alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.11

                         WHITE MOUNTAINS RE GROUP, LTD.
                                   ("WTM RE")
                          LONG TERM INCENTIVE UNIT PLAN
                                     SUMMARY

The purpose of the WTM Re Long Term Incentive Unit Plan (the "Plan") is to
provide long-term performance incentives for senior officers and other key
employees of the WTM Re companies and to align the interests of management with
those of White Mountains.

Participation in the Plan is discretionary based on annual recommendations by
WTM Re management as approved by the Board of Directors of WTM Re and its
subsidiaries. Performance achievement is measured over three consecutive year
periods. The first payout under the Plan will be in 2007. The final Plan
document is currently being drafted and will be approved by the Board of
Directors of the respective companies participating in the Plan. The Plan will
contain the following provisions:

UNIT AWARDS:
Participants are awarded Units with each Unit representing a value of $1,000.
There is the potential for the number of Units awarded to increase to a maximum
of 2 times the original award or decrease to zero depending upon the average
after-tax return on underwriting capital (as discussed below) over each three
year performance period. The ultimate value of each Unit is based upon the
consolidated results of the WTM Re.

MEASURING RETURNS:
The current performance target is a 13% after-tax return on underwriting capital
("UROC"). UROC is an amount of capital required to maintain the relevant rating
agency standard for each WTM Re entity. For example, the capital allocated to
Sirius International represents an amount of capital needed to maintain an "A"
level S&P rating.

The number of Units awarded will be reduced to zero at an average after-tax
return on UROC of 6% (the minimum return our owners expect on the capital) and
will be increased to a maximum of 2-times the original Unit award at an average
after-tax on UROC at or above 20%. The final dollar value of each Unit will also
be increased or decreased by the annual UROC compounded for each year in the
three-year cycle. The Board shall have the discretion to determine the standards
upon which the actual return on GAAP UROC are calculated including adjustments
to reflect standard investment income, internal and external debt interest, and
effective tax rates for each company within the group.
|Item | Revised change(percent) | Difference betweenrevised and earlier changes(percentage points)
|---- | ----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|.8   | 1.5                     | 2.0                                                             
|     |                         |                                                                 
|1.3  | 1.4                     | 2.2                                                             
|1.4  | 1.4                     | 2.3                                                             
|2.4  | 2.0                     | 3.7                                                             
|.5   | .8                      | 1.0                                                             
|-.2  | 1.1                     | .6                                                              
|     |                         |                                                                 
|-1.1 | 2.3                     | 1.4                                                             
|1.5  | 1.3                     | 1.3                                                             
|     |                         |                                                                 
|     |                         |                                                                 
|11.9 | 5.7                     | 22.9                                                            
|.6   | 1.1                     | 1.0                                                             
|     |                         |                                                                 
|     |                        
|-.9  | 1.5                     | 1.4                                                             
|1.0  | 1.3                     | 2.0                                                             
|1.9  | 1.8                     | 2.4                                                             

`[1] Rates of change are calculated as the percent change in the seasonally adjusted index from the fourth quarter of the
    previous year to the fourth quarter of the year specified in the column heading.
Return to table
[2] See footnote 2 to table 3.`

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: March 27, 2009
189 La. 341

#### The YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD CO. and The Mississippi Valley Transportation Co., Inc. v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and The Silver Fleet of Memphis, Incorporated.

No. 34421.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 7, 1938.

Eehearing Denied March 7, 1938.

Breazeale & Sachse, of Baton Rouge, and Lemle, Moreno & Lemle and Posey R. Bowers, all of New Orleans, for appellants.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., and Milo B. Williams, Asst, to Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee Louisiana Public Service Commission.

PONDER, Justice.

This case was consolidated with the case of Millard F. Bradford v. Louisiana Public Service Commission and Herrin Motor Lines, Inc., La.Sup., 179 So. 442, and submitted on the same agreed statement of facts.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion this day handed down by this court in the case of Millard F. Bradford v. Louisiana Public Service Commission and .Herrin Motor Lines, Inc., supra, the judgment is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

O’NIELL, C. J., concurs in the decree.

ODOM, J., dissents.

HIGGINS, J., absent.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0048] (formerly Docket No. 2007N-0182)

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Information Program on Clinical Trials for Serious and Life-Threatening Diseases: Maintaining a Databank” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59295), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0459. The approval expires on January 31, 2011. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain*.                

Dated: January 30, 2008.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-2076 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
EXHIBIT 32.2



                       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 Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company, serving
as its Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, that:

(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.


Date: February 12, 2010                         /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                                and Controller (serving as
                                                Principal Financial Officer)




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth Square,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
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.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Timi Nickerson Kenealy at (202) 203-4545. 

Dated: September 4, 2008. 

Timi Nickerson Kenealy, 

Acting Legal Counsel.

[FR Doc. E8-20840 Filed 9-4-08; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
219 La. 471

#### BAILEY et al. v. BOWANS et al.

No. 39913.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 1951.

Floyd D. Culbertson, Jr., Minden, More-lock & Morelock, Haynesville, and Drew & Drew, Minden, for appellant.

Lee & Emery, Shreveport, and Meadors, Shaw & Meadors, Homer, for plaintiffs and appellees.

PONDER, Justice.

The appeal in this case will be dismissed for the reason that the appellant did not appear or file any brief to support the ap^ peal on the date set for the hearing. Grand *238Lodge of the State of Louisiana, Knights of Pythias v. Natchitoches Lodge No. 89, 215 La. 300, 40 So.2d 472.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.
| 001-11001                                | 06-0619596                        |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (Commission File Number)                 | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
|                                     |                              |
| 3 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut | 06905                             |
| (Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code)                        |

|   | 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 CFR240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Item 5.02 | Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal Officers |
|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Item 9.01 | Financial Statements and Exhibits |
|-----------|-----------------------------------|

|   | 99.1 | Press Release of Frontier Communications Corporation released on July 7, 2010. |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|                          | FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION                                                    |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |                                                                                   |
| Date:  July 7, 2010 | By:/s/ David R. Whitehouse           |
|                          |        David R. Whitehouse                               |
|                          |        Senior Vice President and Treasurer          |
|                          |                                                                    |
|                          |                                                                                   |
209 La. 135

#### Succession of LAND.

No. 37917.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 5, 1945.

*290John R. Land, Jr., in Proper Person, of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Prowell & McBride and Walter B. Hamlin, all of New Orleans, for mover.

FOURNET, Justice.

This case was lodged here on an appeal taken by John R. Land, Jr., from a judgment of the lower court recalling an order appointing a notary public to take an inventory of property allegedly belonging to and omitted from the succession of his father, the late John R. Land, Sr., and dismissing his application to be appointed administrator of the succession. It is now before us on a motion filed by the appellee, Mrs. Elizabeth Land Triplett, appellant’s sister and only coheir, to have the appeal dismissed on the ground that the appellant acquiesced in the judgment appealed from by filing in the lower court, subsequent to the rendition of that court’s judgment, a petition praying for a partition of the property appellant claims was owned by his father.

According to the provisions of the Code of Practice, “The party against whom judgment has been rendered can not appeal: 1. If such judgment have been confessed by him, or if he have acquiesced in the same, by executing it voluntarily. * * * ” Article 567. The acquiescence which prohibits the appeal under the provisions of this article, or destroys an appeal already lodged in a higher court, is the acquiescence in a decree commanding that something be done or given. Buntin v. Johnson, 27 La.Ann. 625; Mason v. Red River Lumber Co., 188 La. 686, 177 So. 801, 115 A.L.R. 117.

The judgment appealed from in the instant case commands neither the doing nor the giving of anything. Moreover, a mere reading of the document that is attached to and made a part of the motion clearly shows that appellant, by filing the suit forming the basis of the motion to dismiss, was in no wise acquiescing in the judgment appealed from but, instead, that he was thereby persistently pursuing his claim that certain assets asserted by the appellee to belong to the estate of their mother, Mrs. Willie Armi-stead Land, belong to and have been omitted from the estate of their father, John R. Land, Sr., and that these assets should be added to the mass of the succession for distribution among the heirs. The authorities relied on by the appellee in support of her motion to dismiss are, therefore, neither pertinent nor apposite.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
exv10w26



 






Exhibit 10.26




Non-Employee Director Compensation Program




     The following is a summary of the compensation

arrangements for Orbital’s non-employee
directors effective January 1, 2005:


Annual Retainers and Meeting Fees*:





	 	•  	Annual retainer of $28,000
	 	•  	Annual retainer of $10,000 for the lead independent director
	 	•  	Annual retainer of $5,000 for the chairperson of each standing committee for up
to one standing committee per year
	 	•  	Annual retainer of $1,000 for each non-chair member of each standing committee
for up to two standing committees per year
	 	•  	$1,000 for each Board meeting attended in person in excess of five meetings per
year
	 	•  	$1,000 for each committee meeting attended in person
	 	•  	A pro-rated amount up to $1,000 for each Board or committee meeting held
telephonically based on the length of such meeting




*The annual retainers and meeting fees are payable in cash or shares of restricted

common stock at
the non-employee director’s election. The restricted common stock grants have a two-year vesting
term.



Stock Purchase Matching Program:



	 	•  	Matching a non-employee director’s purchase of up to $10,000 worth of common
stock in the open market in a calendar year with a grant of restricted common stock
that vests in its entirety two years from the date of grant.




Annual Stock Option Grant:



	 	•  	Under Orbital’s 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, on the first business day
in January, each non-employee director receives an automatic annual grant of 5,000
options to purchase common stock at an exercise price equal to the fair market value on
the date of grant. All of the option grants vest in their entirety one year from the
date of grant.
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond (People of Stanford) 

Docket No. 328784 

LC No. 14-020293-FH 

Amy Ronayne Krause 

Presiding Judge 

Peter D. O'Connell 

Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

Judges 

On the Court's own motion, the Court orders that the November 22, 2016 opinion is 

hereby VACA TED, and a new opinion is attached. 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on 

DEC 15 2016 

Dale
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00160-CV

PAUL KRAMER APPELLANT

V.

MELISSA AND SCOT HOLLMANN APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 352ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 352-227900-07

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On September 10, 2015, we notified appellant that his brief had not been 

filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court 

within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.3(b). We have not received any response.

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: October 22, 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Ward, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Belli, J.), rendered October 30, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Boklan, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While on patrol, Officer McManus received a report of a burglary in progress which provided a description of a male seen exiting the burglarized premises. Approximately one minute thereafter, the officer noticed the defendant, who matched the description and who was wearing only one shoe. In response to questioning, the defendant offered an improbable explanation as to his presence and the loss of a shoe. Thereupon, the officer told the defendant to enter the rear of the police vehicle and explained to him that he matched the description of a man exiting premises that had been burglarized. At a showup that was conducted immediately thereafter, an eyewitness identified the defendant as the man who had burglarized her apartment.

*502On appeal the defendant contends that the actions taken by the police constituted a de facto arrest for which probable cause was lacking. We disagree. In determining whether a de facto arrest has taken place, the test to be applied is what a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought had he been in the defendant’s position *(see, People v Hicks,*68 NY2d 234, 240; *People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, 589, *cert denied*400 US 851). Application of this test renders the defendant’s contention without merit.

We have reviewed the defendant’s other contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and conclude they are without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### Ronald T. Lebel, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant, and Richard Young et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted, in part, plaintiff’s motion for a protective order *(see,*CPLR 3103 [a]; *Hirschfeld v Hirschfeld,*69 NY2d 842, 844). Defendant’s notice of discovery and inspection dated May 12, 1988 was untimely under the court’s preliminary conference order dated March 25, 1986 and, in any event, defendant failed to establish that the evidence it sought was material and necessary in the defense of the action *(see,*CPLR 3101 [a]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Queens County, Lerner, J.—discovery.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.