alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 24 April 2009 – Nycomed Danmark v EMEA**

**(Case T-52/09 R)**

Application for interim measures – Marketing authorisation for a medicinal product – Ultrasound echocardiographic imaging agent for diagnostic purposes (perflubutane) – Refusal by the EMEA to grant a waiver from the obligation to submit a paediatric investigation plan – Application for suspension of operation of a measure and interim measures – No urgency

1.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima
facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature –* *Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief
(Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC;* *Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 37-40)*

2.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious
and irreparable damage – Burden of proof –* *Materialisation of the damage dependent on future and uncertain events* *(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,* *Art. 104(2)) (see paras 59-60)*

3.                     *Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements –* *Summary of the pleas establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for* *(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see paras 61-62)*

4.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable
damage – Financial loss –* *Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages (Arts 235 EC, 242 EC and 288
EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 70-73)*

5.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 74-80)*

6.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Account to be taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 82)*

**Re:**

APPLICATION, first, for suspension of the operation of the EMEA’s decision of 28 November 2008 rejecting the application for
a product-specific waiver concerning perflubutane and, secondly, for the grant of interim measures.

| |
| |

**Operative part**

1.      The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | | Costs are reserved. |
| -- | | ------------------- |
Huby RAMKISSOON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7628.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
| Name      ofSubsidiary                              | Name      ofParent Company   | PercentageOwned | State      ofIncorporation |
|-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|
|                                                |                         |            |                       |
| KIT      Media Corporation                          | KIT      digital, Inc.       | 100%            | Delaware                   |
| Bickhams      Media, Inc.                           | KIT      digital, Inc.       | 100%            | Delaware                   |
| Reality      Group Pty. Ltd                         | KIT      digital, Inc.       | 100%            | Australia                  |
| Kamera      Content AB                              | KIT      digital, Inc.       | 100%            | Sweden                     |
| KIT      digital FZ LLC                             | KIT      digital, Inc.       | 100%            | Dubai,      UAE            |
| KIT      HD, Inc.                                   | KIT      digital, Inc.       | 100%            | New      York              |
| KIT      digital Pty. Ltd.                          | KIT      Media Corporation   | 100%            | Australia                  |
| Undercover      Media Pty. Ltd.                     | KIT      digital Pty. Ltd.   | 100%            | Australia                  |
| KIT      digital Limited                            | KIT      Media Corporation   | 100%            | United      Kingdom        |
| KIT      Broadcasting Limited                       | KIT      Media Corporation   | 100%            | Australia                  |
| Sputnik      Agency Pty. Ltd.                       | KIT      Media Corporation   | 100%            | Australia                  |
| KIT      TV Pty Ltd.                                | KIT      Media Corporation   | 100%            | Australia                  |
| Morpheum      Internet Services Pty Ltd.            | KIT      Media Corporation   | 100%            | Australia                  |
| VideoDome.com      Networks, Inc.                   | Bickhams      Media, Inc.    | 100%            | California                 |
| Kamera      (S) PTE Ltd                             | Kamera      Content AB       | 95%             | Singapore                  |
| Swegypt      Company for Telecommunications (S.A.E) | Kamera      Content AB       | 55%             | Egypt                      |
| Visual      Connection, a.s.                        | KIT      digital FZ LLC      | 100%            | Czech      Republic        |
| Visual      Media                                   | Visual      Connection, a.s. | 100%            | Czech      Republic        |
| Visual      Connection, spol. s.r.o.                | Visual      Connection, a.s. | 100%            | Slovak      Republic       |

----
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF AUGUST 25, 2015

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

------------------------------------------------------------------

WD77660 Elaina Marie Fulton vs. Jeffrey Jay Fulton

WD77695 Kristine Rohr-Sheil vs. Brendon B. Sheil

WD77717 Consolidated with WD77695

WD77808 Braulio C. Gomez vs. State of Missouri

WD77857 Justin Berry as Next Friend of J.S.B. and O.R.B.

WD78488 In the Interest of: N.M. and D.M. Juvenile Officer vs. S.M. (Mother)

and E.M. (Father)

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

------------------------------------------------------------------

WD77581 State of Missouri vs. Jason J. Brior
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5                                    
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                             773,599
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9,802,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                        239,855
<INVENTORY>                                       8,737,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19,360,248
<PP&E>                                           10,328,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,469,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   35,551,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            18,010,793
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                             40,804
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             2,767,000
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1,832,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     35,551,857
<SALES>                                          37,315,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 37,315,159
<CGS>                                            30,655,564
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    30,655,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,147,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (714,042)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (714,042)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (714,042)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.22)
        

</TABLE>
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Jonathan GREENMAN.

No. D-3003.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
# C_2009180EN.01003402.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2009 — Volvo Car Germany GmbH v Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH

(Case C-203/09)

2009/C 180/59

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Volvo Car Germany GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 18(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a commercial agent (1) is not entitled to an indemnity in the event of contractual termination of the contract by the principal if a serious ground for immediate termination of the contract because of the agent’s default existed at the date of contractual termination but was not the cause of the termination? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 18(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a commercial agent (1) is not entitled to an indemnity in the event of contractual termination of the contract by the principal if a serious ground for immediate termination of the contract because of the agent’s default existed at the date of contractual termination but was not the cause of the termination?

1

| 2. | If such national legislation is consistent with the Directive:
  Does Article 18(a) of the Directive preclude the application by analogy of the national legislation concerning the exclusion of the indemnity claim to a case where a serious ground for the immediate termination of the contract because of the agent’s default arose only after contractual notice of termination was given and the principal became aware of that ground only after the contract ended, so that he was no longer able to give a further notice of immediate termination of the contract based on the agent’s default? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If such national legislation is consistent with the Directive:

Does Article 18(a) of the Directive preclude the application by analogy of the national legislation concerning the exclusion of the indemnity claim to a case where a serious ground for the immediate termination of the contract because of the agent’s default arose only after contractual notice of termination was given and the principal became aware of that ground only after the contract ended, so that he was no longer able to give a further notice of immediate termination of the contract based on the agent’s default?

---

(1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.

1

---
PUI-KWONG CHAN, et al., petitioners, v. BAIZHEN YANG, et al.

No. 17-311.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
II-00568

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Abra Gwartney <vulpis@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:39 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies. They’ve done enough damage already.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Abra Gwartney

4104 s.e. Ash st.

Portland, OR 97214
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Petty, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of ROO Group, Inc.;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer is made
known to us by others,  particularly  during the period in which this  report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's  disclosure
controls 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; and

      (c)  disclosed  in this report any change in the small  business  issuer's
internal  control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control  over  financial
reporting,  to the small business  issuer's  auditors and the audit committee of
the small  business  issuer'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 small  business  issuer's  ability  to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant  role in the small business  issuer's  internal
control over financial reporting.

March 31, 2005

/s/ Robert Petty
---------------------------------------
Robert Petty
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010346EN.01003806.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-192/10) (1)

1

()

2010/C 346/72

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

1

---
II-01143

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Trish Mylek <trishmylek@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:41 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Trish Mylek

28304 e greeumeadow circle

farmington hills, MI 48334
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00 195 -CV Al lst at e Te xa s Ll oy d’ s , A ppe lla nt

v . Texas Depart m ent of In surance; M ike Ge eslin, as Com m ission er of Insu rance;

and O ff ice of P ubl ic Insurance Counsel , Appellees F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-06- 0028 24 , HO NORAB LE DARLENE BY RNE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N The pa rties to this case have filed a joi nt agree d motion to di smiss the appe al base d on a settlement. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) . The motion informs the Court that an orde r ente red by the Commiss ioner of I

nsuranc e on May 12, 2008, has re solved the dispute. We grant the motion and dismiss the appea l. Id .

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Dismissed on J oint Moti on Filed: May

28, 2008
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT FEB RUARY 10 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15375 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -031 16 -C V -T W T -1 V . S T E P H E N M O O R E , i ndi vi dua l l ya nd on be ha l f of a l l othe r s s i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d, P la in tif f
- A p p e llan t,
v ersu s A C C E N T U R E , L L P , AC C E NT UR E UN I T E D S T AT E S GR OU P ME DI C AL P L AN , AC C E NT UR E UN I T E D S T AT E S GR OU P DE NT AL P L AN , AC C E NT UR E UN I T E D S T AT E S B AS I C L I F E /AC C I DE NT AL DE AT H & DI S ME MB E R ME NT I NS UR AN C E P L AN , A CCEN TU RE U N I TED STA TES O PTI O N A L LI FE I N SU RA N CE P L AN , ACCE NTURE UNI TE D STATE S OPT I ON AL ACCI DENTAL DEATH & D I S ME MB E R ME NT I NS UR AN C E P L AN , D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 10, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an dH IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: V . S t e phe n M oor e f

i l e d hi s or i gi na l c om pl a i nts e e ki ng r e l i e f f r om de f e nda nt s ’ ne w l e a ve pol i c yon O c t obe r25, 2004. H e s ty l e d i ta s ac l a s s a c t i on, bu tnever m ov ed for nor w as i teverce rt i fi ed as such. N or w as the ori gi nal
co m p l ai n tev er serv edo n an y o f th e d efen d an t s. O n D ec em ber 8, 20 04 , M oo re fi l ed a N ot i ce of V ol un t ary D i sm i ss al pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 41( 1) ( a ) ( i ) . A c c or di ng t o M oor e ’ s I ni t i a l B r i e f on ap p e a l, h e s o u g h t v o lu n ta ryd is m is s a l “in o r d e rto g a in tim e to m o r e p r o p e r ly
r e p r e s e n t th e c la s s th r o u g h n e g o tia te ds e ttle m e n t r a th e rth a n litig a tio n .” O n D e c e m b e r9 , 2 0 0 4 , M o o r e s ta te s th a t h e w a s n o tif ie db yth e d e f

e n d a n ts tha tthe yha d c ha nge d the i rl e a ve pol i c y . S ubs e que nt l y , he f i l e d am ot i on s e e ki ng att o rn eys’ fees, co st s an dfo r d i sco v ery i n th e d i sm i ssedcase, arg u i n g th ath e w as a prevai l i ng party. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on , ho l di ng thatM oo re had vol unt a r i l ydi s m i s s e d the a c t i on be f or e he obt a i ne d a nyr e l i e f f orhi m s e l f

orthe p u t at i v e cl ass. O ur re vi ew of the bri ef

s and the re cord supp ortthe concl usi on of the di stri ct c o u rt, an df

in d in g n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r , th e d e n ia l if th e m o tio n is AF F I RME D.