Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace, shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace, shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA).

| 4. | Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace, the Commission, INEA, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland shall each bear their own costs connected with the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace, the Commission, INEA, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland shall each bear their own costs connected with the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---
November 10, 2017

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOIA Matters

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1155 21st Street, NW Room 2205 

Washington, DC 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request

Dear Staff:

Pursuant to Section 145.9 of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) 

Regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC 

(“DDR”) requests that the DDR Code of Conduct, DDR Compliance Manual, and DDR Conflict of Interest 

Resolution Policy being submitted to the Commission and the information contained therein (together, the 

“Documents”), be afforded confidential treatment until further notice under the Freedom of Information Act 

and the Commission's Regulations.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact the undersigned at 212-855-3038.

Very truly yours,

Adrienne Z. During

DDR Compliance Director

55 WATER STREET

NEW YORK, NY 10041-0099
**Exhibit 10.76**

**AMENDMENT TO**

**MANAGEMENT SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT**

**OF**

**INTELSAT GLOBAL, LTD.**

This Amendment to the Management Shareholders Agreement of Intelsat Global, Ltd. (this“Amendment) is entered into as of December 7, 2009, effective as of December 15, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), for the purpose of amending the Management Shareholders Agreement (as amended from time to time, the“Agreement”) dated as of May 6, 2009, by and among Intelsat Global, Ltd., a Bermuda exempted company (the “Company”), the Sponsor Shareholders (as defined in the Agreement) and the Management Shareholders (asdefined in the Agreement). 

WHEREAS, Section 15(j) of the Agreement permits the amendment of the Agreement by resolutionof the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”), provided that the amendment has been approved by the Sponsor Shareholders, and, provided, further, that any such amendment that would materially andadversely affect the rights of any Management Shareholder shall not to that extent be effective without the written consent of the Management Shareholders who then hold fifty percent (50%) or more of the Restricted Shares (as defined in theAgreement); 

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to amendthe Agreement in certain respects; 

WHEREAS, the Sponsor Shareholders have approved the amendments set forth herein;

WHEREAS, the amendments set forth herein do not adversely affect the rights of any Management Shareholders; and 

WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and in consideration of the promises and covenants set forthherein, by resolution of the Board, the Agreement is amended as of the Effective Date as follows: 

1. Notwithstanding anythingto the contrary in the Agreement, the restrictions on Transfer set forth in Section 1 of the Agreement shall cease to apply to the Management Shareholders as of the tenth anniversary of the Effective Date of this Amendment (or such earlier timeas provided in the Agreement). 

2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, the obligations of theManagement Shareholders set forth in Section 13(a) of the Agreement (a) shall only apply in the event that an Initial Public Offering or Listing Event is in the best interest of the Company, and (b) shall cease to apply as of thetenth anniversary of the Effective Date of this Amendment. 

3. Except as modified by the foregoing, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shallremain in full force and effect following the Effective Date of this Amendment. 

*  *  *  *  * 

I hereby certify that this Amendment was approved by theSponsor Shareholders on December 7, 2009. 

*  *  *  *  * 

I hereby certify that this Amendment was adopted by the Board of Directors of Intelsat Global, Ltd. on December 7, 2009. 

Executed on this 7th day of December, 2009. 

 

 
By:Title:
**[AMENDMENTTO MANAGEMENT SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT]**
#### Wiggins Hill *versus*Joel Hills and Stillwater Canal Corporation, Trustee.

An appeal from the judgment of the District Court in a matter of law, without any exceptions being filed and allowed, is irregularly brought into this Court, and must be dismissed.

This w'as an appeal from the judgment of the District Court, charging the trustee. No exceptions to the decision of the Court below were filed or allowed.

I. *Washburn,*for the trustee.

*II. Warren,*for the plaintiff.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Siiepley J.

This case appears to have been brought into this Court by appeal from a judgment of the District Judge, adjudging the corporation to be chargeable as the trustee of the defendant without any exceptions filed and allowed. And the only appeal on a cpiestion of law, permitted by the Statute creating that Court, is to be made after exceptions are filed and allowed. The action having been irregularly brought into this Court must be dismissed.
#### STATE v. MARTIN

No. 492P98

Case below: 131 N.C.App. 38

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 30 December 1998.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1973

MOLLY LYNN STINNETTE BARRETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CA-97-51-1) Submitted: December 8, 1998 Decided: December 29, 1998 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Molly Lynn Stinnette Barrett, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Carl Tucker, Rita A. Maimbourg, ARTER & HADDEN, Cleveland, Ohio; Jeffrey Michael Wakefield, FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Molly Lynn Stinnette Barrett appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant on the ground that West Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations bars her action for fraud and personal injury caused by the Dalkon Shield. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barrett v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust , No. CA97-51-1 (N.D.W. Va. June 3, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# FCM DATA MARCH 2006
[963 NE2d 785, 940 NYS2d 208]

#### VBH Luxury, Incorporated, Plaintiff, v 940 Madison Associates LLC, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Excelsior Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

Decided February 14, 2012

*900APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP,*New York City *(Richard E. Lerner*and *Judy C. Selmeci*of counsel), for third-party appellant.

*Baker & Hostetler LLP,*New York City *(David Einhorn*of counsel), for third-party respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated, and the certified question answered in the negative.

Third-party plaintiff landlord 940 Madison Associates LLC is an additional insured under a commercial general liability policy issued by third-party defendant Excelsior Insurance Company to plaintiff tenant VBH Luxury, Inc. “only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to [tenant].” Although landlord would be entitled to a defense in an action commenced against it by a third party for an injury suffered on the leased premises (see *ZKZ Assoc. v CNA Ins. Co.,*89 NY2d 990, 991 [1997]), the policy does not provide coverage for liability to its co-insured for damage to property owned, rented, or occupied by the insured *(see Insurance Corp. of N.Y. v Cohoes Realty Assoc., L.P.,*50 AD3d 1228, 1229-1230 [3d Dept 2008]; *Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Watertown Indus. Ctr. Local Dev. Corp.,*9 AD3d 836, 837 [4th Dept 2004], *Iv denied*11 AD3d 1053 [4th Dept 2004]). Thus, Excelsior was not obligated to defend landlord in the underlying action.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
# C_2019263EN.01001301.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Skype Communications Sàrl v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Case C-142/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 2(c) - Notion of ‘electronic communications service’ - Transmission of signals - Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service to fixed or mobile telephone numbers - SkypeOut service)

(2019/C 263/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skype Communications Sàrl

Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision, by a software publisher, of a feature offering a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service which allows the user to call a fixed or mobile number covered by a national numbering plan from a terminal via the public switched telephone network (PSTN) of a Member State constitutes an ‘electronic communications service’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that, first, the software publisher is remunerated for the provision of that service and, second, the provision of that service involves the conclusion of agreements between that software publisher and telecommunications service providers that are duly authorised to send and terminate calls to the PSTN.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
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.                  

###### State Department

          - [Public Notice 3609] 

The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on June 27 and 28, 2001, in Acme, Michigan. Pursuant to Section 10 (d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b [c] [1] and [4], it has been determined the meeting will be closed to the public. Matters relative to classified national security information as well as privileged commercial information will be discussed. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a world threat overview and a round table discussion that calls for the discussion of classified and corporate proprietary/security information as well as private sector physical and procedural security policies and protective programs at sensitive U.S. Government and private sector locations overseas. 

For more information contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20522-1003, phone: 202-663-0533. 

Dated: May 11, 2001.

Peter E. Bergin, 

Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 01-13146 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
#### In the Matter of Ramon Alvarez, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 21, 2009;

decided February 16, 2010

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 22, 2009 dismissal order denied *[see*13 NY3d 823 (2009)].
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Extale, Appellant.

Submitted January 9, 2012;

decided January 12, 2012

Reported below, 78 AD3d 1519.

Motion by District Attorneys Association of the State of New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
Exhibit
      32.1





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 WiTel Corp. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned,
      in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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.








Dated:  January
                23, 2008
            /s/
                James E.
                Renton
              James
                E. Renton
              President
                and Chief Accounting Officer






15