alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-4.htm


Exhibit 10.4


 



AMENDMENT #1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT












ePlus inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, and Mark P. Marron (the “Executive”) (collectively, “the Parties”) have previously entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), effective April 22, 2010.  The Parties hereby agree to this Amendment #1 (“Amendment #1”)


 


1.           The last sentence of Section 5(b) shall be replaced with the following:


 


In no event will any bonus earned under this Section 5(b) be paid later than the next December 31st following the fiscal year in which the bonus was earned, unless calculation of the bonus is not administratively practicable by that date, and further delay would not violate Code Section 409A.


 


2.           Subsection 7(c)(5) shall be replaced with the following:


 


              (5)           Any release and certification required from the Executive under the first paragraph of this Section 7(c) shall be on the form attached as Exhibit 1 unless the Company has provided Executive a different form on or before his termination of employment.  The applicable release and certification must be signed and returned by Executive to the Company within twenty one (21) days of the date of termination of employment and not revoked in order for Executive to be entitled to payments under Section 7(c).  Except as provided by subsection 7(c)(4), provided the requirements of this subsection are met, any lump sum payment due Executive under subsection 7(c)(1), (2),  or (3) shall be paid on the last day of the thirty (30) day, sixty (60) day or other applicable period in which the Company may make such payment in compliance with the applicable provision.


 





 









	
/s/ Phillip G. Norton  

	  	
/s/ Mark P. Marron  

	  
	


Phillip G. Norton



	  	


Mark P. Marron  



	  
	


Chief Executive Officer



	



Chief Operating Officer





	  
	
Date: September 16, 2010

	
Date: September 16, 2010
#### Glenn M. Hellman, Appellant, v Bruce Hellman et al., Respondents.

[876 NYS2d 298]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered March 17, 2008. The order denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted the cross motions of defendants Bruce Hellman and Stockwood LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the cross motions and reinstating the complaint against defendants Bruce Hellman and Stockwood LLC and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff and Bruce Hellman (defendant) are the sole and equal shareholders and directors of defendant Maynards Electric Supply, Inc. (Maynards). Defendant, purportedly acting on behalf of Maynards, entered into a lease pursuant to which Maynards was to lease premises from defendant Stockwood LLC (Stockwood). Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a determination that the lease is void on the ground that defendant lacked the authority to enter into it without the consent of Maynards’ Board of Directors (Board), i.e., both plaintiff and defendant. Supreme Court denied the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment and granted the cross motions of defendant and Stockwood for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them *(Hellman v Hellman,*19 Misc 3d 695, 723 [2008]). We conclude that the court should have denied the cross motions along with the motion, and we therefore modify the order accordingly.

The record establishes that, pursuant to the bylaws of “Maynard’s Holding Corp.,” the president, i.e., defendant, was vested with “the management of the business of the corporation,” and he thus had the presumptive authority to enter into contracts on the corporation’s behalf in the course of the business of the corporation *(see generally Goldston v Bandwidth Tech. Corp.,*52 AD3d 360, 362-363 [2008], *lv dismissed*11 NY3d 904 [2009]; *Odell v 704 Broadway Condominium,*284 AD2d 52, *146956-57 [2001]). The record further establishes that defendant previously had signed leases on behalf of the corporation, although plaintiff contends in this instance that he did not agree to the lease and also did not agree that defendant had the authority to bind the corporation to it. Plaintiff also established in opposition to the cross motions that the previous leases signed by defendant were the subject of Board resolutions granting defendant the authority to sign them, or they were signed by defendant “by authority of the Board of Directors of [the] corporation.” We thus conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether, pursuant to past practice, defendant had the authority to lease property without prior authorization by the Board *(see Arrow Communication Labs. v Pico Prods.,*206 AD2d 922, 923 [1994]; *see also 56 E. 87th Units Corp. v Kingsland*Group, *Inc.,*30 AD3d 1134, 1134-1135 [2006]). In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Garni and Gorski, JJ. *[See*19 Misc 3d 695 (2008).]
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         The  undersigned,  who are the Chief  Executive  Officer  and the Chief
Financial Officer of Carolina National Corporation hereby certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge,  the accompanying Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2006,  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in the report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the issuer.

March 23, 2007

                                      s/Roger B. Whaley
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Roger B. Whaley
                                      Chief Executive Officer



                                      s/Harry R. Brown
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Harry R. Brown
                                      Chief Financial Officer
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1127

Natural Gas Option - NYMEX Henry Hub (Penultimate) - NYMEX

DESCRIPTION

Monthly cash settled NYMEX Henry Hub (Penultimate) put and call options on the NYMEX Henry Hub (Penultimate)

contract specified in Floating Price A. 

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the NYMEX Henry Hub futures contract final settlement 

price for the corresponding contract month on the second to last trading day for that contract month.

OPTION CHARACTERISTICS

TRADING UNIT

On expiration of a Call Option, the value will be the difference between the average daily settlement price 

during the calendar month of the first nearby NYMEX Henry Hub contract (as described in Floating Price A) 

and the strike price, or zero whichever is greater. On expiration of a Put Option, the value will be the 

difference between the strike price and the average daily settlement price during the calendar month of the 

first nearby NYMEX Henry Hub contract (as described in Floating Price A), or zero whichever is greater.

TYPE OPTION

Cash-settled European-Style option which cannot be exercised prior to expiration.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each contract shall be valued as the contract 

quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in dollars and cents per barrel and prices shall be in multiples of $0.001 per MMBtu. The 

minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum price fluctuation. The minimum price increment 

will be $0.0001. 

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination of posting for a 

contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price will be the Floating Price calculated for 

each contract month.
LCH | 10 Paternoster Square | London EC4M 7LS | T: +44 (0)20 7426 7000 | F: +44 (0)20 7426 7001 | lch.com

LCH Group Holdings Limited | LCH Limited | Banque Centrale de Compensation | LCH.Clearnet LLC

LCH Limited. Registered in England No. 25932 Registered Office: 10 Paternoster Square, London, EC4M 7LS

RESTRICTED - EXTERNAL

VIA EMAIL TO: FOIAsubmissions@CFTC.gov 

27 December 2023

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Attention: FOIA Compliance Office 1155 21st Street NW

Three Lafayette Centre

Washington, DC 20581

RE: FOIA Request for Confidential Treatment

Dear Sir/Madam,

In accordance with Commission Regulation 145.9(d), LCH Limited (“LCH”) respectfully requests 

confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for Appendix 

I of the §40.6(a) rule filing submission submitted via the CFTC Portal on December 27, 2023, titled 

“Confidential App I – LCH Margin Collateral Haircut Schedule” including any subsequent emails and 

replies between LCH and Commission staff (the “Information”) under §39.18(g)(1).

LCH is requesting confidential treatment for the Information pursuant to Commission Regulation 

145.9(d)(ii), which provides that confidential treatment may be requested on the grounds that 

disclosure would reveal trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information. LCH further 

requests that the information receives confidential treatment in perpetuity. 

This request is not to be construed as a waiver of any other protection from disclosure or confidential 

treatment accorded by law, and LCH will rely on and invoke any such confidentiality protection. LCH 

requests notification from the Commission in advance of any disclosure of the Information pursuant 

to the FOIA or the Commission’s Rules of Practice so that this request for confidential treatment may 

be substantiated.

Yours sincerely,

Ebba Andersson

Senior Compliance Officer

LCH Limited
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1169

Natural Gas Fixed Swap - Dawn - Platts Gas Daily

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the average price published by Platts Gas Daily for the 

location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the arithmetic average of the Platts 

Gas Daily Dawn published price for each calendar day of the corresponding contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each contract shall be valued 

as the contract quantity in MMBtus multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
# C_2020045EN.01001002.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/10

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, acting in its own name and as agent of Coop. sociale il Melograno v Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto

(Case C-522/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 57(4)(c) and (g) - Award of public service contracts - Optional grounds for exclusion - Grave professional misconduct - Calling into question the economic operator’s integrity - Prior contract - Performance - Breaches - Termination - Judicial remedy - Contracting authority’s assessment of the contractual breach - Preclusion until the end of the judicial proceedings)

(2020/C 45/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, acting in its own name and as agent of Coop. sociale il Melograno

Defendant: Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto

Intervener: Cometa Società Cooperativa Sociale

Operative part of the order

Article 57(4)(c) and (g) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law pursuant to which an action before the courts against a decision to terminate a public contract, taken by a contracting authority on account of ‘grave professional misconduct’ arising during performance of the contract, prevents the contracting authority which issues a new call for tenders from excluding an operator, at the stage of selecting tenderers, on the basis of an assessment of that operator’s reliability.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTWINE REID,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 20 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of June, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



---

# FORM 8-K

---



CURRENT REPORT



PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Date of Report (date of earliest event reported):August 22, 2007



---

Rimage Corporation(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)Minnesota(State Or Other Jurisdiction Of Incorporation)000-00619
        
        41-1577970(Commission File Number)
        
        (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)7725 Washington Avenue SouthMinneapolis, MN
        
        55439(Address Of Principal Executive Offices)
        
        (Zip Code)(952) 944-8144Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code


---



Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (seeGeneral Instruction A.2. below):



o
        Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)




o
        Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)




o
        Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))




o
        Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))






---

Items under Sections 1 through 4 and 6 though 8 are not applicable and therefore omitted.



ITEM 5.02
        DEPARTURE OF DIRECTORS OR CERTAIN OFFICERS; ELECTION OF DIRECTORS; APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN OFFICERS; COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS.




On August 22, 2007, the Board of Directors of Rimage Corporation (the Company) appointed Manuel M. Almeida as the Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing.  Until his appointment as the Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Mr. Almeida served as the Companys Chief Operating Officer.  On August 24, 2007, the Company issued a press release regarding the change, which press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.



ITEM 9.01
        FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.




Exhibit 99.1
        Press release issued by Rimage Corporation on August 24, 2007.






SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



RIMAGE CORPORATIONBy:
        /s/ Robert M. WolfRobert M. WolfChief Financial Officer


Date:  August 27, 2007





---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 16, 2015

t1014

Order 

Clerk

October 16, 2015

150001

COALITION PROTECTING AUTO NO-FAULT,

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF

MICHIGAN, ILENE IKENS, RICHARD IKENS,

KENNETH WISSER, SUSAN WISSER, 

GREGORY WOLFE, and KAREN WOLFE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 150001

COA: 314310

Ingham CC: 12-000068-CZ

MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On October 13, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to 

appeal the May 20, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals. The application is again 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that MCL 500.134(4) does 

not violate art 4, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals 

assumed without deciding that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) is 

a “public body.” We REMAND this case for reconsideration of this issue. On remand, 

the Court of Appeals is directed to decide the issue whether the MCCA is a “public body” 

subject to the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq., under MCL 15.232(d). 

Compare MCL 15.232(d)(iv) (a “public body” includes “[a]ny other body which is 

created by state or local authority”) and League Gen Ins Co v Michigan Catastrophic 

Claims Ass’n, 435 Mich 338, 351 (1990) (holding that the MCCA is not a “state agency” 

but a “private association”); see also 1988 PA 349, § 2 (providing “legislative intent” 

pertaining to the status of the MCCA). The Court of Appeals shall then reconsider 

whether MCL 500.134(4) violates art 4, § 25 in light of its resolution of that issue. In all 

other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Titanium Asset Management Corp. (the
Registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the Registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Dated: May 12, 2009
    /s/ Larry HasleeLarry HasleeChief Financial Officer
Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 11, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00478

- CR No. 05

- 22

- 00485

- CR
PAUL EUGENE WARNER , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16

- 33925

- R & F16

- 21861

- R

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Smith Opinion by Justice Osborne Before the Court are appellant’s August 1, 2022 motions to dismiss these

appeals. The motions comply with rule 42.2. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). We grant

the motions and dismiss these appeals.

220478f.u05 220485f.u05 Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) /Leslie Osborne/ / LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PAUL EUGENE WARNER, Appellant

No. 05

- 22

- 00478

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16

- 33925

- R. Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne. Justices Schenck and Smith participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 11 th day of August
, 2022

.– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PAUL EUGENE WARNER, Appellant

No. 05

- 22

- 004 85

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16

- 21861

- R. Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne. Justices Schenck and Smith participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 11 th day of August
, 2022

.