alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11
                           Earnings Per Share Schedule


Calculation of net income under the modified treasury stock method:

                                                        THREE          SIX
                                                        MONTHS        MONTHS
Primary
         Net income applicable to common stock        $  855,043    $1,358,655
         Assumed interest expense reduction                4,183        13,383
                                                      ----------    ----------
                                                      $  859,226    $1,372,038
                                                      ==========    ==========

         Weighted average common stock outstanding     6,515,819     6,487,133
         Common stock equivalents                      1,066,441     1,066,441
                                                      ----------    ----------
                                                       7,582,260     7,553,574
                                                      ==========    ==========

             Net income per share                     $      .11    $      .18
                                                      ==========    ==========

Fully diluted
         Net income applicable to common stock        $  855,043    $1,358,655
         Preferred stock dividends                       118,434       119,090
         Assumed interest expense reduction                4,183        13,383
                                                      ----------    ----------
                                                      $  977,660    $1,491,128
                                                      ==========    ==========

         Weighted average common stock outstanding     6,515,819     6,487,133
         Common stock equivalents                      1,066,441     1,066,441
         Assumed conversion of preferred stock         1,231,153       628,301
                                                      ----------    ----------
                                                       8,813,413     8,181,875
                                                      ==========    ==========

             Net income per share                     $      .11    $      .18
                                                      ==========    ==========
rely-ex103_8.htm



 

Exhibit 10.3

May 20, 2016

Craig T. Bouchard
15301 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Dear Craig:

I am writing on behalf of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Real Industry, Inc. (the “Company”) to confirm that the implementation of the Real Industry, Inc. Management Continuity Plan for Senior Officers (“Continuity Plan”) will not affect certain provisions of your employment arrangements with the Company although such employment agreement will be terminated with your consent in connection with the adoption and implementation of the Continuity Plan.  Specifically, you will continue to devote substantially all of your business time, attention, knowledge and skills faithfully, diligently and to the best of your ability, in furtherance of the business and activities of the Company; provided, however, that nothing shall preclude you from devoting reasonable periods of time required for:


	
 
	
(i)
	
serving as a director of up to two (2) organizations or corporations that do not, in the good faith determination of the Board, compete with the Company or otherwise create, or could create, in the good faith determination of the Board, a conflict of interest with the business of the Company;





	
 
	
(ii)
	
managing those business activities identified on Exhibit A attached hereto;





	
 
	
(iii)
	
delivering lectures, fulfilling speaking engagements, and any writing or publication relating to your area of expertise;





	
 
	
(iv)
	
engaging in professional organization and program activities;





	
 
	
(v)
	
managing your personal passive investments and affairs;





	
 
	
(vi)
	
participating in charitable or community affairs; and





	
 
	
(vii)
	
such other activities as may be approved in writing by the Board;




provided, however, that such activities do not materially, individually or in the aggregate, interfere with or detract you from the due performance of your duties and responsibilities as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company or create a conflict of interest with the business of the Company, as determined in good faith by the Board. Notwithstanding the foregoing, during your employment with the Company, you shall not engage in any other employment or activity that might interfere with or be in competition with the interests of the Company.

 

 



Craig T. Bouchard

May 20, 2016

Page 2

 

Very truly yours,


	
	
/s/ Peter C.B. Bynoe.

	
Peter C.B. Bynoe

	
Chairman, Compensation Committee of the

	
Board of Directors of Real Industry, Inc.




 

AGREED AND ACCEPTED as of this 20th day of May, 2016


	
	
/s/ Craig T. Bouchard

	
Craig T. Bouchard




 




 



Craig T. Bouchard

May 20, 2016

Page 2

EXHIBIT A

 

•Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cambelle-Inland, LLC, an entity created in 2013 through which Mr. Bouchard manages certain investment activities in China

•Leadership Board of the Department of Athletics, Duke University
John WATKINS, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7737.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
         COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
         ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001075907
<NAME>                        INTRACO SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                              151,725
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       542,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                          6,639
<INVENTORY>                                          16,678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    790,220
<PP&E>                                              376,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (142,367)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,124,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,330,725
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                           1,756
<COMMON>                                             13,021
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,124,783
<SALES>                                           2,925,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2,925,268
<CGS>                                             2,165,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4,363,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   40,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,438,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1,438,895)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1,438,895)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.12)


</TABLE>
# C_2009297EN.01001801.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2009 — Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt

(Case C-360/09)

2009/C 297/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pfleiderer AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundeskartellamt

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the provisions of Community competition law — in particular Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC — to be interpreted as meaning that parties adversely affected by a cartel may not, for the purpose of bringing civil-law claims, be given access to leniency applications or to information and documents voluntarily provided in that connection by applicants for leniency which the national competition authority of a Member State has received, pursuant to a national leniency programme, within the framework of proceedings for the imposition of fines which are (also) intended to enforce Article 81 EC?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2017

No. 04-17-00436-CR

David Stuart BISHOP,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR3325

Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

We order the Clerk of this court to administratively close appeal numbers 04-17-00417-

CR and 04-17-00418-CR and to transfer the motions for extension of time to file a notice of 

appeal that were filed under those appeal numbers to appeal numbers 04-17-00436-CR and 04-

17-00437–CR.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2


                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                    ---------------------------------------


     THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 31/st/ day of March, 1992, by and
between Central Co-operative Bank, Somerville, Massachusetts (the "Bank") and
John D. Doherty (the "Employee").

     WHEREAS, the parties have previously entered into an employment agreement
(the "Agreement") dated October 24, 1986 providing for the employment of the
Employee as the President of the Bank; and

     WHEREAS, the parties desire by this writing to amend paragraph 1 of the
Agreement as set forth herein.

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is AGREED as follows:

     1.   Section 1 of the Agreement is amended by deleting the first sentence
therein and adding a new first sentence as follows:

          The Employee is employed as the President and Chief Executive Officer
          of the Bank.

     2.   Nothing contained herein shall be held to alter, vary or affect any of
the terms, provisions, or conditions of the Agreement other than as stated
above.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment to
the Agreement on the day and year first written above.


ATTEST:                             CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK


/s/ Gladys N. Partamian             By: /s/ Burton F. Faulkner, Jr.
-----------------------                 ---------------------------
                                        Chairman of the Finance
                                        Committee


WITNESS:

/s/ Rosemarie Mitchell              /s/ John D. Doherty
----------------------              -------------------------------
                                    John D. Doherty
# C_2012151EN.01002801.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/28

---

Order of the General Court of 26 March 2012 — Cañas v Commission

(Case T-508/09) (1)

1

(Competition - Anti-doping rules - Decision rejecting a complaint - Discontinuance of a professional activity - Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 151/45

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guillermo Cañas (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented initially by F. Laboulfie and C. Aguet, then by Y. Bonnard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and J. Derenne, lawyer)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: World Anti-Doping Agency (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, D. Cooper, Soliciitor, and N. Chesaites, Barrister); and ATP Tour, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and J. Marchandise, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7809 of 12 October 2009 in Case COMP/39471 rejecting a complaint, for insufficient Community interest, concerning an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, by ATP Tour, Inc. and by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Guillermo Cañas is ordered to pay his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Guillermo Cañas is ordered to pay his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The World Anti-Doping Agency and ATP Tour, Inc. are ordered to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The World Anti-Doping Agency and ATP Tour, Inc. are ordered to pay their own costs.

| 4. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by European Elite Athletes Association. |
| --- | --- |

4.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by European Elite Athletes Association.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

525 West Monroe Street

Suite 1100

Chicago, Illinois 60661

Telephone: (312) 596-0700

Facsimile: (312) 596-0713

MEMORANDUM

Division of Clearing and

Intermediary Oversight

TO: The Comment File

FROM: Anne Polaski

RE: Discussion of Proposed Rules on Financial Resources, Information Management, 

and Risk Management Requirements for Derivatives Clearing Organizations

On Tuesday, February 8, 2011, during a meeting between representatives of ICE Clear 

U.S. (ICE Clear) and CFTC staff, ICE Clear representatives commented on the proposed 

requirements for derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) regarding financial resources (75 FR 

63113 (October 14, 2010)), information management (75 FR 78185 (December 15, 2010)), and 

risk management (76 FR 3698 (January 20, 2011)).

Specifically, the representatives of ICE Clear asked clarifying questions and/or discussed 

their views regarding: (a) the proposed requirements regarding liquidity of financial resources 

and quarterly reporting requirements contained in the financial resources proposal; (b) the 

proposed daily and event-specific reporting requirements set forth in the information 

management proposal; and (c) requirements in the risk management proposal addressing 

participant and product eligibility, margin requirements, risk limits, large trader reports, clearing 

members’ risk management policies and procedures, settlement banks, and acceptable margin 

assets. 

The following ICE Clear representatives were present at the meeting, either in person or 

by teleconference: Thomas Hammond

Bruce Domash

Diane McFadden

Brian Slayer

The following CFTC staff members were present at the meeting, either in person or by 

teleconference: Phyllis Dietz

Eileen Donovan

Jonathan Lave

Jacob Preiserowicz

Julie Mohr

Steve Greska

Joseph Miller

James Krause

Anne Polaski
# C_2011055EN.01002201.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/22

---

Order of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Kitou v EDPS

(Case T-164/09) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 55/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erasmia Kitou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Hijmans and V. Pérez Asinari, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the EDPS of 3 February 2009 in Case No 2008-0600 concerning a complaint brought by Ms Kitou against the intention of the European Commission to reveal personal data.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

1

---
Nathan MURPHY-DUBAY, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, et al.

No. 15-1447.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 29,
2007 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods referred to in the Form 10-K.
 /s/ Alfred H. DrewesAlfred H. DrewesSenior Vice President andChief Financial OfficerFebruary 27, 2008
Maritza ORTIZ, petitioner, v. Nydia Z. JIMENEZ-SANCHEZ, et al.

No. 16M73.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

   Industrial Data Systems, Inc.             Incorporated in the State of
                                          Texas
   IDS Engineering, Inc.                     Incorporated in the State of
                                          Texas
   Thermaire, Inc. dba Thermal Corp.         Incorporated in the State of
                                          Texas
   Constant Power Manufacturing, Inc.        Incorporated in the State of
                                          Texas
   Petrocon Engineering, Inc.                Incorporated in the State of
                                          Texas
   Petrocon Engineering of Louisiana         Incorporated in the State of
                                          Louisiana
   Petrocon Systems, Inc.                    Incorporated in the State of
                                          Texas
   Petrocon Construction Resources, Inc.     Incorporated in the State of
                                          Texas
   Triangle Engineers and Constructors,      Incorporated in the State of
    Inc.                                  Texas
   RPM Engineering, Inc.                     Incorporated in the State of
                                          Louisiana
# C_2009055EN.01004601.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/46

---

Action brought on 5 January 2009 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UniCredit)

(Case T-4/09)

(2009/C 55/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: UniCredit SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, lawyer, and R. Floridia, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM delivered on 3 November 2008 in Case R 1449/2006-2, relating to opposition proceedings No B 699.746. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM delivered on 3 November 2008 in Case R 1449/2006-2, relating to opposition proceedings No B 699.746.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Multi-coloured figurative mark ‘1 UniCredit’ (the number one being 45° inclined to the right and impressed on the spherical logo) (registration application No 2.911.105), for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UniSECTOR’, ‘UniDynamicFonds’ and ‘UniGarant’, for services in Classes 35 and 36.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of the services in Class 36.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The applicant argues that the contested decision did not take account of the powers of perception of the public at which the services covered are directed or of the non-existent or minimal distinctiveness of the prefix ‘Uni’.

Pleas in law:

---