text:
To understand ECP Hardware's commitment to its customers is to know more about the company's founder, Paul M. O'Rourke.
Paul was a life long resident of Metro Detroit and a graduate of Wayne State University. He always strove to better the community not only though his civic involvement but, equally important, through his dedication to the manufacturing industry, its customers and its innovation.
Paul started his career as a salesman for Pontiac, his passion for the industry obvious in his consecutive years as one of the top producers in the country. In 1965 he joined Lamparter Associates as a managing partner and contributed to the doubling of sales every year. The "Agency of the Year" award from Security Plastics followed. Paul was also an integral player in the attainment of "Blue Ribbon" clients such as Cadillac and Ford Heavy Truck and after his partners retired he took over the business, aptly renaming it Engineered Components Products.
Paul loved his work and helped to engineer and design many latches and hinges for American and Canadian made vehicles. Due to Paul's dedication to high standards of service and quality, and despite many challenges, the company not only remained competitive but expanded in 1993 to include a state of the art distribution center. Paul's integrity and ethics in business earned him an industry lifetime achievement award from Southco.
Paul passed away in 2004 after a battle with lung cancer. Those closest to him recall his love of baseball and the outdoors. Fishing, hiking and taking in all of nature's wonderful forms were his release.
A handshake was Paul O'Rourke's promise. Dedication to the customer is the guideline by which his son Ryan proudly continues in the business of comprehensive component selection at ECP Hardware; honoring his father's memory with a handshake of his own.
Home Services About Us Contact In Memory


What many collectors know as the Lomonosov Porcelain Factory has, since 29th may 2005, borne the name Imperial Porcelain Manufactory. The factory was established, in the town of Oraniembaum (Lomonosov), on the order of Empress Elizabeth, in 1744, "to serve native trade and native art". This followed closely on the creation by Dimitry Ivanovich Vinogradov, a talented mining engineer, of the Russian porcelain formula. This came after many attempts in Russia, following a visit by Peter the Great to the Court of Dresden in 1718, to discover the secret of making porcelain. Empress Elizabeth was Peter's daughter and successor. The factory produced ware exclusively for the Imperial family, the Romanovs for whom only the very best was good enough.
It was in 1762 during the reign of Catherine the Great, a period of great prosperity for Russian porcelain that the factory was given the name, "Imperial Porcelain Manufactory," The designs produced changed with succeeding reigns right up until the Revolution in 1917, which saw the end of the Russian monarchy. The factory was nationalised and became, "The State Porcelain Factory," a name it carried until 1925 when it was renamed the "Leningrad Lomonosov Porcelain Factory," in honour of the founder of Russia's Academy of Science, the great Russian polymath, Mikhail Vasileyvich Lomonosov.
Items produced during the Imperial period are of course extremely collectable, quite rare and highly valued. Having said that, the standards of quality and design were maintained in the post Imperial period making the products still very attractive and interesting to collectors today.
Production of a variety of both tableware and collectibles carried on and in the UK perhaps the best known are their beautiful range of animal figurines. The factory has survived wars, revolution and counter revolution and continues to produce limited editions of highly desirable collectables to this day.
On each of the pages within this section dedicated to Lomonosov collectibles we have included links to live and current online auctions dealing in each theme. In addition, where known, we have added details of collector clubs, forums and websites. We wish you every success in tracking down the missing pieces of your discontinued Lomonosov collection and hope you will become a regular visitor to Accumulations. Remember it's an ever-changing scene so it is always worth a return visit!
Please also check out the Lomonosov Books, Related Dealers and Useful Resources listed on this page.
No dealers are currently listed for Lomonosov. If you are a Lomonosov dealer and would like to be featured please email us at enquiries@accumulations.co.uk.


Are you a tactical shooter? An equally badass tactical gun safe should be housing your firearms. Unlike the usual gun storage units, a tactical safe has an improved interior and a solid-looking exterior. Usually, these are large units that can fit many long and short firearms together with ammo.
Aside from the usual shelves, the door of a tactical safe has mounts and pockets where you can easily reach for a gun whenever the need arises. This is powerhouse firearm storage with a higher fire rating and made from thicker steel.
4 Top 3 Tactical Gun Safe Picks!
All tactical safes come with a solid build that makes it waterproof and fireproof. This type of safe is also preferred by offices and establishments with high-security requirements.
Usually, the shelves of a tactical safe are modular and can be adjusted based on the users' needs. This way, the weapon storage can be adjusted so more firearms can be accommodated. The console racks are typically customizable for more functionality.
Tactical safes are complete with barrel saddles, modular wall bars, and additional shelves to store other belongings. A door organizer can be used for pouches and other mounting features. Usually, a tactical safe can store just about any firearm, be it pistols, shotguns, rifles, and more.
All gun safes aim to thwart unauthorized access to firearms. But with the use of tactical models, the safety features are much better.
Tactical safes are made of thicker steel plates and large bolts which make it more difficult to crack open. Also, many units will use a spring re-clocker in case someone tries to ruin the keypad dial.
This type of safe isn't just for keeping kids away from your guns. It's also excellent to evade burglary and to secure important documents and belongings.
Also, by keeping all your firearms and ammo in one place, you can dampen any curiosity from friends or visitors.
Many gun safes are equipped with fire protection. Even if your safe is ablaze, it can withstand the flames for a specific time and temperature. This safe is also water-resistant in case the firefighters drench it in the process of keeping the fire off.
If your gun collection has become serious, a tactical safe will provide a higher level of security. Some units can even withstand a shotgun blast.
Suppose you're leaving the house for long, a tactical safe can house all your firearms while utilizing various layers of security, from thicker bolts to spring relockers.
Also, a tactical safe offers more organization due to additional shelves and barrels. And since tactical safes come in different shapes and sizes, it can fit in almost any spot in your home.
Top 3 Tactical Gun Safe Picks!
Tough from the inside and out, the Stack-On TS-20-MB safe sports a badass, textured door paired with a powerhouse interior. In addition, this has a four-way locking system with 1.5" tapered locking bolts. This safe is fire rated for 30 minutes for up to 1400F.
On the inside, the door has a built-in organizer where you can place four handguns, four long gun magazines, four pistol magazines, and more pouches and zipped storage.
Meanwhile, the safe has modular shelves with barrel rests that can be adjusted. You can store all your ammo and guns here with peace of mind.
Looking for a taller safe? The Mesa gun safe is tall enough at 59 inches to house firearms and other belongings. Similarly, its 10-bolt locking system is paired with a UL -listed Group 2 combination lock for topnotch security.
The best thing about this Mesa safe is it has a 2-storey impact rating. Therefore, its solid steel construction will provide your firearms the extensive level of security you need. It also has a fire rating of 60 minutes for up to 1750F.
This safe comes with four pre-drilled mounting holes for added safety. However, at 505 pounds, you definitely have to pin this to the floor to avoid accidents.
If you have the money to splurge, don't forget to check the Winchester Tactical safe. Also, this made from tough, 16-gauge steel walls with 46 holding components. This includes 22 quick-access pistol pins and 24 barrel rests.
Aside from the interior features, this safe also comes with a steel top shelf for storing more items out of your kid's reach. This safe also comes with a pal sol expanding door seal which creates a barrier during fire against smoke and water.
You can now store more handguns as compared to typical door organizers. From its name Defender, you can definitely stop the threat of burglary and unauthorized access to your guns.
A tactical gun safe offers more security and storage benefits. As much as many of the units are expensive, you're getting more steel which translates to stronger build. Meanwhile, for avid gun collectors, splurging is worth the investment. Do you anything to share? Let us know below!


Giving Up: Not An Option!
Trading gave me an exposé to my personality. I had to re-assess myself and my goals. Being very analytical, I have the tendency to over analyze; at times, analyze to paralysis. I am a perfectionist, but I learnt that it is not in my best interest to be a perfect trader- looking for a perfect system with a perfect set-up. It does not exist. Instead, it is better to be a good and profitable trader: have a simple trade set-up, identify opportunities fast (without over analyzing) and use it to my advantage. I discovered that I trade fearfully- motivated by the desire to 'not lose;' consequently, I cut short winning trades and let losing trades run. Therefore, I gave myself permission to lose and learn from the experience. It is part of the learning process. One of the main things I'm instilling into my trading is the "Read and React" principle- taught by Todd. That is, trade based on what the platform is telling you and not what you feel the platform should be doing.
It occurred to me that Shawn, Nate and all the partners of Apiary were once like me; they used to be where I am today. However, they kept at it and now, they are a success. I tell myself that as much as I want results, I cannot jump the gun- I have to ALLOW myself go through the process and keep at it!
Though I am not yet where I want to be, I am grateful because I am not where I used to be and my slogan is- "I will get there." Today, I'm happy and more confident in my trading. I look forward to when I will be funded; consistently practicing with patience, knowing that by the time I am funded, I would have become a refined trader who can hold her head high; because I am in the hands of the best in the industry.
Congratulations on your achievement!!! I hope to be done with Silver I on Sunday/Monday.
I absolutely agree with everything you said. I too am a perfectionist. I also WAS trading from fear that stopped me from realizing bigger gains and smaller losses. I am confident that if I stick with the Apiary Plan and not my own, I will be successful.
Even with the best strategy and a perfect plan you will win only 60 to 70 percent of the time. I lost 1200 pips in my funded account just yesterday...made 1100 pips today, and didn't change a thing as far as my strategy and risk management goes. The important thing I guess is to treat losses as a business expense and don't be afraid to jump right back in. And I guarantee you Shawn and Nate still have losing days. Don't chase "Holy Grails". Find a strategy that works for you and perfect it. Study, study, study! Stick with it. It may take years to become profitable, but then you will have accomplished something that only 10% of all retail trader have done. Good luck to you!
They say: Don't give up" Maybe that is why we are here! we are here to be challenge, to be a good trader, to be a professional trader someday. Thanks to the founder of Apiary Funds. I have learned a lot as well about under Beeline and watching on my trading chart in different time frame, night trading, day trading, London break, non farm payroll, Closing trade before 3 Pm, Setting up trade at 5 PM, training myself to get up at night 1-2 am, getting up at 5 - 8 am. You will get all figured and then you know what, which, and how. After all you'll end up writing all down the best trading strategic that work best for you. Make it simple. Other than that, you are on the go of taking profit, grow account,ect. Good luck and thank you for sharing.
@c517: Thank you so much for your words of encouragement.
@walt724: Thanks a lot for your comments! Truly, I believe the Apiary training is the best: to refine us and bring out the Trader in us. If we do not give up, but keep at it, we will be successful.. So, let's do this.. I wish you the best and welcome you to Silver11..
@kwk58: Thanks for your words of wisdom. Being able to deal with loses is very important to my success- especially jumping in right back and fighting it out, instead of fleeing. Also, accepting that no strategy is 100% perfect is critical. I appreciate your comments!
@gldgrn9: Thank you so much for your comments: very encouraging! I am always happy to see people who have gone before me being successful. It encourages me the more because it is an evidence that it can be done. Same here, I am up at different times of the day: daytime, night, midnight and several times throughout the night- trying to see which trading session suits me best and testing different stategies... I believe I will figure it all out and look forward to becoming very skilled in trading.
You are so correct, I got funded, the next trick is to actually make money.
@rookie no more: Thanks a lot. You bet, I look forward to getting funded and actually making money!!!


text:
[Decision Number]
National Treasury Employees Union (Union) and United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (Agency)
66 FLRA No. 109
(Union)
(Agency)
0‑AR‑4729
Before the Authority: Carol Waller Pope, Chairman, and
Thomas M. Beck and Ernest DuBester, Members
I. Statement of the Case
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Jeanne M. Vonhof filed by the Agency and the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. Each party filed an opposition to the other's exceptions.[1]
The Arbitrator found that the Agency violated both the parties' national agreement (National Agreement) and § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by changing conditions of employment without providing the Union with notice or an opportunity to bargain. She denied the Union's request for a status‑quo‑ante remedy, but did award monetary compensation and other remedies, including a notice posting. She also denied the Union attorney fees.
For the reasons that follow, we: set aside the Arbitrator's finding that the Agency violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5); modify the award to delete the reference to an unfair labor practice (ULP) in the notice that the Arbitrator directed; deny the Union's exception to the Arbitrator's chosen remedies; grant the Union's contrary‑to‑law exception to the Arbitrator's denial of attorney fees; and remand the portion of the award concerning attorney fees to the parties, absent settlement, for resubmission to the Arbitrator.
II. Background and Arbitrator's Award
When the number of taxpayers requesting assistance from the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) increased, see Award at 40, 45, the Union filed a national grievance contending that the Agency violated both the National Agreement and the Statute by "measurably" increasing the workload of TAS Case Advocates, without providing the Union with notice or an opportunity to bargain over the impact and implementation of the increased workload, id. at 3‑4; Agency's Exceptions, Attach. 6 ("National Grievance Regarding Increased Caseload of TAS Case Advocates") at 1. The grievance was unresolved and submitted to arbitration, Award at 4, where the Arbitrator framed the following issues: "Did the Agency violate Article 47 of the . . . National Agreement [(Article 47)][[2]] and 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1) and (5)[[3]] by increasing the workload assigned to TAS Case Advocates by more than a de minimis amount, without providing notice to, or bargaining with the Union?," id. at 1 (emphasis added) (original italics omitted).
As relevant here, based on court and Authority decisions concerning § 7116, see id. at 32‑33, as well as the text of Article 47, see id. at 32, 34, the Arbitrator found that "[u]nilateral changes in working conditions made by [the A]gency without giving the [U]nion notice and an opportunity to bargain over the changes may . . . [constitute a ULP] or a contract violation," id. at 33‑34 (emphasis added). But the Arbitrator also found that both the Statute and the National Agreement limit the Agency's midterm notice‑and‑bargaining obligations to those changes in conditions of employment that, as relevant here: (1) result from actions taken by the Agency; and (2) are not "covered by" an existing agreement. See id. at 28‑32, 34.
The Agency argued that "the Union [did not] pinpoint any particular change in any Agency policy, practice[,] or procedure" that would have triggered the Agency's notice‑and‑bargaining obligations, id. at 35, but the Arbitrator faulted the Agency for "divid[ing] up an ever‑growing pool of cases among virtually the same number of existing Case Advocates without making other reasonable adjustments," id. at 40. In particular, the Arbitrator found that "[t]here has been [neither a] permanent alteration in case processing deadlines . . . [nor] any adjustment in the application of the job performance criteria." Id. at 43‑44. As such, the Arbitrator determined that the Agency changed Case Advocates' working conditions, id. at 40, because the Agency did not "sufficiently mitigate[] the effects of the substantial caseload increase so as to reduce the impact [on Case Advocates] . . . to a de minimis level," id. at 46 (italics omitted). She found further that both the Statute and the National Agreement required the Agency to provide the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over the impact and implementation of that caseload increase, unless it was a change "covered by" the National Agreement. See id. at 28‑30. In that regard, the Arbitrator rejected the Agency's argument that Article 25 of the National Agreement (Article 25)[4] "covered" the dispute, id. at 30‑32, finding that Article 42 of the National Agreement (Article 42)[5] specifically permitted the Union to file an institutional grievance seeking relief for violations of Article 47, id. at 26‑28. Therefore, the Arbitrator concluded that the Agency violated both Article 47 and § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by changing employees' conditions of employment without fulfilling its notice‑and‑bargaining obligations. Id. at 46; see id. at 48 (reiterating that Agency "violated the [National] Agreement and committed [a ULP] in failing to bargain").
In order to redress the violations of "both Article 47 and federal law," id. at 46, the Arbitrator directed the Agency to: (1) bargain with the Union at the national level, id.; (2) post a notice "stating that the Agency has committed [a ULP] and violated Article 47 of the [National] Agreement . . . and has been ordered by the Arbitrator to bargain," id.; and (3) "make employees whole" for certain monetary losses resulting from lower performance evaluations that were attributable to the Agency's violations, id. at 47. She denied the Union's request for a status‑quo‑ante remedy involving Case Advocates' workloads, id. at 46‑47, and denied the Union attorney fees, finding that an award of fees "would not be in the interest of justice" because "the issue of the duty to bargain over the impact and implementation of increases in caseload[s] is not a straightforward[,] simple issue," id. at 48.
III. Positions of the Parties
A. Agency's Exceptions and Supplemental Brief
The Agency contends that the award is contrary to law because the Arbitrator found that the Agency violated § 7116 even though, according to the Agency, her factual findings demonstrate that there was no "Agency‑initiated action or change" in policy or practice that would trigger notice‑and‑bargaining obligations under the Statute. Agency's Exceptions at 10‑11. In this regard, the Agency argues that the Arbitrator found that the "Agency made a change by not making a change," id. at 26 (internal quotation marks omitted), which is inconsistent with the Authority's precedent on § 7116, id. at 11‑19 (citing U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Med. Ctr., Sheridan, Wyo., 59 FLRA 93, 94‑95 (2003) (Chairman Cabaniss concurring) (VA Sheridan); U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., Houston Dist., Houston, Tex., 50 FLRA 140, 145 (1995) (INS Houston)). In addition, the Agency asserts that the Arbitrator's finding that the grievance was not "covered by" Article 25 is contrary to law. Id. at 28‑30. See also Agency's Supplemental Brief at 6‑8 (citing BOP v. FLRA, 654 F.3d at 95‑98) (arguing that Article 25 expressly covers changes in workload).
B. Union's Opposition to Exceptions and Response to Supplemental Brief
The Union argues that, to the extent that Authority precedent "requires . . . show[ing] that an agency has [acted] affirmative[ly] to change a 'policy or practice' [resulting] in a change in conditions of employment" to establish a violation of § 7116, "the standard . . . ought to be changed to include the type of factual circumstances" in this case. Union's Opp'n at 15. In this regard, the Union requests that the Authority establish a "bright line rule" that significantly increased workloads automatically trigger § 7116 notice‑and‑bargaining obligations, regardless of whether the increase is "precipitated by the agency." Id. at 30. Moreover, the Union asserts that the decisions cited by the Agency are either inapposite, see id. at 19‑20 (discussing INS Houston), or rely on an "abandoned distinction" between "conditions of employment" and "working conditions" under the Statute, id. at 24; see id. at 22‑24 (discussing VA Sheridan). The Union also asserts that the Arbitrator correctly rejected the Agency's "covered by" defense. Id. at 32‑33. See also Union's Resp. to Agency's Supplemental Brief at 7‑14 (arguing BOP v. FLRA is distinguishable). Finally, the Union requests that the Authority exclude from consideration a table in the "Facts" section of the Agency's exceptions, as well as an argument offered to support the exceptions, because neither the table nor the argument was presented to the Arbitrator, as required by § 2425.4(c) of the Authority's Regulations.[6] See Union's Opp'n at 35‑36.
C. Union's Exceptions
The Union argues that the award is contrary to law and that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority in denying status‑quo‑ante relief and attorney fees. Union's Exceptions at 3, 4, 12, 14. The Union contends that the Arbitrator denied its request for a status‑quo‑ante remedy even though application of factors in Federal Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA 604 (1982) (FCI), "compels a conclusion" that such a remedy is "warranted." Union's Exceptions at 7; see also id. at 8. The Union contends further that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by prematurely denying the Union attorney fees before the Union filed a motion requesting fees. Id. at 13 & n.9. In addition, the Union asserts that the denial of fees is contrary to the Back Pay Act (BPA), 5 U.S.C. § 5596, and contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 7701(g) (§ 7701(g)), because it is not "fully articulated and reasoned." Union's Exceptions at 14 (citation omitted); see also id. at 14‑15. Consequently, the Union asks the Authority to "vacate" the fee determination and to refrain from remanding the attorney‑fee issue to the Arbitrator because, according to the Union, that would be "premature." Id. at 15. Notwithstanding that request, the Union also requests that the Authority "void" the Arbitrator's fee determination and "remand[] [it] to the parties and the [A]rbitrator, if necessary." Id. at 13.
D. Agency's Opposition
The Agency argues that the Union fails "to cite any legal authority requiring a status[‑]quo[‑]ante remedy in this case." Agency's Opp'n at 6. Further, the Agency contends that the Arbitrator had the authority to decide whether to award the Union attorney fees, id. at 12‑15, because the "Union expressly sought attorney fees in its post‑hearing brief, placing [that] question . . . before the Arbitrator," id. at 14 (citing Union's Exceptions, Attach. 2 (Union's Post‑Hearing Brief) at 43‑44). Finally, the Agency asserts that the Arbitrator's finding that fees would not be "warranted in the interest of justice" sufficiently justified her denial of fees. Id. at 15‑18.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
When an exception involves an award's consistency with law, the Authority reviews any question of law raised by the exception and the award de novo. See NTEU, Chapter 24, 50 FLRA 330, 332 (1995) (citing U.S. Customs Serv. v. FLRA, 43 F.3d 682, 686‑87 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). In applying the standard of de novo review, the Authority assesses whether an arbitrator's legal conclusions are consistent with the applicable standard of law. See U.S. Dep't of Def., Dep'ts of the Army & the Air Force, Ala. Nat'l Guard, Northport, Ala., 55 FLRA 37, 40 (1998). When a grievance under § 7121 of the Statute involves an alleged ULP, the arbitrator must analyze the ULP allegation using the same standards and burdens that would be used by an administrative law judge in a ULP proceeding under § 7118. See NTEU, 64 FLRA 462, 464 (2010). As in other arbitration cases, including those where violations of law are alleged, the Authority defers to an arbitrator's findings of fact. See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Patent & Trademark Office, 52 FLRA 358, 367 (1996).
A. The Arbitrator erred in finding that the Agency violated § 7116(a)(1)
and (5) of the Statute.
The Agency contends that the award is contrary to law because the Arbitrator's factual findings demonstrate that there was no "Agency‑initiated action or change" in policy or practice that would require the Agency to provide the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain under the Statute. Agency's Exceptions at 10‑11.
To find that an agency has violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) by failing to provide a union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over changes to conditions of employment, there must be a threshold determination that the agency made a change in a policy, practice, or procedure affecting unit employees' conditions of employment. See VA Sheridan, 59 FLRA at 94 (citing U.S. Dep't of Labor, OSHA, Region 1, Bos., Mass., 58 FLRA 213, 215 (2002) (OSHA) (Chairman Cabaniss concurring); U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., N.Y.C., N.Y., 52 FLRA 582, 585‑86 (1996); INS Houston, 50 FLRA at 143‑44). The determination of whether a change in conditions of employment has occurred involves a case‑by‑case analysis. See OSHA, 58 FLRA at 215 (citing 92 Bomb Wing, Fairchild Air Force Base, Spokane, Wash., 50 FLRA 701, 704 (1995); INS Houston, 50 FLRA at 144). In addition, where employees' "volume" of work or "number" of assignments increases, but those increases are not attributable to any change in the agency's policies, practices, or procedures affecting working conditions, the Authority has found that such increases "[s]tanding alone" do not trigger notice‑and‑bargaining obligations under § 7116(a)(5). See VA Sheridan, 59 FLRA at 94‑95.[7]
The Arbitrator found that the number of "incoming cases" received by TAS "increased considerably in the last several years." Award at 45. In addition, she found that: (1) the Agency "divide[d] up an ever‑growing pool of cases among virtually the same number of existing Case Advocates without making other reasonable adjustments," id. at 40 (emphases added); (2) "[t]here ha[d] been no permanent alteration in case processing deadlines . . . [n]or . . . any adjustment in the application of the job performance criteria," id. at 43‑44 (emphases added); and (3) the Agency did not "sufficiently mitigate[] the effects of the substantial caseload increase," id. at 46. Based on the foregoing, the only change found by the Arbitrator was an increase in the number of incoming cases that TAS had to process. See id. at 40 ("ever‑growing pool of cases"). That is, the Arbitrator did not find that the Agency itself made any changes to its policies, practices, or procedures. Thus, we find that the Agency did not make a unilateral change to conditions of employment that violated its notice‑and‑bargaining obligations under the Statute.[8] See VA Sheridan, 59 FLRA at 94‑95.
The Union argues that the Authority should establish a "bright line rule" that significantly increased workloads trigger an agency's notice‑and‑bargaining obligations under § 7116 regardless of whether the increase is "precipitated by the agency." Union's Opp'n at 30. But this argument ignores that the Authority has long held that agencies violate their § 7116(a)(5) notice‑and‑bargaining obligations only where, as relevant here, they make "unilateral changes" to conditions of employment. See, e.g., U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Serv., 66 FLRA 528, 528, 530 (2012) ("unilateral[] reclassifi[cation]"); U.S. Dep't of the Navy, Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville, Fla., 63 FLRA 365, 369‑70 (2009) ("unilateral implementation" of new instruction); Dep't of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Ill., 5 FLRA 9, 10‑11 (1981); Internal Revenue Serv., Wash., D.C., 4 FLRA 488 (1980). The Union has not explained how an agency could unilaterally change conditions of employment – and thereby violate § 7116 – if it has not made any change to a policy, practice, or procedure affecting conditions of employment. Accordingly, we reject the Union's request to establish a new "bright line rule" that significantly increased workloads necessarily trigger statutory notice‑and‑bargaining obligations, regardless of whether the increase is "precipitated by the agency." Union's Opp'n at 30.
Based on the foregoing, we set aside the Arbitrator's finding that the Agency violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5).[9]
B. Setting aside the Arbitrator's ULP finding does not require setting aside the entire award.
Consistent with the Arbitrator's findings, set forth above, the Agency acknowledges that: (1) the "grievance . . . asserted that the Agency violated Article 47, Section 2 of the National Agreement and 5 U.S.C. § 7116[] . . . both[,] by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain," Agency's Exceptions at 33 (emphases added) (internal quotation marks omitted); and (2) the "Arbitrator defined the issue as[,] 'Did the Agency violate Article 47 . . . and 5 U.S.C. § 7116 . . .?,'" id. (emphasis added). Despite its acknowledgment of the separate contractual and statutory bases of the award, the Agency excepts only on the grounds that: (1) the Arbitrator erred "as a matter of law" in finding that workload increases "generated an obligation under the Statute," id. at 1; and (2) the workload increases provide no "basis for sustaining the charged violation of 5 U.S.C. § 7116," id. at 34. That is, while acknowledging that the grievance and award concern violations of both the National Agreement and the Statute, the Agency excepts only to the Arbitrator's finding of a statutory violation.[10] In the absence of an exception arguing that the Arbitrator's finding of a contractual violation fails to draw its essence from Article 47, that finding remains undisturbed.[11] Cf. Broad. Bd. of Governors, Office of Cuba Broad., 64 FLRA 888, 891 (2010) (agency's exception arguing that it had no statutory duty to bargain provided no basis for finding award deficient, where arbitrator found that agency violated a contractual obligation to bargain).
The Arbitrator awarded remedies that redressed violations of "both Article 47 and federal law." Award at 46 (emphases added). Thus, setting aside the Arbitrator's ULP finding affects only those remedies that are tied solely to the ULP. The only remedy that is tied solely to the ULP is the Arbitrator's direction that the posted notice "stat[e] that the Agency has committed a[] [ULP]." Id. Therefore, consistent with our decision to set aside the finding of a ULP, we modify the award to delete the notice's reference to a ULP.
As the Arbitrator's remaining remedies are not tied solely to the finding of a ULP, and as the Agency does not except to the finding of a contractual violation, there is no basis for setting aside the remaining remedies. Further, as the undisturbed contractual violation could support the Union's requested status‑quo‑ante remedy and an award of attorney fees – both of which the Arbitrator denied – it is necessary to address the Union's exceptions regarding the denied remedy and attorney fees. We do so below.
C. The Arbitrator's denial of a status‑quo‑ante remedy is not contrary to law.
The Union argues that application of factors in FCI, 8 FLRA 604, "compels [a] conclusion that a status[‑]quo[‑]ante remedy is warranted." Union's Exceptions at 7-8. The Authority has held that arbitrators have "great latitude in fashioning remedies." AFGE, Local 916, 57 FLRA 715, 717 (2002) (quoting NTEU, Chapter 68, 57 FLRA 256, 257 (2001) (Chapter 68)); Dep't of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Ctr., Robins Air Force Base, Ga., 25 FLRA 969, 971 (1987). In particular, where an arbitrator finds that an agency's failure to bargain violates a collective‑bargaining agreement, the propriety of status‑quo‑ante relief is governed by the arbitrator's remedial authority under the violated agreement, not the FCI factors. Chapter 68, 57 FLRA at 257; AFGE, Council 215, Nat'l Council of SSA, OHA Locals, 46 FLRA 1518, 1523‑24 (1993) (Council 215).
As discussed above, because we have set aside the Arbitrator's finding that the Agency violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5), the only remaining basis for the awarded relief is the violation of Article 47. The Arbitrator was not required to apply the FCI factors to remedy that contractual violation.[12] Chapter 68, 57 FLRA at 257; Council 215, 46 FLRA at 1523‑24. Thus, we find that the Union has not established that the Arbitrator's denial of a status‑quo‑ante remedy is contrary to law.
D. The Arbitrator's denial of attorney fees is contrary to law.
The Union asserts that the Arbitrator's denial of attorney fees is contrary to the BPA and § 7701(g). As relevant here, the BPA requires that an award of fees be in accordance with standards established under § 7701(g). See U.S. Dep't of Def., Def. Distrib. Region E., New Cumberland, Pa., 51 FLRA 155, 158 (1995) (DoD). Section 7701(g), as pertinent here, provides that an award of attorney fees must be warranted in the interest of justice. See id. An award of attorney fees is warranted in the interest of justice if it satisfies any one of the criteria set forth in Allen v. U.S. Postal Service, 2 M.S.P.R. 420, 434‑46 (1980), or U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 32 FLRA 375, 376‑78 (1988) (citing Naval Air Dev. Ctr., Dep't of the Navy, 21 FLRA 131, 139 (1986) (Concurring Op. of Chairman Calhoun)). See U.S. Dep't of Def., Def. Mapping Agency, Hydrographic/Topographic Ctr., Wash., D.C., 47 FLRA 1187, 1194 (1993).
An arbitrator's attorney‑fee award or denial under § 7701(g) must set forth specific findings supporting determinations on each pertinent statutory requirement. See DoD, 51 FLRA at 158. Where an attorney‑fee determination is deficient, the Authority "take[s] the action necessary to assure that the award is consistent with applicable statutory standards." AFGE, Local 3020, 64 FLRA 596, 597-98 (2010) (citing U.S. Dep't of Agric., Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., Plant Prot. & Quarantine, 53 FLRA 1688, 1695 (1998)). If an award does not contain the findings necessary to enable the Authority to assess the arbitrator's legal conclusions, and those findings cannot be derived from the record, then the attorney‑fee issue will be remanded to the parties, absent settlement, for resubmission to the arbitrator so that requisite findings can be made. See NFFE, Local 1437, 53 FLRA 1703, 1712 (1998) (NFFE).
The Arbitrator found that an award of fees "would not be in the interest of justice" because "the issue of the duty to bargain over the impact and implementation of increases in caseload[s] is not a straightforward[,] simple issue." Award at 48. The Arbitrator's one‑sentence explanation fails to set forth specific findings supporting the denial of attorney fees, as § 7701(g) requires. In particular, the denial does not address any of the recognized interest‑of‑justice criteria discussed above. Cf. Ala. Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, 54 FLRA 229, 233 (1998) (one‑sentence denial did not meet statutory requirements). In addition, the necessary findings cannot be derived from the record. Therefore, we grant the Union's contrary‑to‑law exception to the Arbitrator's denial of attorney fees.
With regard to the Union's argument that a remand of the attorney‑fee issue would be "premature," Union's Exceptions at 15, the Agency correctly points out that the Union's post‑hearing brief requested the Arbitrator to award attorney fees, and the brief also put the interest‑of‑justice criteria before the Arbitrator, see id., Attach. 2 (Union's Post‑Hearing Brief) at 43‑45. In addition, the brief included the Union's argument as to why an award of fees would be in the interest of justice. See id. at 44. Therefore, we find that a remand of the attorney‑fee issue would not be premature. The Union alternatively requests that the Authority "remand[] [the attorney‑fee issue] to the parties and the [A]rbitrator, if necessary." Union's Exceptions at 13. The Union's alternative request is consistent with the Authority's practice in cases such as this one. See, e.g., AFGE, Local 987, 64 FLRA 884, 886‑87 (2010); NFFE, 53 FLRA at 1710‑12. Thus, we remand the portion of the award concerning attorney fees to the parties, absent settlement, for resubmission to the Arbitrator, in order to make the additional findings required to satisfy the standards set forth above.[13]
V. Decision
The Arbitrator's finding that the Agency violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) is set aside, and the award is modified to delete the notice's reference to a ULP. The Union's exception to the Arbitrator's chosen remedies is denied, but its contrary‑to‑law exception to the Arbitrator's denial of attorney fees is granted. The portion of the award concerning attorney fees is remanded to the parties, absent settlement, for resubmission to the Arbitrator.
The National Agreement provides, in pertinent part:
Employees are encouraged to discuss unmanageable inventory problems with their supervisors at any appropriate time. If the matter remains unresolved, employees may submit their concerns in writing. The supervisor will provide a written response within five (5) workdays addressing the resolution of the problem. Grievances seeking to remedy the adverse impact on employees can only be filed in connection with a completed personnel action, for example, non‑selection for a promotion or discipline.
Institutional Grievance Procedure
National Union Institutional Grievance Procedure
The Union's National President may file grievances as provided in this section. For purposes of this section only, the term "grievance" means:
2. a grievance concerning an issue of rights afforded to employees under this Agreement[,] which otherwise would be cognizable only as separate grievances from two (2) or more chapters over identical issues.
Mid‑Term Bargaining
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71, to the extent permitted by law, either party may initiate mid‑term bargaining by proposing changes in conditions of employment provided that such changes are not covered by this or any other collective bargaining agreement between the parties. . . .
1. Unless otherwise permitted by law, no changes will be implemented by the [Agency] until proper and timely notice has been provided to the Union, and all negotiations have been completed[,] including any impasse proceedings.
National Bargaining
Where either party proposes changes in conditions of employment that are Service‑wide in nature (to include those matters that affect employees in one (1) or more Divisions in multiple geographic areas), it will consolidate those proposed changes and serve notice thereof on a quarterly basis. Such notice will be due within five (5) workdays of April 1, July 1, October 1, and January 1, of each year, respectively.
Agency's Exceptions, Attach. 2 at 90 (Art. 25, § 1); id. at 135 (Art. 42, § 4); id. at 146‑47 (Art. 47, §§ 1‑2); see also Award at 2‑3 (quoting relevant contract provisions).
[1] In addition, the Agency requested leave to file a supplemental brief concerning Federal Bureau of Prisons v. FLRA, 654 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (BOP v. FLRA), granting petition for review and vacating U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C., 64 FLRA 559 (2010), and the Authority granted the request. See Order (Sept. 22) at 1. The Union was given an opportunity to file – and did file – a response to the Agency's brief. See id.; Union's Resp. to Agency's Supplemental Brief.
[2] The relevant text of Article 47 is set forth in the appendix to this decision.
[3] Under § 7116(a)(1) of the Statute, it is a ULP for an agency "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise" of rights under the Statute; under § 7116(a)(5), it is a ULP "to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a labor organization" as required by the Statute.
[6] Section 2425.4(c) states that "an exception may not rely on any evidence, factual assertions, arguments (including affirmative defenses), requested remedies, or challenges to an awarded remedy that could have been, but were not, presented to the arbitrator."
[7] The Union mistakenly asserts that VA Sheridan was based on an "abandoned distinction" between "conditions of employment" and "working conditions" under the Statute. Union's Opp'n at 24. The majority opinion in VA Sheridan was not based on such a distinction. See 59 FLRA at 94 ("[T]he fact that there were more acute patients admitted [to a particular unit after a certain date] does not establish that the [agency] made a change in its admission policy, practice, or standards concerning the acuity of patients admitted.").
[8] As set forth supra Part III.B., the Union requests that the Authority exclude from consideration a table and an argument concerning the Agency's calculation of the percentage increase in employees' caseloads over several years. See Union's Opp'n at 35‑36. As neither the table nor the argument is required to support the finding that the Agency did not change a policy, practice, or procedure affecting conditions of employment, we find it unnecessary to address the Union's request. See AFGE, Council 236, 58 FLRA 582, 583 n.3 (2003) (Authority may decline to address requests to bar arguments where addressing those requests is unnecessary to resolve exceptions).
[9] As we have set aside the finding that the Agency violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5), we find it unnecessary to address the Agency's argument that the award is contrary to law because it is inconsistent with the "covered by" doctrine.
[10] As a result, this case differs in significant respects from BOP v. FLRA, which, as mentioned in note 1, supra, both parties addressed in supplemental submissions. In that case, the court found that, because the "arbitral award [at issue] ma[de] no distinction between the . . . separate statutory and contractual grounds for the award," 654 F.3d at 97 (internal quotation marks omitted), the agency was not required to file distinct exceptions to both of those grounds, id. Here, by contrast, the Arbitrator's award provides separate and distinct analyses regarding the Agency's statutory obligations and violations, and its contractual obligations and violations. Compare, e.g., Award at 32‑33 (finding statutory notice‑and‑bargaining obligations based on court and Authority decisions interpreting § 7116), and id. at 28‑29, 31‑32 (discussing statutory "covered by" limitation on § 7116(a)(5) obligations), with id. at 32, 34 (finding contractual notice‑and‑bargaining obligations based on the specific wording of Article 47), and id. at 29‑30 (discussing contractual "covered by" limitation on Article 47 obligations). See also id. at 46 (finding Agency "violated the [National] Agreement and committed a[] [ULP]" (emphasis added)). And here, the Agency expressly acknowledges that the award is based on findings of both statutory and contractual violations, see Agency's Exceptions at 33, but excepts solely to the finding of a statutory violation, see id. at 1, 34.
[11] Even if the Agency had excepted to the Arbitrator's finding of a contractual violation in this case, recent Authority precedent would support denying the exception. See U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, IRS, Wage & Inv. Div., 66 FLRA 235 (2011) (IRS). In IRS, an arbitrator – interpreting the same National Agreement that is at issue in this case, see id. at 245-46 – found that an agency had violated both contractual and statutory bargaining obligations, see id. at 236. The agency excepted to the findings of both violations, but relied solely upon statutory standards to support its exceptions. See id. at 236-37. After denying the exceptions to the finding of a statutory violation, the Authority stated that the agency's statutory arguments "d[id] not address the [a]rbitrator's conclusion that the [a]gency violated the parties' agreement, which was solely a matter of contract interpretation." Id. at 240. "Thus," the Authority concluded, "the [a]gency's arguments provide[d] no basis for finding the [a]rbitrator's conclusion regarding the contractual violation deficient." Id. (footnote omitted). In so concluding, the Authority noted that the agency "d[id] not assert that the contractual provisions in dispute [t]here mirror[ed] the Statute." Id. at 240 n.5. Like the agency in IRS, the Agency in this case – which does not argue that Article 47 "mirrors" § 7116(a)(1) and (5) – relies solely on statutory standards in support of its exceptions, and its statutory arguments do not address the Arbitrator's conclusion that the Agency violated the National Agreement, "which was solely a matter of contract interpretation." Id. at 240. Therefore, even if the Agency had excepted to the contractual finding, IRS would support denying that exception, given the absence of contractual arguments to support it.
[12] We note that the Union does not claim that the remedial award fails to draw its essence from the National Agreement.
[13] As we are remanding the attorney‑fee determination to the parties on the basis of its being contrary to law, we find it unnecessary to evaluate the Union's exception contending that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by addressing the attorney‑fee issue.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


It rarely happens, but Scott Sumner and I do sometimes disagree on something.
Not surprisingly this time it is on a (mostly) non-monetary matter – the long-term outlook for the Chinese economy.
I have several problems with this argument. First, if Lars really feels PPP is wrong, and that we should use nominal figures, then he should not be talking about China having recently grown at 7 to 7.5% per year. In PPP terms China may have been growing at 7.5% vs. 2% in the US, but in nominal terms the gap is far wider, due to the Balassa-Samuelson effect. China's real exchange rate has appreciated strongly over the past decade. So if Lars is right that nominal exchange rates are the right test, then China's been catching up to the US at a rate far faster than either Lars or I assume. And in that case China's nominal growth could slow dramatically and yet still be growing far faster than the US (where trend NGDP growth is now about 3%, in my view.) Lars avoids this problem by assuming the Balassa-Samuelson effect will suddenly come to a screeching halt, whereas I think the yuan is headed to 4 to the dollar. He also assumes a 3% RGDP growth rate for the US, whereas I believe it will be closer to 1.2%, growing over time to perhaps 2% in a few decades.
Other than it is a bit paradoxical that Scott aka Mr. NGDP is so eager to dismiss using nominal terms rather than real terms when it comes to comparing the absolute size of an economy the real disagreement comes down to whether there is a Balassa-Samuelson effect or not. According to the the BS effect relatively poorer countries – such as China – will see its exchange rate appreciate in real terms relative to richer countries such as the US.
In my China-post I assumed that there was no BS effect – and that the relative exchange rate between China and the US in the future would be determined by the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). This assumption of course means that there is no difference whether we use real or nominal growth rates in GDP when comparing the relative size of the Chinese and the US economy (both measured in US dollars).
I acknowledged in my post that my no-BS effect assumption was a bit brave and I would happily agree that there is nothing theoretically wrong with the Balassa-Samuelson effect. However, I would also say that having worked professionally with forecasting Emerging Markets currencies for nearly 15 years I would be extremely skeptical about its importance of it from an empirical perspective. I will return to that below.
Scott often argues that the markets is the best thing we have to predict the future. I strongly agree with that. Despite of that Scott makes a bold prediction on the outlook for the Chinese renminbi.
Hence, Scott not only predicts a real appreciation of the renminbi, but he also argues "I think the yuan is headed to 4 to the dollar" – hence significant nominal appreciation.
That is an extremely bold prediction given USD/CNY today is trading around 6.15. Said in another way Scott is basically predicting a 50% appreciation of the renminbi! This is in direct contrast to what the markets are predicting. If we for example are looking at a 1-year forward for USD/CHY the market is now predicting around 2% depreciation of the renminbi. So we should ask Scott – do you believe markets are efficient or not?
There is also another way to think about whether or not we will see a real Chinese appreciation or not in the coming decades and that is by looking at the experience of similar countries. China's transition and its catching-up process is often compared to South Korea and Taiwan. Therefore, I have looked that the historical development in in the South Korean won and Taiwan dollar.
I have chosen 1990 as my "reference year". The reason is that at that time South Korea's and Taiwan's GDP/capita relative to the US were more or less where Chinese GDP/capita is today compared to the US.
Lets first have a look at South Korea.
The first thing we see it that PPP seems to have been a pretty good "predictor" of the long-term development in the won over the long-term. I have calculated PPP based on the relative development in the GDP deflators in South Korea and the US.
But lets return to the question of real appreciation. Has there been a real appreciation of the won (against the dollar) since 1990? The answer is NO. In fact there has been a slight depreciation of the won in real terms.
But of course South Korea went through a major crisis in 1997 so it might be special. So lets instead look at Taiwan.
Guess what? Since 1990 the Taiwan dollar has actually depreciated significantly in real terms against the US dollar. Maybe exactly because it has appreciated in the years ahead of 1990.
No matter the reason both the Taiwanese and the South Korean experience tell us that real currency appreciation is no given or automatic part of the catching up process for economies like South Korea, Taiwan or China.
The graph below shows that Scott's claim is correct.
But the graph also shows that the renminbi was more or less flat against the dollar in real terms from the early 1990s until 2005-6. Hence, we had at least 15 years of economic catch-up without any real appreciation of the CNY at all. Hence, again it is fair to argue that real appreciation does not automatically follow from economic catch-up. The period from 1990 to 2006 shows that quite clearly.
Furthermore, we want to ask ourself whether the real appreciation over the past decade really is a result of economic transition and catching up or something else. Hence, it is quite clear that over this period the People's Bank of China have tried to curb inflationary pressures by undertaking a managed strengthening of the renminbi against the dollar – both in nominal and real terms. That process might now be coming to an end as the Chinese economy has slowed rather dramatically and inflationary pressures clearly have eased as well – particularly since 2011-12.
Finally let us again return to the examples of South Korea and Taiwan. The graph below shows the real exchanges of South Korea, Taiwan and China (against the US dollar). 'Year zero' is 1990 for South Korea and Taiwan, while 'year zero' is 2014 for China. Hence, the graph is "calibrated" so all three countries are at a similar income level versus the US in 'year zero'.
I think the graph is quite telling – the appreciation of the renminbi over the past decade has been fairly similar in size to the appreciation in the in won and the Taiwanese dollar in the decade ahead of 1990. However, as also illustrated above that real appreciation didn't continue. In fact a decade later both KRW and TWD had depreciated more than 10% in real terms against the US dollar.
This of course is not a prediction for what will happen – it is just an illustration that based on the experience of Taiwan and South Korea there is no reason to expect continued real appreciation of the renminbi.
So my message to Scott is – don't bet on a real appreciation of the renminbi!
PS Scott uses the term yuan and I here have used the term renminbi. Renminbi is the official name for the Chinese currency and yuan is the main unit of currency.
Lars, Good post. Just to be clear, I am not predicting any yuan appreciation over the next year, my prediction is long term.
Suppose North Korea set their exchange rate at a level that implied they had the largest economy in the world. Would that be your view? Probably not, it wouldn't be a market rate. Well the movement in the yuan that you show on the graph for the 1990s was also not a market exchange rate.
Interesting posts on China–but I am a little disappointed to see not even a paragraph on monetary policy. From my MM friends no less!
If the US central bank (the Fed) chooses long-term monetary asphyxiation, while the PBoC chooses growth, we may in fact see China rise above the USA, in terms of GDP.
We know that a central bank can suffocate an economy for a long time–see Japan, as in 20 years. See the ECB—how long until they give up?
The Fed wil not let inflation rise above 1.5 percent. That may be asphyxiation.
The PBoC is under control of the CCP. They want growth. They have a 4 percent inflation ceiling-target, which I think is pretty good.
Oddly enough, a communist central bank might be better at central banking than an ideology-bound Western central bank.
And the Fed has ossified. They are building a case for permanent monetary tightness.
My real complaint is that MM'ers should hew to the MM perspective.
Don't get too excited about the PBOC, it is in a right old mess.
They want to loosen monetary policy but the interest rate structure is impossibly distorted by state controls, despite promises of deregulation for years now. There are maximum and minimum rates on loans and deposits, and loan quotas that banks have to meet, no more, no less.
The loan quotas are fulfilled at artificially low rates. But the banks will only lend these low rate forced loans to ultra-safe State-Owned Enterprises and other government related vehicles. Most safe SOEs don't want the funds, and instead on-lend them through various channels (think Chinese Shadow Banking) to other areas that are short of funds, like construction.
The PBOC doesn't like a lot of the excess construction, so wants to rein it in – a sort of monetary tightening. And construction is weakening at the moment, so there is excess funds going nowhere as the PBOC is also under pressure to ease due to the weak state of construction that it has been party to engineering … and so forces more loans into the market, and the cycle attempts to repeat.
Those at the back cry forward, those at the front cry retreat. It's about where we are in China banking today.
This certainly looks perspicacious today.


text:
Federal Circuit Patent Bulletin: In re Teles AG
"Requiring claims to recite an inventive concept does not mean that claims must be construed in light of unspecified inventive concepts."
On April 4, 2014, in In re Teles AG, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Dyk,* Moore, Wallach) affirmed the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision upholding the patent examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 during the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,954,453, which related to a method and apparatus for transmitting data in a telecommunications network. Teles had brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Board's decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145, and the district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit stated:
Section 145 has long authorized patent applicants to challenge the Board's adverse examination decisions in district court instead of directly appealing to this court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 141. After the reexamination statute was enacted, we allowed patent owners to challenge adverse ex parte reexamination decisions in district court pursuant to § 145. In 1999, Congress amended § 145 and related provisions. This case raises the question of whether § 145 civil actions remained available to patent owners seeking to challenge adverse reexamination decisions after Congress amended the statute in 1999 and before 2011, when Congress amended the statute to clarify that § 145 review was not available to patent owners. [W]e hold that the district court erred in dismissing the case rather than transferring it. Once the district court held that it lacked jurisdiction, it should have transferred the case pursuant to § 1631. [T]he 1999 amendments eliminated the right of patent owners to secure review under§ 145, and affirm that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the § 145 action. . . .
During reexamination, the PTO must give claims their "broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification." . . . The Board construed the claimed "means to produce the control signal" under § 112 ¶ 6 (now § 112(f)). Section 112 ¶ 6 provides that functional claim language, like the "means to produce the control signal" element of claim 35, "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." . . .
When construing functional claims under § 112 ¶ 6, "[t]he statute does not permit limitation of a means-plusfunction claim by adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in the claim." Even if the passage in the specification relied on by Teles were relevant to construing the claim language, it does not support a different claim construction. The passage states that a control signal could be released automatically on "understepping or exceeding a certain bandwidth and/or in the event of a time delay when forwarding IP data packets." On its face, this language (using "and/or") describes two factors—bandwidth and time delay—as potential alternatives for producing a change-over command; it does not suggest that bandwidth monitoring is necessary to perform that function. The Board did not err in its claim construction.
Finally, Teles argues that the Board's claim construction is erroneous in light of its alleged inventive concept as defined by the inventor (monitoring the bandwidth of a particular transfer). Teles argues that "the Supreme Court's Mayo decision requires that the 'inventive concepts' embodied by the claimed invention be identified as part of construing claims." But the Court in Mayo referred to an "inventive concept" only in the context of § 101 patent-eligibility analysis, and specifically in the context of ensuring that a process "amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law" which its steps invoke. Requiring claims to recite an inventive concept does not mean that claims must be construed in light of unspecified inventive concepts. Mayo simply does not speak to claim construction. The inventive concept aspect of its discussion has no bearing on claim construction.
The Board upheld the examiner's rejection of claim 35(as well as claims 34, 36 and 38) as obvious in view of White combined with either Jonas or Farese. . . . Teles challenges the conclusion of obviousness on the grounds that the prior art references do not disclose all of the recited limitations of claim 35. Teles' main objection is to Jonas, specifically, that it discloses a method of calculating transmission delay based on monitoring the entire network rather than an individual communication. But this argument assumes an overly limiting construction of the prior art reference and the language of claim 35. Under the Board's construction, the change-over control device of claim 35 must produce a signal automatically, which requires monitoring quality factors, such as delay, but there is no reason to require monitoring the bandwidth of a single transfer in isolation from the network. . . . We find no reason to overturn the Board's finding that Jonas discloses the limitation of claim 35.
Teles next argues a person of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious, or even possible, to combine White with Jonas. Teles asserts that incorporating Jonas' "freestanding" switches into White's switches, the central offices of local exchange carriers, would be "an extremely complicated process." The Board cited the examiner's reasons for rejecting Teles' argument: "White is proposing providing a redesigned network [for] handling Internet based call[s] . . . [and] already anticipates redesigning the Central Office equipment to respond to Internet type calls, thus Jonas would clearly be envisioned in this network redesigned by White." This finding directly contradicts Teles' assertion that White on its own requires "no change of its switching apparatus," Reply Br. 26, and instead shows that White presumes that modifications would be required. The Board did not err in rejecting claim 35 of the '453 patent as obvious in view of White and Jonas.


text:
Forums > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature >
Spoilers DS9: Ascendance by David R. George III Review Thread
Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by Defcon, Dec 24, 2015.
Rate Ascendance
rfmcdpei Fleet Captain Fleet Captain
I enjoyed it. It tied up the last of the old DS9 novels, filling in the last of the gaps, and prepped us for the new future. (It also tied up a lot of DRG III, going back as far as Serpents Among the Ruins.)
rfmcdpei, Dec 28, 2015
Mage Rear Admiral Rear Admiral
rfmcdpei said: ↑
Serpents even?? Damn... I'm hoping to get this tomorrow.
Mage, Dec 28, 2015
hbquikcomjamesl Commodore Commodore
Hmm. As to filler and exposition (i.e., recap of the story arc), I found that the 1/4 sheet of notes I left sticking out of SoF were invaluable in getting me back up to speed on what's going on, but wish I'd taken them in more detail. Perhaps a preface that provided such a recap would have been a helpful addition.
hbquikcomjamesl, Dec 28, 2015
Idran Commodore Commodore
hbquikcomjamesl said: ↑
Does that mean that it might actually have overcorrected from Sacraments? Did it really not have any recapping at all?
Idran, Dec 28, 2015
KingstonTrekker Commander Red Shirt
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
I have read all of the previous DS9 books & I had no trouble following the story. I just finished the book...I voted Outstanding. It was the best DS9 book in a long while. Wrapped up the past in a satisfying manner, moved the current story forward, and ended on an intriguing note leaving one excited for the next chapter.
KingstonTrekker, Dec 28, 2015
Idran said: ↑
Well, there wasn't anything to remind me of what was going on with
Spoiler: Odo's
encounter with the "unknown shape-shifter,"
Spoiler: or with the
armada rolling out of the wormhole like oranges.
laibcoms Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt
Philippines, ASEAN
Got mine 7 hours ago today (00:00 of 29th here in the Philippines) via Google Play. Was expecting it on the 31st, surprised it downloaded my pre-order.
No opinion yet, I fell asleep -- nothing to do with the book, I was just too tired for the day. But I've been waiting for this for months! I'm not a big fan of DS9 even the TV series, but because of DS9 relaunch novels, I am now.
Now to continue reading…
laibcoms, Dec 28, 2015
Mage said: ↑
I recommend it.
VDCNI Captain Captain
Read it this morning. It was very average, not bad but still so busy tying up loose ends and getting all the pieces in place for the next wave of DS9 books that it ends up being somewhat unsatisfying as a book in its own right. At least going forward that shouldn't be a problem apart from maybe that cliff hanger and the whole deathly dull fixing Vic storyline oh and the out of time Bajoran. So not all the loose ends then!
The Ascendant's plot in the past fizzles out quite quickly and doesn't feel anywhere near as traumatic as has been implied. It also doesn't really give any weight to Sisko or Kira's change in directions. And why rid Ro of one of her distinctive characteristics particularly in such a shallow way. By the end of the book she might as well be Kira.
It doesn't help that the writers style is so dry, some humour would be nice occasionally. The support crew get a bit of a look in, including some background on Stinson but remain horribly bland overall, not helped by the decision at the end. Why not bring in someone new and distinctive in that role to shake things up, it worked for Titan.
But generally it was still a decent read, pretty light on recapping for the most part and when it was used mainly at places where you could see the need. Though there was one bit when the Defiant called back to the station where we got 4 or 5 lines describing what we had just seen a page and a half ago!
Hopefully we'll be getting more DS9 books going forward but a bit more variety in authors would be nice.
VDCNI, Dec 29, 2015
BritishSeaPower Captain Captain
So, I went to go pick this one up today at my local B&N and they didn't have it. While they were obliging in ordering a copy to the store, they couldn't explain why they hadn't ordered any copies to the store or why there were 5 copies on order for other customers. In an even further wrinkle, the website listed it as in stock the night before but they never sold any stock according to their POS software. And it seems like the book is disappearing from all my local stores, too. I checked on my phone in the store and the next three closest stores had it in stock, and now they're all gone too. And it seems unlikely this one book would sellout on day one when there 7 copies of "Sacraments of Fire" on the shelf.
BritishSeaPower, Dec 29, 2015
VDCNI said: ↑
I don't know how to do spoiler boxes/warnings so I won't be very detailed in my answer. I did feel that the Ascendants brought a traumatic level of danger to the Bajoran system...a major event which would be referenced in the years following. I didn't feel that it fizzled out at all and the novel's two main arcs came together well in the end. Although I am not always a fan of this author's work I felt he did a good job here.
BritishSeaPower said: ↑
I bought my copy at my local Chapters right before Xmas...7 copies remained on the shelf. I was in the store yesterday and only 3 copies are there now. My guess is that the book is selling well...the awesome cover likely helps too.
trampledamage Clone Moderator
hitching a ride to Erebor
KingstonTrekker said: ↑
For future reference
Spoiler: How to make spoilers
The spoiler button is the yellow face with an x where his mouth should be in the main posting box (far right after all the lists, links, image and code buttons). Write out what you want to put in the spoiler code, select it, press the button and then write a short description of what the spoilers about in the prompt box.
trampledamage, Dec 30, 2015
I did feel that the Ascendants brought a traumatic level of danger to the Bajoran system...a major event which would be referenced in the years following. I didn't feel that it fizzled out at all and the novel's two main arcs came together well in the end. Although I am not always a fan of this author's work I felt he did a good job here.
Spoiler: I felt a real sense of danger
George did a good job in setting up an existential level of danger to the Bajoran system. How do you deal with a potentially genocidal threat from a vast fleet of technologically advanced religious zealots? How can you deal with it?
The resolution makes sense in retrospect, but it came as a surprise to me and did not seem contrived. Everything we knew--the death of Taran'atar, the devastation of Endalla, the involvement of the Even Odds--had been mentioned long before. Only now do we see how it all worked
Also, I am glad that Kira is back now.
Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2015
Ronald Held Vice Admiral Admiral
On the USS Sovereign
Just saw my copy, going to start today.
Ronald Held, Dec 30, 2015
The big long section between the prologue and the interlude had me on the edge of my seat, particularly near the end (and it also had me wishing for chapter breaks: I didn't care for the lack of chapter breaks in ADF's second HC novel, Bloodhype, and I don't care for the lack of chapter breaks in this opus).
Spoiler: The first mention of Algeron, and what happened there, . . .
. . . is a Chekhov's Gun
Reanok Rear Admiral Rear Admiral
I went to my Barnes and Nobles store looking for the new Ds9 novel they didn't have it in stock yet. I really want to get this book soon.
Reanok, Dec 30, 2015
MAVEMVP Ensign Newbie
So, am I correct in that this is not a complete flashback novel set just after the events of Soul key? From the typings in this post, it seems that, at the very least, there is a framing sequence and interstitials taking place in the present continuity. I am about seven years behind in my reading (just going to start Destiny this upcoming month), and was wondering if I could read this without ANY references to current novels.....
MAVEMVP, Dec 30, 2015
MAVEMVP said: ↑
Unfortunately no; this is a sequel to Sacraments of Fire, and both books split time between soon after Soul Key and shortly after The Fall.
nx1701g Admiral Admiral
So far I've visited three book stores locally and I still haven't been able to find it. I really hope to find it soon (tomorrow is my last ditch before ordering it online: I can usually find Trek novels at the grocery store of all places).
nx1701g, Dec 31, 2015


text:
You are here: Home / Uncategorized / How a Nation Forfeits its Meaning
How a Nation Forfeits its Meaning
May 8, 2004 By Robert Occhialini Leave a Comment
Dan Gillmor: How a Nation Forfeits its Meaning I feel like plausible deniability is being asserted by the administration, and it is the same kind of slickness that the same group of neo-conservatives who are now such staunch supporters of GW complained about during the Clinton administration. The difference this time is that peoples lives, and everything our country stands for, are at risk. Bush and Rumsfeld are in charge, and, if they are not, then shame on them for that instead and in addition to these atrocities. I can't believe that people are not more outraged by this whole incident. It goes against the very moral core of this country to do stuff like this. I'm embarrassed, frankly, and I would like to see the people responsible for this be punished severely to send a message. As this year goes on, the Bush administration continues to do a fantastic job of driving moderates like myself towards the other party. Mistakes happen, but it's the slick nature of their response to mistakes that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. See also: The Misunderestimated Man.


Florin Gray Bouzas Owens - Successful Tampa employment attorneys that are well versed in helping people who have been harassed, discriminated, or treated unfairly by an employer.
Successful Tampa employment attorneys that are well versed in helping people who have been harassed, discriminated, or treated unfairly by an employer.
The Tampa employment attorneys at Florin Gray Bouzas Owens believe that no one should be forced to be treated unfairly at work. Laws have been put into place to make sure that you do not need to deal with discrimination, harassment, unpaid overtime, sexual harassment, unpaid overtime, fmla discrimination or workers compensation retaliation.
Chalik & Chalik Law is a Fort Lauderdale personal injury firm dedicated to serving our community. We specialize in car accidents, birth injuries and medical malpractice cases.


This page shows businesses on Castle Close. Click on a business to bring up its details and a map showing its location.
Scout Enterprises is a firm of training consultants who assess organizations' needs and advise on training programmes for clients.
Map showing Castle Close in Aylesbury.


Blockchain technology has the potential to reinvent a huge number of existing global industries, with companies right now trying to shake-up every space, from travel to communication.
But it's not just limited to mainstream sectors. Blockchain technology is also being used to tackle issues that exist in industries that might be considered fringe but, at the same time (and almost as a result of this categorization), can benefit as much or more from a blockchain shakeup than can more traditional sectors.
One of these industries is the medical and recreational cannabis space — and the company that's positioned itself to drive the shakeup is Budbo.
Some reading this might already be familiar with Budbo. It's an application that's been dubbed the 'Tinder of cannabis,' through which users are able to swipe right or left on various cannabis strains and, based on the preference data pulled from their swiping, can locate dispensaries that sell the cannabis strains they prefer.
It's a neat idea and one that's already drawn a lot of users to the application (at the latest count, the Budbo application had more than 75,000 active users). However, it's proving to be far more than just a cannabis choice and location application.
Budbo is trying to use blockchain technology to accelerate the use of cannabis as legitimate medicine, especially in the eyes of the general public, and it is succeeding in doing exactly that.
Data is everything these days. Nearly every application we use collects and stores data about who we are, where we are and what we do, but, with the advent and integration of blockchain technology, the way this data is stored, interpreted and, ultimately, used, is changing.
Budbo has recognized this and is harnessing the power that comes with the application of the blockchain to data collection and manipulation in the cannabis space.
As users interact with the application, it collects data based on individual preferences and experiences of the cannabis users with each of the various strains and dispensary locations.
This data will be collated and stored on the Budbo blockchain, where it can then be accessed and used by a variety of interested parties to inform a wide range of decisions.
Say, for example, a dispensary wants to know which strains cannabis users in its vicinity prefer to consume. The dispensary can use the data stored on the Budbo blockchain to find out and can then use this information to inform its inventory purchase decisions. If lots of people who live near the dispensary like a particular strain, for example, the dispensary can ensure it's always got plenty of that strain in stock.
As another example, consider an individual suffering from PTSD who wants to know which strain might be the most effective in relieving symptoms of the condition. The individual can head over to the Budbo application and find out from other sufferers who have logged their experiences on the company's blockchain which strains are likely to be the most effective.
One of the reasons this industry remains a fringe industry and, in line with this, a 'shady' industry in the eyes of many, is its association with criminal use. Through the application of blockchain technology to the space, which, by its nature is open and transparent, Budbo has the potential to legitimize the industry to a large degree, bringing it out from the shadows of criminalization and into the mainstream.
In order to gain access to the data stored on the Budbo blockchain, individuals and companies use BUBO, which is the company's utility token. The amount of BUBO required will vary according to the individual case demand but the transaction is standard pretty much across the board – BUBO in return for data and information.
Right now, the company is raising development capital by way of a token sale, in which the BUBO token will be issued to participants. As interaction with the data stored on the Budbo blockchain increases so will demand for tokens (which, as mentioned, are used to purchase access). Just like other tokens and cryptocurrencies, the BUBO token will be available for trade on the open exchanges after the close of the crowdsale, currently scheduled for March 5 or until sold out.
The token sale is ongoing and working with a hard cap of 170 million tokens.
Anyone looking to participate can pick up some early access tokens here.


text:
Iyanya: To Launch His New Album 'Iyanya Vs Desire' in the UK + £1,000 Prize Competition!
It's Iyanyaaaa!
With his songs 'Kukere', 'Your Waist' and 'Flavour' on constant repeat in clubs worldwide and on the radio all across Africa and the UK, one of Africa's fastest rising stars - Iyanya is set to tear up the stage in the UK!
Iyanya has already released his first studio album 'Iyanya Vs Desire' in Nigeria and has taken it to the States where he's currently touring, Iyanya will now bring the tour and album to the UK.
Iyanya, the co-owner of the Made Men Music Group, also known as "Triple MG" became a popular force within the Nigerian music scene in 2012, when he release his hit single Kukere, with over seven million views on YouTube. He went to release his second successful single 'Your Waist', which is still heard in many clubs today.
The 'Sexy Mama' singer will be headlining his own album launch concert in the UK at London's IndigO2 and at Manchester's HMV Ritz this coming June. The album launch concert is organised by cokobar.com, the same team behind Wizkid's sold out gig at the HMV Apollo in 2012.
The concerts are expected to be a full house and both sold-out. One of London's highly rated and favourite African comedians - Eddie Kadi will host Iyanya at both venues with performances from Iyanya's Triple MG label mate - Emma Nyra and a few special guests.
On top of all of that - the organizers of the event - Cokobar are giving all of Iyanya's female fans a chance to win £1,000 spending money to go shopping with the Kukere master himself. More details about the competition and how to enter enlisted below.
Watch 'Sounds of Afrobeats: Iyanya Special' on Vox Africa Sky 218 on Fridays @ 9pm.
Iyanya 'Iyanya Vs Desire' UK Tour Dates:
June 9 - London - IndigO2
June 14 - Manchester - HMV Ritz
For further information and for tickets which are currently on sale, visit: www.cokobar.com
IYANYA 'KUKERE' AFRICAN QUEEN COMPETITION:
*Winner to be announced 3rd June 2013*
- £1000 spending money to shop with Iyanya
- TWO backstage passes for winner and a friend
- VIPs Access to after party
- Signed Iyanya Vs Desire Album
How to enter: Simply upload a recording of yourself and state THREE reasons why Iyanya should pick you. Be quirky, creative and use your imagination to make yourself standout from the rest.
Then simply upload your video on YouTube and send to help@cokobar.com or inbox Cokobar on Facebook: www.facebook.com/cokobar or DM them on Twitter: @cokobar
Best of luck to all those that enter! I look forward to watching the entries!
Posted by Mobolaji
Labels: Cokobar, Events, Iyanya, New Album, UK
Search It's Just Mobolaji
Tweets by @MoBolaji_
Yemi Alade Talks Success of 'Johnny', 'Kings of Queens' Album and More!
Archive August 2016 (3) July 2016 (2) June 2016 (4) March 2016 (12) February 2016 (28) January 2016 (20) November 2015 (5) October 2015 (1) September 2015 (6) August 2015 (10) July 2015 (6) June 2015 (11) May 2015 (24) April 2015 (12) March 2015 (16) February 2015 (17) January 2015 (15) December 2014 (7) November 2014 (25) October 2014 (32) September 2014 (32) August 2014 (33) July 2014 (28) June 2014 (40) May 2014 (47) April 2014 (49) March 2014 (41) February 2014 (70) January 2014 (70) December 2013 (52) November 2013 (9) October 2013 (97) September 2013 (34) August 2013 (85) July 2013 (77) June 2013 (81) May 2013 (172) April 2013 (127) March 2013 (149) February 2013 (143) January 2013 (114) December 2012 (112) November 2012 (126) October 2012 (98) September 2012 (111) August 2012 (49) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (17) May 2012 (17) April 2012 (11) March 2012 (19) February 2012 (4) October 2011 (1) July 2011 (2) May 2011 (2) April 2011 (11) March 2011 (19) February 2011 (42) January 2011 (5)
New Video: Wizkid - In My Bed
After pulling a Beyoncé on us by dropping his album unexpectedly last Wednesday, Wizkid has revealed the first video since his album ...
New Video: Davido - One of A Kind
A round of applause is order for Davido for this new video! The 20-year-old young Afrobeats artist Davido brings beautiful African ...
New Video: Keyshia Cole - Next Time (Won't Give My Heart Away)
On her journey to the release of her forthcoming album 'Point of No Return', Keyshia Cole is making us fall in love with her all over ...
Beats By Dre and Nicki Minaj: Debut The Pink Pill Commercial
Nicki Minaj's Barbs and Kens will be extremely pleased to see what Nicki has recently been up to. With an album out, a sold-out per...
Sam Smith: 'In The Lonely Hour' Album Cover & Tracklisting Revealed + New Video 'Money on My Mind'
Fresh from winning the Critics' Choice awards with the BRIT Awards and knocking out Ella Eyre and Chloe Howl out of his way. Britis...
Tyler Perry's: Madea's Big Happy Family
Okay, so Tyler Perry is at it again and this time funnier than ever. I recently uploaded the trailer of his latest movie "Madea's B...
2014 BET Awards: Nominees [Full List]
Earlier on today, the official 2014 BET Awards nominations were announced and we've got who's nominated for what! It comes as n...
© 2011 - 2016. It's Just Mobolaji. All Rights Reserved.
Home | Introducing | Interviews | Events | 'Saturday Playlist' | Articles | Contact
© 2014 It's Just Mobolaji . Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.


text:
Biochemical and genetic studies on the function of, and relationship between, the PGI1- and CDC30-encoded phosphoglucose isomerases in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
J. Richard Dickinson1
Affiliations: 1 School of Pure and Applied Biology, University of Wales College of Cardiff, PO Box 915, Cardiff CF1 3TL, UK
First Published: 01 April 1991 https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-137-4-765
Isoelectric focusing was used to compare the complement of phosphoglucose isomerase isoenzymes in a wild-type strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and in a strain with a deletion in the PGI1 structural gene. Deletion of the PGI1 gene did not result in the absence of the high-K m isoenzyme I but the low-K m isoenzyme II was absent. Hence, the isoenzymes must be the products of two genes. If PGI1 were the sole structural gene its deletion would result in the disappearance of both isoenzymes. After a temperature shift-up a cdc30-bearing strain had cell cycle arrested and contained only 8% of the polysaccharide in the wild-type. Phosphoglucose isomerase is required for the synthesis of fructose 6-phosphate (F6-P), a precursor of the cell wall components chitin and mannoprotein ('mannan'), which are a polysaccharide and contain polysaccharide, respectively. Since the cdc30 mutation confers a temperature-sensitive phosphoglucose isomerase, the likely explanation for cell cycle arrest caused by this mutation is that the defective phosphoglucose isomerase results in a reduction of F6-P and hence an inability to synthesize the mannan and chitin needed for cytokinesis and cell separation. Revertants of a pgi1-1 bearing strain were selected for their ability to grow on glucose at 25 °C and this yielded a number of different phenotypes. Amongst the isolates was a strain which had undergone an intragenic reversion at the pgi1 locus, designated pgi1-1,100. This mutation permits growth and cell division at 25 °C but results in cell cycle arrest at 36 °C. These results are all consistent with the notion that in S. cerevisiae there are two genes (PGI1 and CDC30) which encode the low-K m and high-K m isoenzymes, respectively, of phosphoglucose isomerase and that the two gene products physically interact for activity.
Aguilera A. 1986; Deletion of the phosphoglucose isomerase structural gene makes growth and sporulation glucose dependent in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Molecular and General Genetics 204:310–316
Aguilera A. 1987; Mutations suppressing the effects of a deletion of the phosphoglucose isomerase gene PGI1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Current Genetics 11:429–434
Aguilera A., Zimmermann F. K. 1986; Isolation and molecular analysis of the phosphoglucose isomerase structural gene of Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Molecular and General Genetics 202:83–89
Cabib E. 1975; Molecular aspects of yeast morphogenesis. Annual Review of Microbiology 29:191–214
Cabib E., Ulane R., Bowers B. 1974; A molecular model for morphogenesis: the primary septum of yeast. Current Topics in Cellular Regulation 8:1–32
Ciriacy M., Breitenbach I. 1979; Physiological effects of seven different blocks in glycolysis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Journal of Bacteriology 139:152–160
Clifton D., Weinstock S. B., Fraenkel D. 1978; Glycolysis mutants in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Genetics 88:1–11
Dickinson J. R., Dawes I. W. 1983; Ammonium ion repression of sporulation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Journal of General Microbiology 129:1883–1888
Dickinson J. R., Williams A. S. 1986; A genetic and biochemical analysis of the role of gluconeogenesis in sporulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Journal of General Microbiology 132:2605–2610
Dickinson J. R., Williams A. S. 1987; The cdc30 mutation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae results in a temperature-sensitive isoen-zyme of phosphoglucose isomerase. Journal of General Microbiology 133:135–140
Dickinson J. R., Smith M. E., Swanson T. R., Williams A. S., Wingfield J. M. 1988; The cdc30 mutation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae affects phosphoglucose isomerase, the cell cycle and sporulation. Journal of General Microbiology 134:2475–2480
Dubois M., Gilles K. A., Hamilton J. K., Rebers P. A., Smith F. 1956; Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry 28:350–356
Green J. B. A., Wright A. P. H., Cheung W. Y., Lancashire W. E., Hartley B. S. 1988; The structure and regulation of phosphoglucose isomerase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Molecular and General Genetics 215:100–106
Herrera L. S., Pascual C. 1978; Genetical and biochemical studies of glucosephosphate isomerase mutants in Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Journal of General Microbiology 108:305–310
Kaback D. B., Oeller P. W., Steensma H. Y., Hirschman J., Ruezinsky D., Coleman K. G., Pringle J. R. 1984; Temperature-sensitive lethal mutations on yeast chromosome I appear to define only a small number of genes. Genetics 108:67–90
Kawasaki G. H. 1979; Karyotypic instability and carbon source effects in cell cycle mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PhD thesis University of Washington; Seattle, USA:
Kempe T. D., Nakagawa Y., Noltmann E. A. 1974a; Physical and chemical properties of yeast phosphoglucose isomerase isoen-zymes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 249:4617–4624
Kempe T. D., Gee D. M., Hathaway G. M., Noltmann E. A. 1974b; Subunit and peptide compositions of yeast phosphoglucose isomerase isoenzymes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 249:4625–4633
Maitra P. K. 1971; Glucose and fructose metabolism in a phosphoglucoseisomeraseless mutant of Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Journal of Bacteriology 107:759–769
Maitra P. K., Lobo Z. 1977; Genetic studies with a phosphoglucose isomerase mutant of Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Molecular and General Genetics 156:55–60
Mortimer R. K., Hawthorne D. C. 1975; Genetic mapping in yeast. Methods in Cell Biology 11:221–233
Nakagawa Y., Noltmann E. A. 1967; Multiple forms of yeast phosphoglucose isomerase. I. Resolution of the crystalline enzyme into three isoenzymes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 242:4782–4788
Pringle J. R. 1987; The gene number paradox and the complexity of the cell-division cycle and other cellular processes. In Modern Cell Biology 5299–306 Waymouth C. New York: Alan R. Liss;
Sherman F. 1975; Use of micromanipulators in yeast studies. Methods in Cell Biology 11:189–199
Microbiology 137, 765 (1991); https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-137-4-765


text:
Companies Advised
Harrison Co. advises Intellibed on its merger with Purple Innovation
Press Release Home Goods
Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook
Shaun Kalnasy
Transaction Announcement Home Goods
Harrison Co. Advises Digitally Native Brand Slumber Cloud on its Strategic Investment from Brush Creek Partners
The combination of Intellibed and Purple will create tremendous synergies, a leader in both the value and luxury gel segments, and consolidate gel production IP under one roof.
SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 09/01/2022 – Harrison Co., an investment banking firm dedicated to advising founder- and family-led businesses in the home goods sector, today announced it advised Intellibed (the "Company"), a premium sleep, health, and wellness company, on its merger with Purple Innovation (NASDAQ: PRPL).
Intellibed is a science-backed comfort-technology company focused on improving people's lives through better sleep. Initially developed for and used by the medical community in hospital beds to relieve pressure points for chronically immobile patients, Intellibed has expanded to become a comprehensive, technology-driven wellness company. Intellibed' s innovative products have helped the Company become the largest premium domestic gel mattress manufacturer, and the only Company focused on the fast-growing luxury gel mattress segment.
"Bill, Shaun and the entire Harrison Co. team stood by us every step of the way through a long, complicated process," said Scott Peterson, Intellibed's Chairman and CFO. "This was clearly more than just a transaction for the Harrison Co. team, they were partners that became an extension of our team. I've worked with many top-tier financial professionals over my 30 years at Ernst & Young and the Harrison Co. team exceeded my high expectations. As a result of the merger and my belief in the tremendous synergies, I am now a longer-term shareholder of Purple. I am extremely excited about the future of the merged entity and what the combined companies can achieve together."
Shaun Kalnasy, Harrison Co. Partner commented, "We are honored to have worked with Scott; Bob Rasmussen – Founder, Colin House – CEO, Brett Peterson – VP of Strategy, and the entire Intellibed team. The combination of Intellibed and Purple will create tremendous synergies, a leader in both the value and luxury gel segments, and consolidate gel production IP under one roof." Bill Harrison, Harrison Co. Managing Partner added, "Intellibed is an industry disruptor and category creator, and now combined with Purple, the undisputed leader in the gel mattress category. We look forward to following the success of the Company as it continues to innovate and deliver unique comfort solutions to its customers."
ABOUT INTELLIBED
Intellibed is a premium sleep and health wellness company, offering science-backed comfort-technology products to improve people's lives through better sleep. The Company is the largest premium domestic gel mattress manufacturer, and the only focused on the fast-growing luxury
segment.
ABOUT HARRISON CO. LLC
Harrison Co. partners are unwavering champions of the family- and founder-led business. Harrison Co. works exclusively with families and founders across the entire spectrum of home goods, apparel, eCommerce, digitally native brands, and healthy lifestyles. The team of experienced senior financial experts helps clients make critical strategic business, mergers, acquisitions, and financing decisions to ensure optimal outcomes. Harrison Co. prides itself on providing highly personal, customized service to its valued clients from its offices located in Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fresno, and Denver.
For more information visit www.harrisonco.com.
skalnasy@harrisonco.com
Arvada, CO, February 9, 2022 – Harrison Co., an investment banking firm dedicated to advising founder and family-run digitally-native and home...
Los Angeles San Francisco Fresno Salt Lake City Dallas Denver
© Harrison Co. LLC. 2023
Securities offered through Clear Creek Securities, member FINRA and SIPC, additional information at BrokerCheck.