-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE----- Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR Originator-Name: webmaster@www.sec.gov Originator-Key-Asymmetric: MFgwCgYEVQgBAQICAf8DSgAwRwJAW2sNKK9AVtBzYZmr6aGjlWyK3XmZv3dTINen TWSM7vrzLADbmYQaionwg5sDW3P6oaM5D3tdezXMm7z1T+B+twIDAQAB MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA, WyBbpXxOPvHdJXV9RTNa/N0nOqltbLXt2v2sF9nfaL4s/g6QvFohgH/LcKaMB3U8 0E8sqjPy2fRuALKv6k61Xw== 0000891618-04-000458.txt : 20040203 0000891618-04-000458.hdr.sgml : 20040203 20040203172100 ACCESSION NUMBER: 0000891618-04-000458 CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: SC 14D9/A PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 12 FILED AS OF DATE: 20040203 SUBJECT COMPANY: COMPANY DATA: COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: PEOPLESOFT INC CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000875570 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: SERVICES-PREPACKAGED SOFTWARE [7372] IRS NUMBER: 680137069 STATE OF INCORPORATION: DE FISCAL YEAR END: 1231 FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: SC 14D9/A SEC ACT: 1934 Act SEC FILE NUMBER: 005-42583 FILM NUMBER: 04563910 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: 4460 HACIENDA DRIVE CITY: PLEASANTON STATE: CA ZIP: 94588-8618 BUSINESS PHONE: 925-225-3000 MAIL ADDRESS: STREET 1: 4460 HACIENDA DRIVE CITY: PLEASANTON STATE: CA ZIP: 94588-8618 FILED BY: COMPANY DATA: COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: PEOPLESOFT INC CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000875570 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: SERVICES-PREPACKAGED SOFTWARE [7372] IRS NUMBER: 680137069 STATE OF INCORPORATION: DE FISCAL YEAR END: 1231 FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: SC 14D9/A BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: 4460 HACIENDA DRIVE CITY: PLEASANTON STATE: CA ZIP: 94588-8618 BUSINESS PHONE: 925-225-3000 MAIL ADDRESS: STREET 1: 4460 HACIENDA DRIVE CITY: PLEASANTON STATE: CA ZIP: 94588-8618 SC 14D9/A 1 f92476b8sc14d9za.htm AMENDMENT NO. 17 TO SCHEDULE 14D-9 PeopleSoft, Inc. Schedule 14D-9 Amendment No. 17
 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549


SCHEDULE 14D-9

SOLICITATION/RECOMMENDATION STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(d)(4) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Amendment No. 17)

PEOPLESOFT, INC.

(Name of Subject Company)

PEOPLESOFT, INC.

(Name of Person Filing Statement)

Common Stock, Par Value $0.01 Per Share

(Title of Class of Securities)

712713106

(CUSIP Number of Class of Securities)


Craig Conway
President and Chief Executive Officer
PeopleSoft, Inc.
4460 Hacienda Drive, Pleasanton, California 94588-8618
(925) 225-3000

(Name, Address and Telephone Number of Person Authorized to Receive
Notice and Communications on Behalf of the Person Filing Statement)

COPIES TO:

Douglas D. Smith, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
One Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 393-8200

     o Check the box if the filing relates solely to preliminary communications made before the commencement of a tender offer

1


 

Purpose of Amendment

     The purpose of this amendment is to amend and supplement Items 3, 4, 6 and 8 in the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule
14D-9 previously filed by PeopleSoft, Inc. (the “Company”) on June 12, 2003 and subsequently amended, and to add ten additional exhibits to Item 9 and amend the exhibit index accordingly.

Item 3. Past Contacts, Transactions, Negotiations and Agreements

     Item 3 is hereby amended and supplemented as follows:

     Employment Agreements

     Mr. Conway, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, entered into an employment agreement with PeopleSoft in May 1999. The Compensation Committee approved material amendments to Mr. Conway’s employment agreement on May 27, 2003 and August 20, 2003, and a formal restated employment agreement was executed on January 30, 2004. The restated agreement is attached as Exhibit (e)(11) to this Schedule 14D-9 and is incorporated herein by this reference. The agreement provides for an annual base salary, subject to annual review by the Compensation Committee, which is currently set at $1,000,000. In addition, the agreement provides that Mr. Conway’s bonuses will be determined by the Compensation Committee based on performance criteria established by the Compensation Committee. Pursuant to the employment agreement, in May 1999 the Compensation Committee granted Mr. Conway options to acquire 2,000,000 shares of PeopleSoft Common Stock at an exercise price of $12.6875 per share with monthly vesting over a four year period, conditioned on Mr. Conway’s continued employment or consulting relationship with PeopleSoft. Also pursuant to the employment agreement, Mr. Conway purchased 500,000 restricted shares of PeopleSoft’s Common Stock at $0.01 per share in 1999. Such restricted stock was subject to repurchase by PeopleSoft at its original purchase price, which right expired as to 25% of the shares each year over four years, conditioned on Mr. Conway’s continued employment or consulting relationship with PeopleSoft. All repurchase rights with respect to these restricted shares have expired. Mr. Conway is eligible to receive additional grants of options and restricted stock as determined by the Compensation Committee.

     Mr. Conway is entitled to severance pay and accelerated vesting of stock options and restricted stock awards under certain circumstances. If Mr. Conway is involuntarily terminated other than for cause, or if Mr. Conway voluntarily terminates his employment with PeopleSoft for good reason, the vesting of his stock options and restricted stock will be accelerated to the same extent as such options or restricted stock would have vested had Mr. Conway remained employed by PeopleSoft for an additional twenty-four months. However, the 500,000 shares of restricted stock granted to Mr. Conway in February 2002 are not subject to accelerated vesting upon termination of his employment, but instead vest pro rata based on the number of months from the date of grant through the date of termination. Mr. Conway would also be entitled to severance equal to two years’ base salary plus target bonus. In the event of a change of control, Mr. Conway’s unvested stock options will become fully vested and exercisable and his unvested restricted stock will also fully vest. If the vesting of Mr. Conway’s restricted stock cannot be accelerated as described above, PeopleSoft will make a cash payment equal to the fair market value of the unvested restricted stock owned by Mr. Conway on the date of termination of employment or on the date of the change of control, as applicable.

     Severance Arrangements

     Mr. Conway and two other executive officers also have retention bonus arrangements that contain acceleration of service provisions if their employment is terminated without cause or in connection with a change of control of PeopleSoft.

Item 4. The Solicitation or Recommendation

     Item 4 is hereby amended and supplemented as follows:

     On January 16, 2004, Kevin T. Parker, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, sent an e-mail to the Company’s employees regarding the status of the Oracle tender offer and the anticipated proxy contest with Oracle. The text of this e-mail is attached as exhibit (a)(63) to this Schedule 14D-9 and is incorporated herein by this reference.

     On January 22, 2004, Craig A. Conway, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, sent a letter to the Wall Street Journal regarding antitrust and other matters relating to the Oracle tender offer, an edited version of which was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2004. The text of this letter is attached as exhibit (a)(64) to this Schedule 14D-9 and is incorporated herein by this reference.

      On February 3, 2004, the Company ran the advertisement which is attached as exhibit (a)(71) to this Schedule 14D-9 and incorporated herein by this reference.

Item 6. Interest in Securities of the Subject Company

     Item 6 is hereby amended and supplemented as follows:

     Except as described below and except as disclosed in the Schedule 14D-9 previously filed by the Company, as subsequently amended, no transactions with respect to the Common Stock of the Company have been effected by the Company or, to the Company’s best knowledge, by any of its executive officers, directors, affiliates or subsidiaries during the past 60 days.

                         
        Nature of   Number Shares of    
Name   Date of Transaction   Transaction   Common Stock   Purchase/Sale Price
Nanci Caldwell             12/31/03   Acquisition(1) 702.619

  $
15.12

Anne S. Jordan             12/31/03   Acquisition(1)  
636.491

  $
15.12

Kevin T. Parker             12/31/03   Acquisition(1)  
702.619

  $
15.12

David A. Duffield             1/14/04   Disposition(2)  
25,000

  $
22.09 (3)
Nanci Caldwell             1/16/04   Acquisition  
75,000 (4)   $
0

Guy Dubois             1/16/04   Acquisition  
75,000 (4)   $
0

Michael P. Gregoire             1/16/04   Acquisition  
75,000 (4)   $
0

Ram Gupta             1/16/04   Acquisition  
75,000 (4)   $
0

Kevin T. Parker             1/16/04   Acquisition  
75,000 (4)   $
0

Philip W. Wilmington             1/16/04   Acquisition  
75,000 (4)   $
0

David A. Duffield             1/21/04   Disposition(2)  
25,000

  $
23.27
(3)
David A. Duffield             1/28/04   Disposition(2)  
25,000     $
23.19 (3)
Nanci Caldwell             1/30/04   Disposition(2)  
11,182     $
21.02  
Guy Dubois             1/30/04   Disposition(2)  
10,250     $
21.02  
Michael P. Gregoire             1/30/04   Disposition(2)  
9,312     $
21.00  
Kevin T. Parker             1/30/04   Disposition(5)  
7,180     $
21.57 (5)
Philip W. Wilmington             1/30/04   Disposition(2)  
6,312     $
21.00  
Anne S. Jordan             2/3/04   Option Exercise/ Immediate Sale(2)  
15,000     $
13.63 21.71 /


(1)   Shares acquired through participation in the Company’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan.
(2)   Pursuant to Rule 10b5-1(c) trading plan, providing for automatic transactions upon establishment of a written contract, plan or instructions under conditions specified in the Rule.
(3)   Average price.
(4)   Shares of Restricted Stock granted pursuant to the Company’s Amended and Restated 2001 Stock Plan. The shares vest 1/4th on 1/30/05 and 1/16th each quarter thereafter. The shares are also subject to the accelerated vesting provisions, including the cash in lieu of acceleration provisions, of the Company’s Executive Severance Policy.
(5)   Shares withheld to cover withholding taxes due on vesting of restricted stock, based on a per share price of $21.57, which was the closing price of PeopleSoft Common Stock on 1/30/04.

2


 

Item 8. Additional Information

Proxy Solicitation Matters

     On January 23, 2004, Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) provided a written notice to the Company and issued a press release regarding its intent to nominate a slate of directors for election at the Company’s 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and to bring other matters before the stockholders at the meeting. The Company’s response to Oracle’s public announcement is contained in the press release attached as exhibit (a)(65) to this Schedule 14D-9 and is incorporated herein by this reference.

     On January 30, 2004, PeopleSoft announced that it would hold its 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders on March 25, 2004. Stockholders of record as of the close of business on February 10, 2004 will be eligible to vote at the meeting. A copy of the press release announcing these dates is attached as exhibit (a)(66) to this Schedule 14D-9.

Earnings Release Call

     On January 29, 2003, the Company issued its earnings release for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 and hosted an analysts conference call. A portion of the transcript of the conference call is attached as exhibit (a)(67) to this Schedule 14D-9 and is incorporated herein by this reference.

Court Proceedings

     On January 12, 2004, the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda held a case management conference in PeopleSoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation. A Case Management Order was filed on January 26, 2004. That order is attached hereto as exhibit (a)(68).

     On January 20, 2004, Oracle and Pepper Acquisition Corp. filed in the Alameda County Court (a) a Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to the Company’s Second Amended Complaint (attached hereto as exhibit (a)(69)), and (b) a Notice of Motion to Strike and a Motion to Strike portions of the Company’s Second Amended Complaint (attached hereto as exhibit (a)(70)).

Equity Incentive Plans

     On January 28, 2004, the Board of Directors approved the following changes to PeopleSoft’s equity compensation plans:

          The annual refresh rate of the Amended and Restated 1989 Stock Plan was reduced from the lesser of 20 million shares or 5% of the outstanding common stock to the lesser of 20 million shares or 3% of the outstanding common stock, effective as of December 30, 2003;
 
          Approximately 9 million shares available for equity awards at December 31, 2003 were canceled from the 1989 Plan; and
 
          The 2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan was terminated, and therefore no additional options can be granted under that plan.

These changes are intended to increase long-term stockholder value by reducing potential future dilution to PeopleSoft stockholders.

Item 9. Materials to Be Filed as Exhibits

     
Exhibit No.   Document

 
(a)(1)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on June 12, 2003 (1)
(a)(2)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on June 6, 2003 (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s Schedule 14D-9C filed with the SEC on June 7, 2003) (1)
(a)(3)   Letter, dated June 13, 2003, to PeopleSoft’s stockholders (2)
(a)(4)   Letter to customers issued June 16, 2003 (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 16, 2003 425 filing) (3)
(a)(5)   Investor presentation materials (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 17, 2003 425 filing) (3)
(a)(6)   Press release issued by CRN (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(7)   Press release issued by CNET News.com (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(8)   Transcript of conference call held by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 13, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(9)   Complaint filed by PeopleSoft in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (4)
(a)(10)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 16, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(11)   Press release issued by ComputerWeekly.com (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(12)   Press release issued by The Motley Fool (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(13)   Press release issued by the Higher Education User Group (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(14)   Text of information posted on PeopleSoft’s website (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 18, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(15)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 18, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(16)   Press release issued by the Distributors & Manufacturers’ User Group (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(17)   Press release issued by the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office (4)
(a)(18)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on June 20, 2003 (4)
(a)(19)   Investor presentation materials (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(20)   Letter to PeopleSoft employees (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(21)   Press release issued by eWeek (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(22)   Press release issued by the Healthcare Industry User Group (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 24, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(23)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(24)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 24, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(25)   Text of International Customer Advisory Board’s e-mail posted on PeopleSoft’s website (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 24, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(26)   Press release issued by Quest (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 24, 2003 425 filing) (5)

3


 

     
(a)(27)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 25, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(28)   Transcript of TriNet webcast posted on PeopleSoft’s website (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 25, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(29)   Transcript of CNBC webcast posted on PeopleSoft’s website (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 25, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(30)   Press release issued by the International Customer Advisory Board (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(31)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 1, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(32)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 1, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(33)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 2, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(34)   Transcript of conference call held by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 2, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(35)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft on July 2, 2003 (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 2, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(36)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 7, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(37)   Press release issued by InformationWeek (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 8, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(38)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 14, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(39)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 16, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(40)   Press release issued by CRMDaily.com (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 16, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(41)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 18, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(42)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 22, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(43)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 24, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(44)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 24, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(45)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 28, 2003 425 filing) (7)
(a)(46)   Press release issued by International Customer Advisory Board and Quest (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 29, 2003 425 filing) (7)
(a)(47)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s August 13, 2003 425 filing) (7)
(a)(48)   Redacted version of First Amended Complaint filed by PeopleSoft in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (7)
(a)(49)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on August 29, 2003 (9)
(a)(50)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on September 4, 2003 (9)
(a)(51)   Unredacted version of First Amended Complaint filed by PeopleSoft in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (9)
(a)(52)   Transcript of PeopleSoft Analyst Day conference held by PeopleSoft on September 4, 2003 (9)
(a)(53)   PeopleSoft Analyst Day Power Point presentation materials (9)
(a)(54)   PeopleSoft Analyst Day reconciliation of Non-GAAP to GAAP financial measures (9)

4


 

     
(a)(55)   Excerpts from transcript of conference call held by PeopleSoft on October 23, 2003 (10)
(a)(56)   Order entered by the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (11)
(a)(57)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on November 17, 2003 (12)
(a)(58)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on December 2, 2003 (13)
(a)(59)   Second Amended Complaint filed by PeopleSoft in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (14)
(a)(60)   Text of background information provided to PeopleSoft sales force to respond to customer inquiries following Oracle statements of November 24, 2003 (15)
(a)(61)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on December 19, 2003 (16)
(a)(62)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on January 12, 2004 (16)
(a)(63)   E-mail sent to PeopleSoft employees
(a)(64)   Letter to the Wall Street Journal dated January 22, 2004
(a)(65)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on January 24, 2004
(a)(66)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on January 30, 2004
(a)(67)   Excerpts from transcript of conference call held by PeopleSoft on January 29, 2004
(a)(68)   Order entered by the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
(a)(69)   Oracle and Pepper Acquisition Corp. Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer
(a)(70)   Oracle and Pepper Acquisition Corp. Notice of Motion to Strike and Motion to Strike
(a)(71)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft on February 3, 2004
(e)(1)   Excerpts from PeopleSoft’s Definitive Proxy Statement dated April 28, 2003 relating to the 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (1)
(e)(2)   Employment Agreement, dated May 10, 1999, by and between Craig Conway and PeopleSoft, Inc., (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.47 filed with PeopleSoft’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999) (1)
(e)(3)   Employment Contract, dated as of January 1, 2000, with addendums thereto dated as of January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2001, by and between Guy Dubois and PeopleSoft France S.A. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.45 filed with PeopleSoft’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001) (1)
(e)(4)   Executive Severance Policy – Executive Vice Presidents, effective as of January 1, 2003 (8)
(e)(5)   Executive Severance Policy – Senior Vice Presidents, effective as of January 1, 2003 (8)
(e)(6)   Terms of Customer Assurance Program (revised) (10)
(e)(6)(i)   Terms of Customer Assurance Program (replacement version) + (11)
(e)(7)   Form of letter sent to customers (11)
(e)(8)   Terms of Customer Assurance Program (11)
(e)(9)   Amendment No. 1 to the Bylaws of PeopleSoft (11)
(e)(10)   Terms of Customer Assurance Program (extension term) (12)
(e)(11)   Employment Agreement, dated January 30, 2004, by and between Craig Conway and PeopleSoft, Inc.


(1)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC June 12, 2003.
 
(2)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 1 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC June 13, 2003.
 
(3)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 2 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC June 17, 2003.
 
(4)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 3 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC June 20, 2003.
 
(5)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 4 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC July 3, 2003.
 
(6)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 5 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC July 25, 2003.
 
(7)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 6 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC August 14, 2003.
 
(8)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 7 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC August 22, 2003.
 
(9)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 8 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC September 11, 2003.
 
(10)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 9 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC October 27, 2003.
 
+   This exhibit replaces and supersedes exhibit (e)(6), which previously was filed in error.
 
(11)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 11 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC November 17, 2003.
 
(12)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 12 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC November 19, 2003.

5


 

(13)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 13 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC December 5, 2003.
 
(14)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 14 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC December 15, 2003.
 
(15)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 15 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC December 19, 2003.
 
(16)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 16 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC January 13, 2004.

6


 

SIGNATURE

     After reasonable inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete, and correct.

         
                  PEOPLESOFT, INC.
         
    By:   /s/ KEVIN T. PARKER
       
        Kevin T. Parker
Executive Vice President
Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
         
Date: February 2, 2004        

7


 

     
Exhibit No.   Document

 
(a)(1)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on June 12, 2003 (1)
(a)(2)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on June 6, 2003 (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s Schedule 14D-9C filed with the SEC on June 7, 2003) (1)
(a)(3)   Letter, dated June 13, 2003, to PeopleSoft’s stockholders (2)
(a)(4)   Letter to customers issued June 16, 2003 (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 16, 2003 425 filing) (3)
(a)(5)   Investor presentation materials (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 17, 2003 425 filing) (3)
(a)(6)   Press release issued by CRN (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(7)   Press release issued by CNET News.com (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(8)   Transcript of conference call held by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 13, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(9)   Complaint filed by PeopleSoft in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (4)
(a)(10)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 16, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(11)   Press release issued by ComputerWeekly.com (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(12)   Press release issued by The Motley Fool (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(13)   Press release issued by the Higher Education User Group (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(14)   Text of information posted on PeopleSoft’s website (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 18, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(15)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 18, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(16)   Press release issued by the Distributors & Manufacturers’ User Group (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 19, 2003 425 filing) (4)
(a)(17)   Press release issued by the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office (4)
(a)(18)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on June 20, 2003 (4)
(a)(19)   Investor presentation materials (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(20)   Letter to PeopleSoft employees (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(21)   Press release issued by eWeek (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(22)   Press release issued by the Healthcare Industry User Group (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 24, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(23)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(24)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 24, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(25)   Text of International Customer Advisory Board’s e-mail posted on PeopleSoft’s website (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 24, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(26)   Press release issued by Quest (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 24, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(27)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 25,

8


 

     
    2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(28)   Transcript of TriNet webcast posted on PeopleSoft’s website (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 25, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(29)   Transcript of CNBC webcast posted on PeopleSoft’s website (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 25, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(30)   Press release issued by the International Customer Advisory Board (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s June 23, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(31)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 1, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(32)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 1, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(33)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 2, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(34)   Transcript of conference call held by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 2, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(35)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft on July 2, 2003 (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 2, 2003 425 filing) (5)
(a)(36)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 7, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(37)   Press release issued by InformationWeek (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 8, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(38)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 14, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(39)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 16, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(40)   Press release issued by CRMDaily.com (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 16, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(41)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 18, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(42)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 22, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(43)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 24, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(44)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 24, 2003 425 filing) (6)
(a)(45)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 28, 2003 425 filing) (7)
(a)(46)   Press release issued by International Customer Advisory Board and Quest (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s July 29, 2003 425 filing) (7)
(a)(47)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft (incorporated by reference to PeopleSoft’s August 13, 2003 425 filing) (7)
(a)(48)   Redacted version of First Amended Complaint filed by PeopleSoft in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (7)
(a)(49)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on August 29, 2003 (9)
(a)(50)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on September 4, 2003 (9)
(a)(51)   Unredacted version of First Amended Complaint filed by PeopleSoft in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (9)
(a)(52)   Transcript of PeopleSoft Analyst Day conference held by PeopleSoft on September 4, 2003 (9)
(a)(53)   PeopleSoft Analyst Day Power Point presentation materials (9)
(a)(54)   PeopleSoft Analyst Day reconciliation of Non-GAAP to GAAP financial measures (9)
(a)(55)   Excerpts from transcript of conference call held by PeopleSoft on October 23, 2003 (10)

9


 

     
(a)(56)   Order entered by the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (11)
(a)(57)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on November 17, 2003 (12)
(a)(58)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on December 2, 2003 (13)
(a)(59)   Second Amended Complaint filed by PeopleSoft in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (14)
(a)(60)   Text of background information provided to PeopleSoft sales force to respond to customer inquiries following Oracle statements of November 24, 2003 (15)
(a)(61)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on December 19, 2003 (16)
(a)(62)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on January 12, 2004 (16)
(a)(63)   E-mail sent to PeopleSoft employees
(a)(64)   Letter to the Wall Street Journal dated January 22, 2004
(a)(65)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on January 24, 2004
(a)(66)   Press release issued by PeopleSoft on January 30, 2004
(a)(67)   Excerpts from transcript of conference call held by PeopleSoft on January 29, 2004
(a)(68)   Order entered by the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
(a)(69)   Oracle and Pepper Acquisition Corp. Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer
(a)(70)   Oracle and Pepper Acquisition Corp. Notice of Motion to Strike and Motion to Strike
(a)(71)   Advertisement placed by PeopleSoft on February 3, 2004
(e)(1)   Excerpts from PeopleSoft’s Definitive Proxy Statement dated April 28, 2003 relating to the 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (1)
(e)(2)   Employment Agreement, dated May 10, 1999, by and between Craig Conway and PeopleSoft, Inc., (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.47 filed with PeopleSoft’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999) (1)
(e)(3)   Employment Contract, dated as of January 1, 2000, with addendums thereto dated as of January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2001, by and between Guy Dubois and PeopleSoft France S.A. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.45 filed with PeopleSoft’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001) (1)
(e)(4)   Executive Severance Policy – Executive Vice Presidents, effective as of January 1, 2003 (8)
(e)(5)   Executive Severance Policy – Senior Vice Presidents, effective as of January 1, 2003 (8)
(e)(6)   Terms of Customer Assurance Program (revised) (10)
(e)(6)(i)   Terms of Customer Assurance Program (replacement version) + (11)
(e)(7)   Form of letter sent to customers (11)
(e)(8)   Terms of Customer Assurance Program (11)
(e)(9)   Amendment No. 1 to the Bylaws of PeopleSoft (11)
(e)(10)   Terms of Customer Assurance Program (extension term) (12)
(e)(11)   Employment Agreement, dated January 30, 2004, by and between Craig Conway and PeopleSoft, Inc.


(1)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC June 12, 2003.
 
(2)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 1 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC June 13, 2003.
 
(3)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 2 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC June 17, 2003.
 
(4)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 3 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC June 20, 2003.
 
(5)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 4 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC July 3, 2003.
 
(6)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 5 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC July 25, 2003.
 
(7)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 6 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC August 14, 2003.
 
(8)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 7 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC August 22, 2003.
 
(9)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 8 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC September 11, 2003.
 
(10)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 9 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC October 27, 2003.
 
+   This exhibit replaces and supersedes exhibit (e)(6), which previously was filed in error.
 
(11)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 11 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC November 17, 2003.
 
(12)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 12 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC November 19, 2003.
 
(13)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 13 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the

10


 

    SEC December 5, 2003.
 
(14)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 14 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC December 15, 2003.
 
(15)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 15 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC December 19, 2003.
 
(16)   Previously filed as an exhibit to PeopleSoft’s Amendment No. 16 to Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC January 13, 2004.

11 EX-99.(A)(63) 3 f92476b8exv99wxayx63y.htm EXHIBIT (A)(63) EXHIBIT (A)(63)

 

EXHIBIT (a)(63)

Re: Message from Kevin Parker

2003 was a remarkable year. The powerful combination of PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards propelled us to new competitive levels in the enterprise software industry. Today PeopleSoft is a clear leader in more than 25 industry verticals as well as in the large enterprise and mid-market segments. The combination has benefited both our customers and stockholders. It also caught the attention of our competitors and ultimately changed the competitive landscape. In our view, Oracle’s hostile offer was meant to disrupt our acquisition of J.D. Edwards and damage PeopleSoft.

Although Oracle has not withdrawn its tender offer, the offer is currently the subject of several significant investigations by the Department of Justice, a broad-based coalition of U.S. states and the European Commission. As our Board has said all along, the hostile offer faces serious antitrust concerns with a significant likelihood that the transaction will be prohibited. The Board also concluded that the hostile offer, which is highly conditional, significantly undervalues the Company.

In the coming weeks, Oracle may nominate their own slate of board candidates and propose other actions for our annual meeting. In our view, this would be consistent with their continuing efforts to disrupt our business and damage PeopleSoft.

We have said all along PeopleSoft has a significantly better plan for our stockholders. We are confident that both our stockholders and customers will maintain their strong support of PeopleSoft. We begin 2004 in the strongest competitive position in our history. We are better positioned to serve a wide variety of customers in all our markets with industry leading products and technologies.

Thank you for your ongoing commitment, enthusiasm and hard work. You make a difference!

Kevin

EX-99.(A)(64) 4 f92476b8exv99wxayx64y.htm EXHIBIT (A)(64) EXHIBIT (a)(64)

 

Exhibit (a)(64)

Set forth below is the text of a letter sent to the Wall Street Journal on January 22, 2004. An edited version of this letter was published by the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2004. Although PeopleSoft disclaims that this letter constitutes proxy soliciting material, the letter has been filed under Exchange Act Rule 14a-12 in the event that it is deemed to constitute proxy soliciting material. The “Important Additional Information” was not contained in the original letter or in the published version.

January 22, 2004

Editorial Board Chief
The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, N.Y. 10281

Dear Editor:

Your January 19 editorial, “The Oracle of Antitrust,” ignores what we believe is the real antitrust story behind Oracle’s hostile takeover attempt.

In our view, Oracle, not the regulators, is working at “largo tempo” deliberately dragging its feet with regulators in order to try to inflict harm on PeopleSoft. Oracle has apparently delayed its response to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) “second request” for information. Oracle also did not make its initial filing in Europe until October, more than four months after making its offer, and has failed to respond to subsequent inquiries from the European Commission (EC) to the point that the EC “stopped the clock,” further delaying the antitrust day of reckoning. Rather than trying to cooperate with the normal review process, we believe Oracle’s delays are consistent with its continuing attempts to damage PeopleSoft’s business.

The antitrust issues here are significant. In a number of important areas, including the supply of core human resource management and financial management software to large corporations and government agencies – PeopleSoft, SAP, and Oracle do stand alone. By reducing the number of competitors from three to two in a field characterized by substantial technical and financial barriers to entry, we believe the transaction would harm customers through higher prices and lower customer service, functionality and innovation. The large corporations and government agencies that purchase core human resource management and financial management software – those market participants who know best the likely impact of this transaction – are among its most vociferous opponents.

PeopleSoft’s Board, comprised of a majority of independent directors, and the Board’s special Transaction Committee, reviewed and rejected Oracle’s unsolicited offer as not in the best interests of PeopleSoft stockholders (first at Oracle’s $16.00 per share offer and then again at $19.50 per share). The Board believes that PeopleSoft’s track record of creating superior shareholder value speaks for itself. Over the last six months, PeopleSoft has demonstrated the Company’s ability to deliver on its plan even in the face of Oracle’s attempts to disrupt our business.

1


 

PeopleSoft’s stock has consistently traded above Oracle’s offer price. Neither our Board nor our shareholders believe that a $19.50 per share offer from Oracle is a “shareholder opportunity denied,” as witnessed by the underwhelming response to Oracle’s tender offer.

Your observation that the Justice Department is simply not capable of understanding the technology industry is also wrong – not to mention patronizing. There is nothing particularly difficult or different about the technology industry, or beyond the intellectual grasp of Justice Department officials.

As reported in the media, Larry Ellison’s strategy is to “essentially annihilate PeopleSoft, dumping its employees and products and merely keeping its customer list.” Ellison’s rhetoric, his low-ball offer, and failure to comply with the DOJ and EC, all support our contention that his goal all along has been – one way or another – to eliminate a competitor. No one wants Oracle’s apparent attempts to disrupt our business to end more than we do. We intend to continue to execute our plan to the benefit of our stockholders and customers.

Sincerely,

/s/ Craig A. Conway

Craig A. Conway
President and Chief Executive Officer

Important Additional Information

The Board of Directors of PeopleSoft (“Board of Directors”) will be soliciting proxies for use at the 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or at any adjournment or postponement thereof, to vote in favor of a slate of directors to be nominated by the Board of Directors and to vote on any other matters that properly come before the 2004 Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft will be filing a proxy statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with this solicitation of proxies for the 2004 Annual Meeting (the “2004 Proxy Statement”). Promptly after filing the definitive 2004 Proxy Statement with the SEC, PeopleSoft will mail the 2004 Proxy Statement and a WHITE Proxy Card to each PeopleSoft stockholder entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft has engaged Georgeson Shareholder Communications Inc. (“Georgeson”) to assist it in soliciting proxies from its stockholders. PeopleSoft has agreed to pay customary compensation to Georgeson for such services and to indemnify Georgeson and certain related persons against certain liabilities relating to or arising out of the engagement. Certain representatives of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co., financial advisors to PeopleSoft, may also solicit proxies, although no additional consideration will be paid in connection with any such solicitation. In addition, directors, officers and employees of PeopleSoft, may solicit proxies although no additional compensation will be paid to directors, officers or employees for such services.

PeopleSoft has filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the “Schedule 14D-9”) and amendments thereto regarding Oracle’s tender offer that contain information regarding members of the Board of Director’s and members of management’s potential interests in the tender offer. Information regarding securities ownership by certain

2


 

members of the Board of Directors and certain members of management as of April 1, 2003 is contained in PeopleSoft’s proxy statement for its 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, dated as of April 28, 2003 (the “2003 Proxy Statement”). PeopleSoft stockholders should read the Schedule 14D-9 and the 2004 Proxy Statement when it is filed with the SEC (including any amendments to such documents) because these documents contain (or will contain) important information. The 2004 Proxy Statement (when filed), the 2003 Proxy Statement, the Schedule 14D-9 and other public filings made by PeopleSoft with the SEC are available without charge from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and from PeopleSoft at www.peoplesoft.com.

3 EX-99.(A)(65) 5 f92476b8exv99wxayx65y.htm EXHIBIT (A)(65) EXHIBIT (A)(65)

 

Exhibit (a)(65)

PEOPLESOFT COMMENTS ON
ORACLE’S NOMINEES TO THE PEOPLESOFT BOARD

PLEASANTON, Calif., January 24, 2004 – PeopleSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSFT) today commented on Oracle Corporation’s (Nasdaq: ORCL) announcement of a slate of nominees it has submitted for election to the PeopleSoft Board of Directors:

On June 12th and 20th the PeopleSoft Board of Directors rejected Oracle’s tender offer stating that they believed the offer would face prolonged regulatory delays with a significant likelihood that it would not be approved, and that Oracle’s offer significantly undervalued the company. Indeed, since the beginning of June PeopleSoft’s stock price has increased more than 45%. Numerous antitrust investigations are ongoing including those by the United States Justice Department, European Commission, and state attorneys general.

We believe that Larry Ellison’s attempt to gain control of PeopleSoft’s Board of Directors is solely to advance Oracle’s agenda and is not in the best interests of PeopleSoft’s stockholders. We strongly believe that Ellison’s hand-picked, paid nominees are biased and would have irreconcilable conflicts of interest if elected to PeopleSoft’s board. Each nominee is receiving cash compensation and has signed an agreement with Oracle. We believe their ability to be independent is seriously compromised.

PeopleSoft will continue its focus on delivering higher value to our stockholders. With an improving economy and an even broader product line, the prospects for PeopleSoft’s stockholders are excellent.

About PeopleSoft

PeopleSoft (Nasdaq: PSFT) is the world’s second largest provider of enterprise application software with 12,000 customers in more than 25 industries and 150 countries. For more information, visit us at www.peoplesoft.com.

Important Additional Information

The Board of Directors of PeopleSoft (“Board of Directors”) will be soliciting proxies for use at the 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or at any adjournment or postponement thereof, to vote in favor of a slate of directors to be nominated by the Board of Directors and to vote on any other matters that properly come before the 2004 Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft will be filing a proxy statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with this solicitation of proxies for the 2004 Annual Meeting (the “2004 Proxy Statement”). Promptly after filing the definitive 2004 Proxy Statement with the SEC, PeopleSoft will mail the 2004 Proxy Statement and a WHITE Proxy Card to each PeopleSoft stockholder entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft has engaged Georgeson Shareholder Communications Inc. (“Georgeson”) to assist it in soliciting proxies from its stockholders. PeopleSoft has agreed to pay customary compensation to Georgeson for such services and to

1


 

indemnify Georgeson and certain related persons against certain liabilities relating to or arising out of the engagement. Certain representatives of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co., financial advisors to PeopleSoft, may also solicit proxies, although no additional consideration will be paid in connection with any such solicitation. In addition, directors, officers and employees of PeopleSoft, may solicit proxies although no additional compensation will be paid to directors, officers or employees for such services.

PeopleSoft has filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the “Schedule 14D-9”) and amendments thereto regarding Oracle’s tender offer that contain information regarding members of the Board of Director’s and members of management’s potential interests in the tender offer. Information regarding securities ownership by certain members of the Board of Directors and certain members of management as of April 1, 2003 is contained in PeopleSoft’s proxy statement for its 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, dated as of April 28, 2003 (the “2003 Proxy Statement”). PeopleSoft stockholders should read the Schedule 14D-9 and the 2004 Proxy Statement when it is filed with the SEC (including any amendments to such documents) because these documents contain (or will contain) important information. The 2004 Proxy Statement (when filed), the 2003 Proxy Statement, the Schedule 14D-9 and other public filings made by PeopleSoft with the SEC are available without charge from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and from PeopleSoft at www.peoplesoft.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements, which reflect PeopleSoft’s current intentions, beliefs, expectations, or predictions for the future, which are based on information currently available to PeopleSoft. The specific forward-looking statements relate to such matters as the impact of PeopleSoft’s combination with J.D. Edwards and the combined company’s projected financial performance and market position. Such forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, assumptions and uncertainties that could cause PeopleSoft’s actual results to differ materially from those projected in such forward-looking statements. These risks, assumptions and uncertainties include: our ability to successfully complete the integration of J.D. Edwards into PeopleSoft and to achieve anticipated synergies, economic and political conditions in the U.S. and abroad; the ability to complete and deliver products and services within currently estimated time frames and budgets; the ability to manage expenses effectively; the ability to achieve revenues from products and services that are under development; competitive and pricing pressures; our ability to continue to prevent Oracle from disrupting our business; and other risks referenced from time to time in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Please refer to the Company’s current annual report on Form 10-K and quarterly report on Form 10-Q for more information on the risk factors that could cause actual results to differ. Additional risks relating to Oracle’s tender offer are described in PeopleSoft’s most recent SEC filings. All forward-looking statements are only as of the date they are made and PeopleSoft undertakes no obligation to update or revise them.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. are financial advisors to PeopleSoft.

2


 

         
Media
Contacts:
       
Bob Okunski   Kara Wilson   Joele Frank/Susan Stillings
Investor Relations   Public Relations   Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher
PeopleSoft   PeopleSoft   212-355-4449 x110/x124
(877) 528-7413   (925) 408-2249   jf@joelefrank.com/sts@joelefrank.com
bob_okunski@peoplesoft.com   kara_wilson@peoplesoft.com    

3 EX-99.(A)(66) 6 f92476b8exv99wxayx66y.txt EXHIBIT (A)(66) EXHIBIT (a)(66) PeopleSoft Press Release Page 1 of 4 PRESS RELEASE: PEOPLESOFT ANNOUNCES 2004 ANNUAL MEETING DATE; NOMINATES FOUR DIRECTORS FOR RE-ELECTION PLEASANTON, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 30, 2004--PeopleSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq:PSFT) today announced that the Company will hold its Annual Meeting of Stockholders on March 25, 2004. Stockholders of record as of the close of business on February 10, 2004 will be eligible to vote at the meeting. PeopleSoft President and Chief Executive Officer Craig Conway said, "The PeopleSoft Board unanimously voted to hold its annual meeting on March 25th so that we could put Oracle's apparent efforts to interfere with our business behind us as soon as possible. We firmly believe that Oracle is trying to deny PeopleSoft stockholders the real value of this company. PeopleSoft has fought through three quarters of what we believe is Oracle's attempt to disrupt our business and has delivered solid financial results. Think about the additional value we can create once our stockholders reject Oracle and our sales force is unfettered. "We believe that there is a substantial likelihood that Oracle's bid will be blocked by antitrust authorities and we look forward to their prompt decision. At the same time, we believe it is important to give PeopleSoft stockholders an opportunity to bring Oracle's efforts to disrupt our business to an end by voting in favor of the Board's nominees and rejecting Oracle's nominees," Conway added. PeopleSoft Press Release Page 2 of 4 PeopleSoft's Board also announced that four existing directors have been nominated to serve as Class II Directors until the 2006 Annual Meeting. They are: A. George "Skip" Battle, Craig A. Conway, Frank J. Fanzilli, Jr., and Cyril J. Yansouni. Biographies of the director nominees are below. A. George "Skip" Battle, 60, became a director of PeopleSoft in December 1995. Mr. Battle has served on the Board of Directors of Ask Jeeves, Inc. a publicly-traded internet search engine company, since December 2000, currently serving as Executive Chairman. He served as its Chief Executive Officer from December 2000 through December 2003. He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Aspen Institute, an international research firm. From 1968 until his retirement in June 1995, Mr. Battle served in various roles of increasing responsibility with Andersen Consulting. At the time of his retirement, Mr. Battle was Managing Partner of Market Development and was serving as a member of Andersen Consulting's Executive Committee, Global Management Council and Partner Income Committee. Mr. Battle holds a B.A. degree in economics with highest distinction from Dartmouth College and an M.B.A. degree from the Stanford Business School where he held McCarthy and University Fellowships. Mr. Battle is also the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Fair Isaac Corporation and a director of Barra, Inc., and a director of the following mutual funds: Masters' Select Equity, Masters' Select Value, Masters' Select Smaller Companies and Masters' Select International. Craig A. Conway, 49, joined PeopleSoft in May 1999 as President, Chief Operating Officer and Director, and was promoted to Chief Executive Officer in September 1999. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Conway was President and Chief Executive Officer of OneTouch Systems, a leader in the field of interactive broadcast networks. From 1993 to 1996, Mr. Conway served as President and Chief Executive Officer for TGV Software, Inc., an early developer of IP network protocols and applications for corporate intranets and the Internet. Prior to that time, Mr. Conway spent eight years at Oracle Corporation in a variety of senior management roles, last serving as an Executive Vice President. Mr. Conway graduated from State University of New York with a B.S. degree in computer science and mathematics. Frank J. Fanzilli, Jr., 47, became a director of PeopleSoft in May 2001. Mr. Fanzilli was Managing Director and the Chief Information Officer of Credit Suisse First Boston until his retirement in April of 2002. Mr. Fanzilli joined the First Boston Corporation in 1985 as an Analyst in the Information Services Department and held a variety of positions within Information Technology, including Head of European Information Services and Head of Global Application Development. Prior to joining Credit Suisse First Boston, Mr. Fanzilli spent seven years at IBM where he managed systems engineering and software development for Fortune 50 accounts. Mr. Fanzilli received a B.S. degree in management, cum laude, from Fairfield University and an M.B.A. degree in finance, with distinction, from New York University, where he was the Marcos Nadler Scholar. Mr. Fanzilli is also a director of Interwoven, Inc. Cyril J. Yansouni, 61, has been a director of PeopleSoft since 1992. From June 2000 to June 2003, Mr. Yansouni was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Read-Rite Corporation, a supplier of magnetic recording heads for data storage PeopleSoft Press Release Page 3 of 4 drives, which sought protection under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in June 2003. From March 1991 to June 2000, Mr. Yansouni also served as the Chief Executive Officer of Read-Rite Corporation. From 1988 to 1991, Mr. Yansouni was with Unisys Corporation, a manufacturer of computer systems, where he served in various senior management capacities, last serving as an Executive Vice President. From 1986 to 1988, Mr. Yansouni was President of Convergent Technologies, a manufacturer of computer systems that was acquired by Unisys Corporation in December 1988. From 1967 to 1986, Mr. Yansouni was employed by Hewlett-Packard Company, where he served in a variety of technical and management positions, last serving as Vice President and General Manager of the Personal Computer Group. Mr. Yansouni received his B.S. degree in electrical and mechanical engineering from the University of Louvain, Belgium and his M.S. degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University. Mr. Yansouni is also a director of Tektronix, Inc. and Solectron Corporation. Stockholders wishing to propose that additional business be conducted at the Annual Meeting must send a notice to PeopleSoft's Secretary pursuant to section 2.16 of PeopleSoft's bylaws on or before February 13, 2004. About PeopleSoft PeopleSoft (Nasdaq:PSFT) is the world's second largest provider of enterprise application software with 12,100 customers in more than 25 industries and 150 countries. For more information, visit us at WWW.PEOPLESOFT.COM. Important Additional Information The Board of Directors of PeopleSoft will be soliciting proxies for use at the 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or at any adjournment or postponement thereof, to vote in favor of the slate of directors nominated by the Board of Directors and to vote on any other matters that properly come before the 2004 Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft is filing a proxy statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with its solicitation of proxies for the Annual Meeting. Promptly after filing the definitive proxy statement with the SEC (the "2004 Proxy Statement"), PeopleSoft will send the 2004 Proxy Statement and a WHITE Proxy Card to each PeopleSoft stockholder entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft has engaged Georgeson Shareholder Communications Inc. ("Georgeson") to assist in soliciting proxies for the 2004 Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft has agreed to pay customary compensation to Georgeson for such services and to indemnify Georgeson and certain related persons against certain liabilities relating to or arising out of the engagement. PeopleSoft's directors, officers and employee, as well as certain representatives of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co., financial advisors to PeopleSoft, also may assist PeopleSoft in soliciting proxies, although no additional consideration will be paid for such services. Information regarding the interests of Georgeson and these other persons is contained in the 2004 Proxy Statement. PeopleSoft Press Release Page 4 of 4 PeopleSoft has filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the "Schedule 14D-9") regarding Oracle's tender offer. PeopleSoft stockholders should read the Schedule 14D-9 and the 2004 Proxy Statement (including any amendments to such documents) because these documents contain important information. The 2004 Proxy Statement, the Schedule 14D-9 and other public filings made by PeopleSoft with the SEC are available without charge from the SEC's website at WWW.SEC.GOV and from PeopleSoft at WWW.PEOPLESOFT.COM. CONTACT: PeopleSoft Bob Okunski, 877-528-7413 (Investor Relations) bob_okunski@peoplesoft.com Steve Swasey, 925-694-5230 (Public Relations) steve_swasey@peoplesoft.com or Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher Joele Frank, 212-355-4449 ext. 110 jf@joelefrank.com Susan Stillings 212-355-4449 ext. 124 sts@joelefrank.com EX-99.(A)(67) 7 f92476b8exv99wxayx67y.htm EXHIBIT (A)(67) EXHIBIT (A)(67)

 

EXHIBIT (a)(67)

The following are excerpts from the transcript of the Q4 2003 PeopleSoft earnings conference call, which took place on January 29, 2004 at 6:00PM ET.

Bob Okunski — PeopleSoft Inc. — Vice President of Investor Relations

Thank you Rich. Good afternoon everyone. This is Bob Okunski, Vice President of Investor Relations here at PeopleSoft. I would like to welcome you to PeopleSoft’s fourth quarter 2003 earnings conference call. Joining me today are Craig Conway, PeopleSoft’s President and CEO and Kevin Parker, PeopleSoft’s Chief Financial Officer. During this call we will review PeopleSoft’s results of operations for the fourth quarter and share some of our expectations for PeopleSoft’s future financial performance. After our commentary, we will open up the conference call for questions related to our quarterly performance.

PeopleSoft has filed a solicitation recommendation statement on schedule 14D-9. The Board of Directors of PeopleSoft will be soliciting proxies for use at the 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to vote in favor of a slate of Directors to be nominated by the Board of Directors and to vote on any other matters that should be voted upon at the 2004 Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft will be filing a proxy statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with this solicitation of proxies for the 2004 Annual Meeting. Promptly after filing the definitive 2004 Proxy Statement with the SEC, PeopleSoft will mail the 2004 Proxy Statement and a WHITE Proxy Card to each PeopleSoft’s stockholder entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft has engaged Georgeson Shareholder Communications to assist it in solicitation of proxies from its stockholders. In addition directors, officers, and employees of PeopleSoft may solicit proxies. Citigroup Global Markets, and Goldman Sachs & Company are financial advisors to PeopleSoft. Our earnings release indicates where you can find more information regarding persons who may be deemed to be participants in our proxy solicitation. PeopleSoft’s stockholders should read the Schedule 14D-9 in the 2004 Proxy Statement when it is filed with the SEC because these documents contain or will contain important information. The 2004 Proxy Statement when filed, the Schedule 14D-9 and other public filings made by PeopleSoft with the SEC are available without charge from SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and from PeopleSoft at www.peoplesoft.com. Please remember our discussions and the financial results and our business outlook may contain forward-looking statements, which may relate to matters as future customer demand, competitive landscape including our win rate against competitors, new product development status, position in the enterprise application sector, and future financial performance or expectations including revenue, operating margin, and earnings expectation and others. The particular forward-looking statements and other statements that may be made on this conference call are not historical facts, are subject to a number of risks, assumptions, and uncertainties and actual results may differ materially. For a more detailed discussion of the information regarding risks that may affect PeopleSoft’s operating results, please refer to PeopleSoft’s most recent earnings release, annual report on Form 10-K, and quarterly report on Form 10-Q. Please remember that the Company undertakes no obligation to update this information presented on this conference call. During the course of today’s discussion, we may reference certain non-GAAP financial measures. For a reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures, please see our website at www.peoplesoft.com. With that let me turn the call over to Craig.

 


 

Craig Conway - PeopleSoft Inc. — President and CEO and Director

[Portion of text not included]

2003 has been a remarkable year. We entered the year in an economic downturn and exited the year as the second largest enterprise software company in the world. We made big investments last year and now we are in a great position with strong growth and even stronger shareholder value. You may recall, when we met with investors and analysts on September 4, in New York, we gave our financial guidance. Many people said we were being too aggressive. Since that time, our financial results speak for themselves and don’t get me wrong 2003 was the not the year, it could have been, had there not been an extremely hostile approach by Oracle, their continuous messaging, their long delays with regulators, all of that prevented PeopleSoft in really having the kind of year we could have had. But we made it a remarkable year anyway.

[Portion of text not included]

Kevin Parker — PeopleSoft Inc. — CFO and EVP of Finance and Administration

[Portion of text not included]

Before I go to the details on our cost and expenses, I would like to point out that our expenses as a percentage of revenue is slightly higher than our longer-term historical averages due to the reduction in our total revenues for the deferred maintenance write-down. Excluding the impact of J. D. Edwards related purchase accounting our fourth quarter pro forma operating expenses were $623 million. Our Q4 operating expenses also include about $11.2 million of expenses related to Oracle’s hostile takeover bid, resulting in a reduction of earnings per share of about 2 cents. Of the $11.2 million, $11 million of these costs were included in the G&A and $200,000 are included in sales and marketing. Q4 sales and marketing expenses were $186 million or 25% of total revenues essentially consistent with recent quarters as a percentage of revenues.

[Portion of text not included]

Our Q4 pro forma operating income increased to a record $112 million, up from $89 million in the prior quarter and $77 million in the prior year, an increase of 26% and 45%, respectively. Pro forma operating margins as a percentage of revenues were 15.3% compared to 13.2% in Q3 and 15.1% in Q4 the prior year. Had we not been forced to incur the costs associated with Oracle’s hostile bid, pro forma operating income would have been in excess of $123 million and our operating margin as a percentage of revenues would have been 16.8% or 1.5 percentage points higher.

[Portion of text not included]

We anticipate Q1 pro forma EPS to be in the 17-18 cent range. In Q1, we also expect to incur additional costs related to the restructuring and severance for closure and closure of facilities of approximately $10 million. Including those acquisition related charges as well as the ongoing amortization associated with the acquisition, we expect our Q1 GAAP EPS to be 6-7 cents. In Q1, we also anticipate that we will have to incur additional costs associated with Oracle’s hostile

 


 

bid of approximately $12-15 million. This additional expense is included in the EPS amounts I have just given.

[Portion of text not included]

In summary, we are pleased with our performance in Q4 and for 2003, as we posted record results in a number of different categories. The integration of J. D. Edwards is on plan and in many cases exceeding our expectations. We look forward to additional synergies as we go through the New Year. Before we turn to questions I want to take a moment to review where we are with respect to Oracle’s hostile takeover attempt.

This call is an earnings call, and during Q&A portion, we will not be taking questions about Oracle. As we have previously stated, we firmly believe that Oracle is trying to buy PeopleSoft on the cheap and deny our stockholders the value we can deliver with our plan. The Board has twice reviewed Oracle’s offer, first at $16 and again at $19.50. The Board concluded that the offer would face prolonged regulatory delays and with a significant likelihood that it would not be approved and that Oracle’s offers significantly under valued the Company.

Turning to more recent developments, we strongly believe that Oracle’s handpicked paid nominees for election to PeopleSoft Board of Directors are biased and would have irreconcilable conflicts of interest if elected. Oracle’s unsolicited offer also continues to be the subject of ongoing reviews by the U.S. Department of Justice and a task force of State Attorney’s General, as well as by the European Commission, which has requested further information from Oracle. We have been co-operating throughout with the antitrust authorities and look forward to their prompt decisions.

We will continue to update you as events unfold and PeopleSoft will continue its focus on delivering higher value to our stockholders. With an improving economy and even broader product line, the prospects for PeopleSoft’s stockholders are excellent. I’d like to remind you the primary purpose of today’s call is to talk about our earnings and outlook. We will not be taking questions about Oracle’s takeover attempt and with that operator we will be happy to answer questions now.

[Portion of text not included]

QUESTION AND ANSWER

Neil Herman - Lehman Brothers – Analyst

Yes, hi. Just a couple of questions could you talk a little bit about your close rates and what your expectations are going forward for your close rates and then if you could talk about what you are seeing from competitive perspective any significant changes from your competitors out there, are you seeing — who you are seeing more of and who are you seeing less of?

Craig Conway - PeopleSoft Inc. — President and CEO and Director

[Portion of text not included]

So conversion rate is going back up, our win rate continues to be very good, significantly better than Oracle and very strong against SAP, our CRM business was particularly strong and our supply chain management business was particularly strong in Q4. We closed some of the largest

 


 

transactions we’d ever closed in those two categories supply chain management and CRM in Q4 so, all in all I feel very optimistic as I look out over all in 2004.

Neil Herman - Lehman Brothers – Analyst

Any changes in the competitive environment that were meaningful in your view?

Craig Conway - PeopleSoft Inc. – President and CEO and Director

I think the win rate for Oracle has been eroding for really 3 years now and I think Oracle has gotten weaker and weaker and their applications business certainly saw their license revenue last quarter was significantly below ours and so I feel best with regard to Oracle. I think SAP has gotten a bit of a boost in visibility as a result of Oracle’s approach to PeopleSoft and so, you know, I think their close rate and I think their competitive position continues pretty good.

[Portion of text not included]

You know we already have more than 300 customers in Germany, which is the strongest [vesting] on SAP and so it is all very encouraging. I think, the industry has, you know, has been an industry almost exclusively served by SAP, PeopleSoft, and Oracle and I think our competitive position has gotten better.

[Portion of text not included]

Heather Bellini - UBS Warburg – Analyst

Hi, thank you. Two questions for you Kevin and Craig. The first being could you talk about any changes you are making to the sales force following the the kick off you just did? And the second one is you know, you implied that — you mentioned that we are going to expect more seasonal behavior in license revenue in Q1 just given the size that you are becoming, if you look at SAP though, if you are using them as a benchmark for one of your largest company, they are so up significantly more and typically in the fourth quarter, but I would like to get a comment — some comment there on how do you think this effects your results — you know your seasonality in the out quarters in particular in the fourth, if it is still making more seasonal in the fourth?

[Portion of text not included]

Kevin Parker - PeopleSoft Inc. — CFO and EVP of Finance and Administration

In terms of the seasonality, I think we are going to start to see that and that’s certainly part of the, you know, little bit our expectations not certainly to the degree we see from someone like SAP or Oracle. I think that’s a just not a way we would like to run our business, but the reality is that the macro trend in customer buying behaviors seems to be more skewed towards a stronger Q4 and as we mentioned the sequential decline in Q1 and that’s really what we are trying to describe. We then — as we look at — I am sorry — as we look back over recent history, we actually have been

 


 

the outlier in terms of seasonality and we feel as though we are more following the industry trend at this point.

[Portion of text not included]

John Torrey - Adams, Harkness and Hill – Analyst

Couple of quick questions. Can you talk about the education and government performance during Q4 particularly after the comments that you made about it in Q3?

Craig Conway - PeopleSoft Inc. - - President and CEO and Director

[Portion of text not included]

Yeah it is down. The State Government, the Federal Government and University market is the only market that —well is the market that is most sensitive to any thing going on in the market having to do with the vendors they are evaluating. So, you know, government CIOs and the people that chose government as a career don’t get any rewards or accolades for taking risks on behalf of the public sector.

And so I would say that if, you know, that’s the area that was most impacted by the Oracle situations, there are quarters where public sector is 25% of our total license revenue and that number is —.

John Torrey - Adams, Harkness and Hill – Analyst

I think 12-13% this quarter.

Craig Conway - PeopleSoft Inc. - - President and CEO and Director

It was —.

John Torrey - Adams, Harkness and Hill – Analyst

On a worldwide basis.

Craig Conway - PeopleSoft Inc. - - President and CEO and Director

It was approaching — it was approaching 10%. If you wind up at 12, you know 12, 13 whatever Kevin says it wound up at, you know, that’s half as much on a percentage basis, as we normally would do. So that’s a very painful consequence of the Oracle situation and hopefully that will get resolved we assume.

John Torrey - Adams, Harkness and Hill – Analyst

Is there any change in the competitive win rates against you in that landscape, in that industry because it seems as if some of your competitors are talking more ambitiously about their success there?

Craig Conway - PeopleSoft Inc. - - President and CEO and Director

 


 

Well I think our competitors should do it, we would do it. Just trying to seize that opportunity. Saying yeah, we are really, really doing well in the public sector. I mean, if you can have the public sector collectively pause that creates an opportunity for you to go present and so yeah, both of our competitors SAP and Oracle have re-doubled their efforts in the public sector space. And happily most we feel of the public sector deals are waiting; they are not closing but they are waiting, they are waiting for a resolution to a level of comfort — and some have gone ahead. Like I said, we haven’t totally tanked the public sector business, but it’s half of what it would be from a percent point of view. That other half is mostly waiting. Although, every once in a while somebody can’t wait anymore. You saw a deal that was awarded to PeopleSoft in Los Angeles that it was already awarded and had been negotiated, it was pending signature and it ultimately went to SAP I don’t know I am sure, it ultimately was cancelled and the explicit published reason was the Oracle approach to PeopleSoft. There was a $60 million deal, competed, awarded, negotiated, pending signature, lost. And so that’s you know that’s the unhappy part of the public sector experience we had.

[Portion of text not included]

  EX-99.(A)(68) 8 f92476b8exv99wxayx68y.txt EXHIBIT (A)(68) Exhibit (a)(68) FILED ALAMEDA COUNTY JAN 26 2004 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT By /s/ Charlotte Marin ------------------------- Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PEOPLESOFT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, No. RG03-101434 Plaintiff, CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER v. ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, PEPPER ACQUISITION CORP.,, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court held a case management conference on January 12, 2004. Counsel appeared on behalf of Plaintiff PeopleSoft and on behalf of Defendant Oracle. At the case management conference, the Court considered whether PeopleSoft could proceed with discovery in this case under the supervision of this Court. Following the case management conference, the parties submitted various documents to the Court. The Court has reviewed the following documents: 1. Transcript of proceedings before the Honorable Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine, Jr. dated June 18, 2003; 2. Transcript of proceedings before Vice Chancellor Strine dated July 1, 2003; 3. Stipulation Regarding Electronic Data Production signed by Vice Chancellor Strine on July 1, 2003; 1 4. Stipulated Scheduling Order signed by Vice Chancellor Strine on July 16, 2003; 5. Amended Stipulated Scheduling Order signed by Vice Chancellor Strine on July 16, 2003; 6. Stipulated Discovery Order executed by counsel for the parties buy unsigned by Vice Chancellor Strine; 7. Transcript of proceedings before Vice Chancellor Strine dated August 15, 2003; 8. Second Amended Stipulated Scheduling Order signed by Vice Chancellor Strine on August 25, 2003; 9. Transcript of proceedings before Vice Chancellor Strine on September 24, 2003; On January 14, 2004, the Court had a telephone conference with Vice Chancellor Strine of the Delaware Court of Chancery concerning these matters. The Court's Research Attorney, Philip Obbard, participated in the conference call. The Court appreciates that counsel for PeopleSoft presented this issue in the context of a case management conference rather than serving discovery and having the issue arise in the context of a motion to compel or a motion for a protective order. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND There are several lawsuits arising out of Oracle's attempted purchase of PeopleSoft. There are various derivative actions brought nominally by PeopleSoft, Inc. against its Board of Directors by various plaintiffs, including Oracle Corporation. These derivative claims are pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware litigation") and are being managed by Vice Chancellor Strine. These actions were filed in June 2003. Dates for preliminary injunction hearings and for trial have been set and postponed, and trial is now set for 2 March 29, 2004. It is unclear whether the trial will proceed as scheduled given ongoing antitrust review by the United States Department of Justice and the European Union. Similar derivative actions were brought in this Court, but this Court stayed those actions by order dated June 18, 2003, in light of the pending Delaware litigation. The stay of the derivative actions in this Court followed communications between this Court and Vice Chancellor Strine. PeopleSoft has also filed an action in this Court asserting claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (the "California litigation"). This action was filed on June 13, 2003. The claims asserted in the California litigation are distinct from the claims pending in the Delaware litigation: the California claims concern Oracle's actions and matters external to PeopleSoft, whereas the Delaware claims concern the actions of PeopleSoft's board and matters internal to PeopleSoft. Despite the distinctions between the Delaware and California litigation, the discovery in the California litigation and the Delaware litigation overlapped in significant respects. As a result, counsel for the PeopleSoft and Oracle agreed in the Delaware Court of Chancery to coordinate all discovery in the California and Delaware litigation. The record indicates that the parties agreed that the discovery in the California and Delaware litigation would all be conducted under the supervision of the Delaware Court of Chancery. (July 1, 2003, Tr at 37:19-39:13; July 16, 2003, Scheduling Order, para 13; July 16, 2003, Amended Scheduling Order, para 3; August 15, 2003, Tr at 45:7-9, 51:11-19, 53:19-54:5; September 24, 2003, Tr at 6:10-17.) Since the inception of the California litigation, all discovery has been undertaken under the supervision of the Delaware Court. 3 PRESENT CONTROVERSY. PeopleSoft now seeks to take discovery concerning the non-derivative California claims that goes beyond what has been stipulated by the parties or authorized by Vice Chancellor Strine. PeopleSoft argues that the orders in the Delaware litigation merely coordinate the Delaware and California discovery and do not prohibit PeopleSoft from seeking the additional discovery in the California litigation. Oracle objects to the additional discovery requested by PeopleSoft, arguing that the stipulations and orders in the Delaware litigation define the scope of permissible discovery, that PeopleSoft is bound the stipulations in the Delaware litigation, and that PeopleSoft must seek leave of the Delaware Court regarding all discovery in the Delaware and California litigation. ORDER. The Court, having considered the arguments of counsel, the pleadings before this Court, the aforementioned documents from the Delaware litigation, and the comments of Vice Chancellor Strine, now ORDERS: 1. PeopleSoft is bound by the agreements it entered into in the Delaware Chancery Court that provide that all discovery, in the Delaware litigation, the non-Delaware derivative litigation, and the California litigation will be supervised by Vice Chancellor Strine. The Court has a policy of enforcing such agreements. Young v. Rosenthal (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 116-117. 2. If PeopleSoft wants to conduct discovery in the California litigation beyond that currently permitted by the Delaware Court, then PeopleSoft must seek leave of the Delaware Court to conduct that discovery. (July 7, 2003, Stipulation, para 5.) PeopleSoft may request 4 that additional discovery be conducted under the supervision of the Delaware Court or that additional discovery be conducted under the supervision of this Court, but the request must be made in the Delaware Court. 3. The Court observes by way of dicta that this Court's order of June 18, 2003, stayed the derivative actions filed in this Court so that similar claims could proceed in the Delaware Court of Chancery without the threat of conflicting or inconsistent orders from this Court. In contrast, the non-derivative California litigation was not stayed and this Court's order of June 18, 2003, merely suggested that discovery in the California and Delaware litigation should be coordinated. 4. The Court observes by way of dicta that it appears that the stipulations entered into in the Delaware litigation arose in the context of what was expected to be a fast moving case. The Delaware litigation was filed in early June 2003, at which time Oracle's tender offer was scheduled to close in July 2003. Now that Oracle's efforts to purchase PeopleSoft have been delayed, the initial rationale for those stipulations may not remain. 5. The Court observes by way of dicta that if PeopleSoft requests (in the Delaware Court) that additional discovery be conducted under the supervision of this Court and Vice-Chancellor Strine grants such a request, it will assist future proceedings if the parties and the Courts define what discovery matters are under the supervision of the respective Courts. 6. Finally, the Court observes by way of dicta that if the matter were before it, the Court would be inclined to permit PeopleSoft to take the eight depositions it seeks but might limit any related document production. 5 7. The Courts sets the next case management conference for April 14, 2004, at 3:00 pm in Department 22. Dated: January 26, 2004 /s/ Ronald M. Sabraw ----------------------- Judge Ronald M. Sabraw 6 (RCD-11/00) CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I certify that the following is true and correct: I am the clerk of the above-named court and not a party to this cause. I served a copy of this Order by placing copies in envelopes addressed as shown below and then by sealing and placing them for collection, stamping or metering with prepaid postage, and mailing on the date stated below, in the United States Mail at Alameda County, California, following standard court practices. SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST Dated: January 27, 2004 ARTHUR SIMS Executive Officer/Clerk of the Superior Court By /s/ Charlotte Marin ------------------------------------------ Charlotte Marin, Clerk of Dept. 22 Certificate of Mailing SERVICE LIST PEOPLESOFT, INC. VS. ORACLE CORPORATION ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ACTION NO. RG03101434 Michael A. Kahn, Esq. David M. Balabanian, Esq. Gregory D. Call, Esq. Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq. Jonathan K. Sobel, Esq. Geoffrey M. Howard, Esq. Michael F. Kelleher, Esq. Holly A. House, Esq. FOLGER LEVIN & KAHN, LLP BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Max Gitter, Esq. William M. Kelly, Esq. Christopher H. Lunding, Esq. Zachary S. McGee, Esq. Mitchell A. Lowenthal, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL CLEARY, GOTTLIEB, STEEN & 1600 El Camino Real HAMILTON Menlo Park, CA 94025 One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Dorian Daley, Esq. ORACLE CORPORATION Steven P. Mandell, Esq. 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Stephen J. Rosenfeld, Esq. Redwood Shores, CA 94070 MANDELL MENKES & SURKDYK, LLC 333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (revised 1/27/04) EX-99.(A)(69) 9 f92476b8exv99wxayx69y.txt EXHIBIT (A)(69) Exhibit (a)(69) BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DAVID M. BALABANIAN (SBN 37368) STEPHEN D. HIBBARD (SBN 177865) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4067 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL WILLIAM M. KELLY (SBN 108011) ZACHARY S. MCGEE (SBN 224790) 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650.752.2000 Facsimile: 650.752.2111 DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) ORACLE CORPORATION 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood Shores, CA 94070 Telephone: 650.506.5200 Facsimile: 650.506.7114 Attorneys for Defendants Oracle Corporation and Pepper Acquisition Corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PEOPLESOFT, INC. a Delaware corporation, No. RG03101434 and J.D. EDWARDS & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. ---------------------------- ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware Date: February 25, 2004 corporation, PEPPER ACQUISITION CORP., a Time: 3:00 p.m. Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, Dept: 22 Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw Defendants. SF:21543371.1/2021039-0000302635 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on February 25, 2004, at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 22 of the above entitled Court, located at 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, California, defendants Oracle Corporation and Pepper Acquisition Corporation (together, "Oracle") will and hereby do demur to PeopleSoft, Inc.'s and J.D. Edwards & Company's (hereafter, "PeopleSoft") Second Amended Complaint. This motion is based upon this Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice, the accompanying Appendix of Non-California Authorities, all pleadings on file in this action, such matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any argument made or evidence introduced at the hearing on this demurrer. GENERAL DEMURRER The Second Amended Complaint against Oracle fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Code Civ. Proc. Section 430.10(e). DEMURRER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 1. The first cause of action for violations of Business & Professions Code Section 17500 fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Oracle because the alleged statements about Oracle's or PeopleSoft's products are non-actionable opinion, commercial advocacy or puffing. Code Civ. Proc. Section 430.10(e). DEMURRER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 2. The second cause of action for trade libel fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Oracle because the alleged statements about Oracle's or PeopleSoft's products or business are non-actionable opinion, commercial advocacy or puffing; and because Oracle made no statement which disparages the quality of PeopleSoft's products. SF:21543371.1/2021039-0000302635 2 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Code Civ. Proc. Section 430.10(e). DEMURRER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 3. The third cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Oracle because the alleged statements about Oracle's or PeopleSoft's products are non-actionable opinion, commercial advocacy or puffing; and Oracle's actions are protected by the competition privilege, and Oracle did not engage in any wrongful conduct apart from the interference itself. Code Civ. Proc. Section 430.10(e). DEMURRER TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4. The fourth cause of action for violations of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Oracle because each of PeopleSoft's "borrowed" claims fails as a predicate act. Code Civ. Proc. Section 430.10(e). 5. The fourth cause of action for violations of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Oracle because Oracle's actions do not violate the policy or spirit of the antitrust laws or otherwise harm or threaten competition. 6. The fourth cause of action for violations of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Oracle because the claim is based on non-actionable statements of opinion, commercial advocacy, and puffery, which could not deceive any reasonable member of the public. WHEREFORE, Oracle prays that this demurrer be granted without leave to amend, that PeopleSoft take nothing by their Second Amended Complaint and that Oracle be awarded judgment for its costs and all other proper relief. SF:21543371.1/2021039-0000302635 3 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DATED: January 20, 2004 Respectfully submitted, BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Howard ______________________ Geoffrey M. Howard Attorneys for Defendants SF:215433371.1/2021039-0000302635 4 Case No. RG03101434 ________________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DAVID M. BALABANIAN (SBN 37368) STEPHEN D. HIBBARD (SBN 177865) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4067 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL WILLIAM M. KELLY (SBN 108011) ZACHARY S. MCGEE (SBN 224790) 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: 650.752.2000 Facsimile: 650.752.2111 DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) ORACLE CORPORATION 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood Shores, California 94070 Telephone: 650.506.5200 Facsimile: 650.506.7114 Attorneys for Defendants Oracle Corporation and Pepper Acquisition Corp. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PEOPLESOFT, INC., a Delaware corporation, | No. RG03101434 and J.D. EDWARDS & COMPANY, a Delaware | corporation, | MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF Plaintiffs, | DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO | PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED v. | COMPLAINT | ___________________________ ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware | Date: February 25, 2004 corporation, PEPPER ACQUISITION CORP., a | Time: 3:00 p.m. Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, | Dept: 22 | Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw Defendants. | | __________________________________________| SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 Case No. RG03101434 _______________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................ 1 II. THE TIME TO ANALYZE THE COMPLAINT IS NOW................................ 3 III. ARGUMENT................................................................ 4 A. None Of The Statements Attributed To Oracle Is Actionable On Any Theory............................................................... 4 B. There Is No Claim Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500......... 7 C. There Is No Claim For Trade Libel.................................... 7 D. There Is No Claim For Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage................................................... 8 E. There Is No Claim Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200......... 9 1. There Is No Claim Of "Unlawfulness" Under Section 17200........... 9 a. There Is No Claim Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section Section 17043 (Sales Below Cost) Or 17044 (Loss Leader)....... 9 b. There Is No Claim Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17045.. 10 c. There Is No Claim Under Cal. Civil Code Section 1770.......... 11 d. There Is No Claim Under Cal. Civil Code Section 1708.......... 12 e. There Is No Claim Under Cal. Civil Code Section 1709.......... 12 2. There Is No Claim Of "Unfairness" Under Section 17200............ 13 3. There Is No Claim Of "Fraudulent" Conduct Under Section 17200.... 15 IV. CONCLUSION............................................................. 15 SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 i Case No. RG03101434 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE ----- ---- AICCO, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 90 Cal. App. 4th 579 (2001)....................... 14 Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104 (1986)............................. 14 Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. v. The Limited, Inc., 587 F. Supp. 246 (C.D. Cal. 1984).................................................................................. 14 Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999)......................................................................... 14 Coastal Abstract Service, Inc. v. First American Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999)............................................................................. 5 Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal. 3d 197 (1983).............................................................................. 12,15 ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal. App. 4th 993 (2001)........................ 4, 6, 7, 8 Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 113 Cal. App. 4th 1351, 2003 WL 22872098 (2003)................................................................ 5, 6, 7 Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. Northern Cal. Collection Service, Inc., 911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990)..................................................................... 4 County of San Luis Obispo v. The Abalone Alliance, 178 Cal. App. 3d 848 (1986).............. 12 Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 376 (1995)...................... 8 Falstaff Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co., 628 F. Supp. 822 (N.D. Cal. 1986)................ 14 Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995).......................................... 15 Glen Holly Entm't, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc., 352 F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 2003).................... 15 Global Telemedia Int'l, Inc. v. Doe 1, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. 2001)................ 6 Gregory v. Albertson's, Inc., 104 Cal. App. 4th 845 (2002).................................. 14 Haskell v. Time, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 1392 (E.D. Cal. 1994)................................... 5 Independent Journal Newspapers v. United Western Newspapers, Inc., 15 Cal. App. 3d 583 (1971)..................................................................... 10 Kaplan v. Burroughs Corp., 611 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1979)................................. 14, 15
SF21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 ii Case No. RG03101434 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page ---- Khoury v. Maly's of Cal., Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612 (1993)............ 9,11,12 Lazar v. Hertz Corp., 143 Cal. App. 3d 128 (1983)........................... 12 Nicolosi Distrib. Co. v. Finishmaster, Inc., 2000 WL 41222 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2000)................................................ 11 People v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 654 (1998).. 9 Pinnacle Sys., Inc. v. XOS Techs., Inc., 2003 WL 21397845 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2003)............................................................ 6 Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1987)....... 14 Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167 (2003)........................... 13 STATUTES Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17030........................................ 9 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17043........................................ 9 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17044........................................ 9 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200..................................... 9, 13 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17405........................................ 10 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500........................................ 7 Cal. Civil Code Section 1708................................................ 12 Cal. Civil Code Section 1709................................................ 12 Cal. Civil Code Section 1761(d)............................................. 12 Cal. Civil Code Section 1770................................................ 11 SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 iii Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION In its Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") PeopleSoft moves even farther away from any justiciable claim. It also moves unmistakably into an area where it bound itself not to go - and this Court cannot follow - attacking the terms of Oracle's tender offer. Gone are all claims for interference with contract - claims which, if properly alleged, would have defeated Oracle's competition privilege. In response to the Court's sustaining of Oracle's demurrer to these claims, PeopleSoft abandons them. What remain are attacks on Oracle's business practices, grouped into four of what PeopleSoft calls Oracle's "tactics." "TACTIC 1":"LOWBALL" TENDER OFFER Thirteen times the SAC describes the tender offer as "lowball" - a term it does not define. The initial offer, PeopleSoft calls "artificially low." SAC Paragraph 5. Oracle's subsequent twenty-two percent increase, PeopleSoft calls a "token." SAC Paragraph 6.(1) But even if this Court believed the offer to be "lowball," it could not enjoin it or require its rejection, as PeopleSoft requests. No court could. Whether or not the offer is "lowball" is a decision only PeopleSoft's shareholders can make. Neither this nor any other court can determine that the price Oracle is offering is inadequate or deny PeopleSoft's shareholders the right to consider it. PeopleSoft's Prayer for Relief confirms that the goal of this action is to block the tender offer. See SAC, Prayer for Relief. But nothing in the SAC would give this Court the power to do so. Accordingly, in its companion Motion to Strike, Oracle asks this Court to strike - ---------------------- (1) The offer is "lowball," PeopleSoft claims, because, when it was initially made, the price of PeopleSoft stock rose above it and remains above it, even as increased. SAC Paragraphs 6, 51. This is hardly an unusual response to tender offers, as investors speculate on the possibility of further increases. That the offer was not "lowball" is confirmed by allegations that it is now 30% above the price at which PeopleSoft's stock was trading when first made. Id. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 1 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT all requests for such relief. This is necessary to stop PeopleSoft from misleading its shareholders and the investing public about the possible effect of this litigation on the offer. "TACTIC 2": "DELAYING" ANTITRUST CLEARANCE PeopleSoft claims Oracle has not sought or obtained clearance of its tender offer from the Department of Justice "as quickly as possible" and has "drag[ged] out" the process "to insulate itself from challenges by governments in California and other states." SAC (paragraphs) 2, 10. These allegations, even if true, give PeopleSoft no claim. Oracle has no obligation to PeopleSoft to process its tender offer on any particular timetable, nor would a delay in submitting the offer to PeopleSoft's shareholders justify withholding it from them forever--as PeopleSoft seeks. Not only does "Tactic 2" state no claim, it is directly contrary to PeopleSoft's assertions that the tender offer confronts serious antitrust obstacles which must inevitably slow it down. Indeed, the SAC alleges that "on June 30, 2003, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice issued its 'second request'--indicating that the proposed transaction will receive heightened antitrust scrutiny and could potentially be blocked...." SAC (paragraph) 43. The SAC also details challenges to the tender offer from the Attorneys General of Connecticut and 30 other states, as well as Canada and the EU, which, it alleges, are likely to delay its consummation for many more months. SAC (paragraphs) 43-44. "TACTIC 3": "SOWING FEAR, UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT" By the use of "Tactic 3," "PeopleSoft claims, Oracle has sown "fear, uncertainty and doubt" among PeopleSoft customers as to its future intentions for PeopleSoft products in connection with the tender offer. In support of this claim, the SAC offers sharply conflicting allegations. Sometimes it claims Oracle's "stated intent was to kill PeopleSoft products." E.g., SAC (paragraph) 19; see also SAC (paragraph) 16. Elsewhere it alleges that Oracle has actually promised to continue to support PeopleSoft's products, but must be lying. E.g., SAC (paragraph) 21. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 2 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT None of this provides a basis for denying PeopleSoft shareholders an opportunity to accept the tender offer. Nor, as explained more fully below, does it supply the elements of any of the business torts PeopleSoft purports to state. "TACTIC 4": MISLEADING CUSTOMERS ABOUT THE COST OF CONVERSION "Tactic 4" consists of statements Oracle has allegedly made to actual or potential customers of PeopleSoft to assure them that they will not lose their investment if they acquire or continue to use PeopleSoft products. Specifically, PeopleSoft alleges that Oracle has told actual or prospective PeopleSoft customers that "there's no risk to your PeopleSoft IT investment," and that Oracle's CEO "has personally promised a 'graceful' migration to Oracle's applications." SAC Paragraphs 22, 54m. This is the most curious "Tactic" of all. The only reason Oracle could possibly have to understate the difficulty of converting PeopleSoft products to Oracle's platform would be to discourage PeopleSoft's customers from moving to another vendor - to preserve the value of a business for which Oracle proposes to pay over $7 billion. (2) The obvious purpose and necessary effect of the statements PeopleSoft attacks must be to assuage the "fear" allegedly caused by "Tactic 3" by assuring actual or prospective PeopleSoft customers that they can safely purchase PeopleSoft products without facing prohibitive conversion costs - should the tender offer succeed and should Oracle, contrary to its (allegedly false) promises, cease supporting PeopleSoft products. II. THE TIME TO ANALYZE THE COMPLAINT IS NOW In opposing Oracle's demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, PeopleSoft asserted that "it is not necessary for the Court to wade through all of Oracle's misstatements at - ------------------------------------- 2 Oracle has a legitimate interest in preventing PeopleSoft customers from defecting. The SAC itself discloses that neither Oracle nor PeopleSoft is the industry leader. SAC Paragraphs 35,69. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 Case No. RG03101434 3 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT this stage...." Memorandum In Opposition to Demurrer to First Amended Complaint at 7:4-6, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"). But that is exactly what the Court must do if its processes are not to be misused. This action is not brought for any relief the Court could grant. Rather, PeopleSoft is using its mere pendency as a weapon in the tender offer battle, sowing "fear, uncertainty and doubt" among its shareholders and potential investors about the possible effects of this action on the tender offer and using it as a vehicle for intrusive and burdensome discovery into Oracle's business plans. Oracle respectfully urges that the time to analyze the complaint is now, not at some later date after PeopleSoft has achieved the improper purposes for which it was filed. III. ARGUMENT A. NONE OF THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO ORACLE IS ACTIONABLE ON ANY THEORY. At the hearing on Oracle's demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, this Court stated: "Oracle may communicate with people that are in contract with PeopleSoft and say, "Hey, we can do it better, faster, more efficiently,' whatever." RJN, Ex. 2, Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings of November 4, 2003, at 13:2-4. PeopleSoft's counsel responded: "[W]here you say you are better in a measurable way, you've got to be able to say (sic) it." Id. at 28:28-29:1. None of the statements the SAC attributes to Oracle meets the test of "measurability." All fall squarely within the category of opinion or commercial advocacy which California courts routinely and consistently hold to be non-actionable on any legal theory. At the hearing on the First Amended Complaint, the Court asked whether this issue can be addressed at the pleading stage. Id. at 15:27-28. The answer is that it can and should be. See ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal. App. 4th 993, 1011 (2001) ("In most cases, whether a statement is fact or opinion is a question of law."); see also Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. Northern Cal. Collection Service, Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1990) (when considering a motion to dismiss, courts "may determine as a matter of law" whether an alleged SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 4 Case No. RG03101434 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT misrepresentation is a "statement of fact" or "mere puffery"); Haskell v. Time, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 1392, 1399 (E.D. Cal. 1994)(whether the alleged misrepresentations are mere puffery - that is, "vague, highly subjective claims as opposed to specific, detailed factual assertions" - may be determined on a motion to dismiss). Courts do not adjudicate general claims of product superiority or the relative strength or prospects of competing vendors. That is the function of the marketplace. The courts concern themselves with statements of fact which are injurious to the plaintiff and which are demonstrably false in, as PeopleSoft's counsel himself put it, a "measurable" way. Several recent cases illustrate the distinction between non-actionable statements about product quality or business conduct and actionable misrepresentations of measurable fact. In Coastal Abstract Service, Inc. v. First American Title Insurance Co., 173 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999), the court held that a statement that plaintiff was "too small" to meet the requirements of prospective customers was not actionable under California law on any ground. It was, the court stated, "exactly the kind of 'puffery' that does not qualify as a statement of fact capable of being proved false." Id. Even the defendant's claim that plaintiff was "not licensed in California" was held to be non-actionable, the court noting that "statements by laypersons that purport to interpret the meaning of a statute or regulation are opinion statements, and not statements of fact." Id. at 731-32. It contrasted these statements with a statement that plaintiff "was not paying its bills," a statement of fact which could be proven true or false. Id. at 732. Similarly, the California Court of Appeal recently found no basis for a claim under any of the laws regulating unfair competition, consumer protection or false advertising in statements by the defendant satellite television company that it was providing a "crystal clear digital" video or "CD quality" audio. Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 113 Cal. App. 4th 1351, 2003 WL 22872098, at *6-7 (2003). Such statements, the court explained, were "boasts" and "all-but-meaningless superlatives." Id. at *6. It contrasted them with another statement made by defendants which was potentially actionable, that defendant offered "50 SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 5 Case No. RG03101434 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT channels" and a "seven day schedule." Id. at *7; see also Pinnacle Sys., Inc. v. XOS Techs., Inc., 2003 WL 21397845, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2003) (statements that plaintiff's products were "inferior" or "'lack[ed] certain characteristics' that [defendant's] products provide constitute[] the same type of generalized boasting of superiority typical of puffing"). Indeed, unless a plaintiff meets the standards applicable to a claim of defamation - which PeopleSoft has not attempted to do - even statements which impugn its integrity or attack its business practices are non-actionable statements of opinion. Thus, statements that a company's "products ... were 'slow or non-existent'; [that] the company was steering a 'sinking ship'; [that] investors were 'being manipulated by the company so that they can fly the coop again'; [that] shareholders had been 'screwed out of your hard earned money' ... and [that] the principals of the company were guilty of 'blatant mismanagement'" have all been found to be nonactionable on any theory. ComputerXpress, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 1012 (citing Global Telemedia Int'l, Inc. v. Doe 1, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1268-69 (C.D. Cal. 2001)). Similarly nonactionable are statements that plaintiff's products were "of inferior quality, that Plaintiff was merely a stock 'scam' certain to be out of business within thirty days [and] that the officers and directors of Plaintiff were illegally conspiring with marketmakers for the company's stock to manipulate its value ..." Id. The statements which PeopleSoft attributes to Oracle do not even rise to the level of those involved in these cases. PeopleSoft's principal allegation is that Oracle has falsely assured present and prospective PeopleSoft customers that migration to Oracle's platform will be "graceful" or "easy" or that "there's no risk to your PeopleSoft IT investment." SAC Paragraphs 22, 37, 48, 54, 78. Quite apart from the fact that the obvious purpose and effect of these statements is to help PeopleSoft acquire and retain customers, they are not actionable under the standards set forth in the cases analyzed above. They are, at most, statements of opinion, incapable of precise measurement or objective proof. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 6 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT So, too, are the statements attributed to Oracle that, as compared to PeopleSoft, its business is "thriving" or that PeopleSoft's long term business prospects are poor and that its stock could decline, or which criticize PeopleSoft's management for the defensive tactics it has employed in resisting the offer. SAC Paragraphs 40, 54o, 55(d), 56, 72, 75, 78. Even the statements attributed to Oracle executives in which they allegedly underestimate the antitrust challenges the tender offer confronts (SAC Paragraph 54(p)) are non-actionable. They are obviously expressions of opinion and, as noted above, statements on legal matters by lay persons are, as a matter of law, non-actionable. See supra at p. 6. In the entire 53-page Second Amended Complaint there is not a single allegation attributing to Oracle an injurious falsehood based on the misrepresentation of a "measurable" fact. That disposes of all of PeopleSoft's claims. B. THERE IS NO CLAIM UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 17500. Section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code prohibits false advertising in connection with the disposition of real or personal property or services. The SAC states no claim under this section. As explained above, the statements the SAC attributes to Oracle are at most statements of opinion or non-actionable commercial advocacy or "puffing." Accordingly, no claim of false advertising can be premised on them. Consumer Advocates, WL 22872098, at *6. C. THERE IS NO CLAIM FOR TRADE LIBEL. "Trade libel is the publication of matter disparaging the quality of another's property, which the publisher should recognize is likely to cause pecuniary loss to the owner." ComputerXpress, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 1010. "To constitute trade libel, a statement must be false. Since mere opinions cannot by definition be false statements of fact, opinions will not support a cause of action for trade libel." Id. at 1010-11 (citations omitted). As explained more fully above, the statements the SAC attributes to Oracle are all in the realm of opinion, commercial advocacy or "puffery" and are, as a matter of law, non-actionable on any theory, including trade libel. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 7 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT In addition, PeopleSoft's trade libel claim fails for the reason that it does not allege that Oracle made any statement which "disparages the quality" of its products - an essential element of such a claim. While there are allegations that Oracle claims its business is "thriving" compared to PeopleSoft's (e.g., SAC Paragraph 54o), or that PeopleSoft's future prospects are poor (e.g., SAC Paragraphs 40, 75), there is no allegation that Oracle has "disparaged the quality" of PeopleSoft products - much less that it has done so in a "measurable" way. There is no trade libel claim. D. THERE IS NO CLAIM FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE. "Like the tort of trade libel, interference with prospective economic advantage requires false statements of fact." ComputerXpress, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 1014. "Further, a plaintiff cannot state a cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage based on 'loose, figurative or hyperbolic language'...." Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, PeopleSoft's tortious interference claim fails for the same reason as does its claim for trade libel. See supra Section III.A, C. Moreover, unlike a claim for interference with contract - which PeopleSoft has dropped from the SAC - a claim for interference with prospective economic advantage is subject to the competition privilege. That privilege can be overridden only upon a showing that the defendant engaged in conduct that was wrongful, and "wrongful 'by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself.'" Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 376, 392-93 (1995)(citation omitted). The allegedly "wrongful" acts on which PeopleSoft relies for this purpose are, however, the same ones on which it relies to supply the "unlawfulness" element of its claim under Business and Professions Code Section 17200 claim. These are addressed in the succeeding section of this Memorandum. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 8 Case No. RG03101434 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT E. THERE IS NO CLAIM UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 17200. 1. THERE IS NO CLAIM OF "UNLAWFULNESS" UNDER SECTION 17200. A claim that a defendant has violated Section 17200 by "unlawful" activity is only as good as the underlying claims of "unlawfulness" on which it rests. Where the underlying claims fail, the section 17200 claim must also fail. Khoury v. Maly's of Cal., Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619 (1993). Moreover, any defense to the "borrowed" claim is a defense to the section 17200 claim. People v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 654, 673 (1998). Each of PeopleSoft's "borrowed" claims fails as a predicate act to its section 17200 claim. a. THERE IS NO CLAIM UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTIONS 17043 (SALES BELOW COST) OR 17044 (LOSS LEADER). PeopleSoft claims Oracle has made sales below cost in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17043. SAC Paragraph 100(a). PeopleSoft also claims that these below cost sales constituted a "loss leader" in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17044. SAC Paragraph 100(b). To state a "loss leader" claim, the plaintiff must also allege a sale "below cost." See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17030 (a loss leader under Section 17044 must be "sold at less than cost"). The sole basis of these claims appears in Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the SAC. There PeopleSoft alleges that "Oracle's senior management approved a plan .. . . with an offer for a free license to Oracle software applications on a 'module for module' swap basis." This offer, the SAC further alleges, was "initially . . . targeted" at customers who were using a PeopleSoft product which PeopleSoft was about to stop supporting and represented an "'early extension' of the offer that Oracle . . . intended to make if its 'Tender Offer' was successful." SAC Paragraph 49-50. There are several things wrong with this claim. First, the SAC does not allege that the "offer" was actually made to any customer, much the less accepted by any. Second, although it alleges that the offer was "initially targeted" at PeopleSoft customers whose products PeopleSoft was itself discontinuing, it does not allege that this ever changed. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 9 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Most importantly, however, the SAC does not allege that the alleged offers, which may or may not ever have been extended to anyone, were in fact "below cost." The sole basis on which these claims rest is the allegation that the offers involved a "free license to Oracle software applications." SAC Paragraph 49. But, as the SAC itself makes clear, one cannot use a bare license. Indeed, it alleges: "The license charge is only one relatively small part of the total cost of ownership of software that businesses use to run their enterprises." SAC Paragraph 54(a). "PeopleSoft's customers will have to incur consulting, integration, and conversion costs, over and above any waived license fee ...." Indeed, the SAC alleges that: "A substantial portion of PeopleSoft's current customers ... would have to purchase and switch to an entirely new database, potentially costing them millions of dollars ...." Id. Such allegations are, as a matter of law, insufficient to state a claim for "below cost" sales. The allegedly "free" license is being sold "below cost" in the same sense that a "two for one" offer involves the sale of a "free" product. This is not sufficient. See Independent Journal Newspapers v. United Western Newspapers, Inc., 15 Cal. App. 3d 583, 586, 587 (1971) (plaintiff did not sufficiently allege sale below cost in claiming that defendant publisher offered to purchasers of classified advertising in its daily paper the same advertising in its weekly throwaway paper "at no additional cost"). b. THERE IS NO CLAIM UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE SECTION 17045. The allegedly "free" software licenses form the sole basis for PeopleSoft's claim that Oracle violated the provisions of Business and Professions Code Section 17405 relating to "unearned discounts ... not offered to all purchasers ...." SAC Paragraph 100(c). In addition to the above described infirmities of those allegations, this claim suffers from the further failure to allege that alleged discount was "secret." That is an essential element of any claim based on Section 17405 and there is simply no such allegation in the SAC. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 10 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Nor is a single fact alleged to support the wholly conclusory allegation that the alleged discount was "unearned." As the court stated in Nicolosi Distrib. Co. v. Finishmaster, Inc., 2000 WL 41222, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2000), "claims brought under California's unfair competition statute must satisfy a heightened pleading standard." This means that the plaintiff must "state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation." Id. (quoting Khoury, 14 Cal. App. 4th at 619). In Nicolosi the court found inadequate to state a claim under Section 17045 allegations that the defendant had offered "secret rebate[s], refunds or unearned commissions [which] were not extended to all purchasers purchasing upon like terms and conditions ... [and] were all unearned by those companies who were offered them ... in that they were offered to the various companies before Defendant contracted with them ... [and] were in the form of a 'cash bonus' ensuring possible business with Defendant ... and the business in question had done nothing to earn said rebate, bonus or commission." Id. at *3 (emphasis in original). The allegations of the SAC fall short even of these allegations which were held to be insufficient. PeopleSoft does not allege that the discounts were "secret" and offers no fact of any kind to support its wholly conclusory allegation that they were "unearned." The SAC also fails to allege that the alleged practices are injurious to "competition" - an explicit requirement of the statute. As explained more fully below, injury to a competitor, even if properly alleged, is not injury to competition. See infra Section III.E.2. C. THERE IS NO CLAIM UNDER CAL. CIVIL CODE SECTION 1770. PeopleSoft attempts to state a claim under Civil Code Section 1770, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, based on Oracle's alleged disparagement of its "goods, services and business" by "false and misleading representations of fact." SAC Paragraph 100(d). As shown at length above, the SAC attributes no such representation of fact to Oracle. See supra Section III.A. In addition, PeopleSoft's attempt to state a claim under Civil Code Section 1770 fails because that statute only applies to representations made in transactions to "consumers." A SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 11 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT "consumer" is statutorily defined as "an individual who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods or services for personal, family, or household purposes." Civ. Code Section 1761(d). Nowhere does the SAC allege that Oracle made any disparaging comments to a "consumer" purchasing goods for "personal, family or household purposes." All of PeopleSoft's allegations, see SAC Paragraphs 86-90, concern comments allegedly made to PeopleSoft's business customers. See Lazar v. Hertz Corp., 143 Cal. App. 3d 128, 141-42 (1983) (plaintiff, who had rented a car for business purposes, was not a "consumer" under section 1770). d. THERE IS NO CLAIM UNDER CAL. CIVIL CODE SECTION 1708. Section 1708 states a general duty to avoid injuring others. Cal. Civil Code Section 1708. A legal duty is thus a prerequisite to a section 1708 claim. County of San Luis Obispo v. The Abalone Alliance, 178 Cal. App. 3d 848, 865 (1986) (a tort involves a "'violation of a legal duty, imposed by statute, contract or otherwise, owed by the defendant to the person injured'") (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). There is no "universal duty" associated with section 1708. Id. (rejecting appellants' argument that "defendants, by their acts of civil disobedience, breached a universal duty to society at large and thus are liable in 'tort'"). The SAC is bare of any allegation that Oracle owes a duty of care to anyone, and this Court has already held, in sustaining, without leave to amend, Oracle's demurrer to PeopleSoft's claim of negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, that Oracle owes no duty of care to PeopleSoft. See RJN, Ex. 3, Order Sustaining Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint at 2. e. THERE IS NO CLAIM UNDER CAL. CIVIL CODE SECTION 1709. Section 1709 prohibits fraudulent deceit. Under California law, plaintiffs must plead each element of fraud with specificity.(3) Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. - ----------------------- 3 Because PeopleSoft is alleging a Civil Code section 1709 violation as a predicate act in support of the "unlawfulness" prong of its section 17200 claim, it must allege each element of a traditional fraud claim with specificity. Khoury, 14 Cal. App. 4th at 619. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 12 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT General Foods Corp., 35 Cal. 3d 197, 216 (1983) (every element of fraud "'must be alleged in the proper manner (i.e., factually and specifically), and the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings...will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect'") (citation omitted). The elements of fraud are: (1) misrepresentation (consisting of false representation, concealment or nondisclosure), (2) knowledge of falsity (scienter), (3) intent to deceive and induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage. Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167, 173 (2003) (citation omitted). Quite apart from the fact that the SAC does not attribute to Oracle any false representation of fact, see supra Section III.A, it also contains no allegation that anyone reasonably relied on any such representation or that such reliance has caused damage to anyone. Indeed, PeopleSoft's claim that Oracle has made inconsistent statements about its intentions and support for PeopleSoft products--thereby creating "fear, uncertainty and doubt" on the part of PeopleSoft customers (e.g., SAC (Paragraph) 12, 38, 58, 66, 67, 68)--would defeat any possibility of reasonable reliance. If customers are "uncertain" or "doubtful" about Oracle's stated intentions, they obviously cannot reasonably rely on them. 2. THERE IS NO CLAIM OF "UNFAIRNESS" UNDER SECTION 17200. In SAC (Paragraphs) 101-108, PeopleSoft alleges that Oracle's practices are unfair under the second prong of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. In an action between competitors, however, such a claim requires additional elements. The plaintiff must allege facts which establish that the defendant's conduct threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the 13 SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition." Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 187 (1999).(4) But "[i]njury to a competitor is not equivalent to injury to competition; only the latter is the proper focus of antitrust laws." Id. at 186. Accordingly, there must be some allegation as to how Oracle's alleged conduct threatens competition. Gregory v. Albertson's, Inc., 104 Cal. App. 4th 845, 856 (2002) (sustaining demurrer, explaining that "it must be alleged that respondent's conduct had an adverse effect on competition"). Only in rare circumstances, not present here, will damage to competition be inferred from damage to a competitor. See Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 734 (9th Cir. 1987)("While appellant clearly pleads injury to itself, its conclusion that competition has been harmed thereby does not follow."). Indeed even the "elimination of a single competitor, standing alone, does not prove anticompetitive effect." Kaplan v. Burroughs Corp., 611 F.2d 286, 291 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Falstaff Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co., 628 F. Supp. 822, 827 (N.D. Cal. 1986) (allegations that defendant interfered with plaintiff's acquisition of another company and caused "economic concern among plaintiff's distributors" did not constitute injury to competition). PeopleSoft does not allege that the tender offer, if allowed to proceed, would result in the creation of economic power in violation of the antitrust laws. Moreover, it could not do so. The target of a tender offer lacks standing to assert any such claim. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. v. The Limited, Inc., 587 F. Supp. 246, 250 (C.D. Cal. 1984); see also Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 116 (1986). - ----------------------- (4) PeopleSoft cannot avoid the obligation to plead damage to competition by relying on alleged harm to its customers. See AICCO, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 90 Cal. App. 4th 579, 597-598 (2001) (Cel-Tech inapplicable to complaint against competitor because plaintiff did not also complain of injury to itself). SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000502635 14 Case No. RG03101434 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Accordingly, if "antitrust injury" is to be found anywhere, it must be in PeopleSoft's allegations that Oracle's sales tactics are hurting PeopleSoft's business. But even if PeopleSoft had alleged that those "tactics" will put it out of business, which it has not done, that would not be enough to establish injury to competition, absent allegations that no competition would remain. Kaplan, 611 F.2d at 291; see also Glen Holly Entm't, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc., 352 F.3d 367, 371, 374 (9th Cir. 2003)(to have standing under the Clayton Act, "a plaintiff must adequately allege and eventually prove 'antitrust injury,'" holding that plaintiff's injuries were of the "type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent" only because the market was "detrimentally changed" and all competition was eliminated)(emphasis in original)). PeopleSoft does not allege that Oracle threatens it with extinction. Indeed, all it claims is that Oracle has interfered with its customer relations - -- and even that in only a few cases. SAC Paragraphs 58-68. That is injury to a competitor, not injury to competition. 3. THERE IS NO CLAIM OF "FRAUDULENT" CONDUCT UNDER SECTION 17200. A plaintiff claiming "fraudulent" business practices under Section 17200 must allege that "members of the public are likely to be deceived." Committee on Children's Television, 35 Cal. 3d at 211. Likelihood of deception is measured by a "reasonable consumer" standard. Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir. 1995). As demonstrated above, the SAC alleges only statements of opinion, commercial advocacy, and puffery -- not measurable facts that might deceive a reasonable consumer. IV. CONCLUSION PeopleSoft should not allowed to rely on the sheer length and complexity of a 53-page complaint to conceal the fact that it states no claim. Nor should it be able to rely on a complaint which states no claim as a weapon in its tender offer battle with Oracle. The SAC should be dismissed now. SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 15 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DATED January 20, 2004 Respectfully submitted, BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Howard --------------------------------------- Geoffrey M. Howard Attorneys for Defendants Oracle Corporation and Pepper Acquisition Corp. 16 SF:21542352.6/2021039-0000302635 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
EX-99.(A)(70) 10 f92476b8exv99wxayx70y.txt EXHIBIT (A)(70) Exhibit (a)(70) BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DAVID M. BALABANIAN (SBN 37368) STEPHEN D. HIBBARD (SBN 177865) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4067 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL WILLIAM M. KELLY (SBN 108011) ZACHARY S. MCGEE (SBN 224790) 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650.752.2000 Facsimile: 650.752.2111 DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) ORACLE CORPORATION 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood Shores, CA 94070 Telephone: 650.506.5200 Facsimile: 650.506.7114 Attorneys for Defendants Oracle Corporation and Pepper Acquisition Corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PEOPLESOFT, INC., a Delaware corporation, | No. RG03101434 and J.D. EDWARDS & COMPANY, a Delaware | corporation, | DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION | TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO Plaintiffs, | STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' | SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT | ------------------------------ v. | | Date: February 25, 2004 ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware | Time: 3:00 p.m. corporation, PEPPER ACQUISITION CORP., a | Dept: 22 Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, | Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw | Defendants. | | - ------------------------------------------| SF:21543392.2/2021039-0000302635 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE -------------------------- TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on February 25, 2004, at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department 22 of the above entitled Court, located at 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, California, defendants Oracle Corporation and Pepper Acquisition Corporation (together, "Oracle") will and hereby do move to strike portions of PeopleSoft, Inc.'s and J.D. Edwards & Company's (hereafter, "PeopleSoft") Second Amended Complaint. This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion to Strike and Motion to Strike, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice, the accompanying Appendix of Non-California Authorities, all pleadings on file in this action, such matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any argument made or evidence introduced at the hearing on this motion to strike. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. Paragraph 1 of the Prayer for Relief, requesting that this Court enjoin Oracle from proceeding with its tender offer or making any communications about it to anyone, should be stricken from the Second Amended Complaint. 2. Paragraph 2 of the Prayer for Relief, requesting equitable relief to address PeopleSoft's alleged harm, should be stricken from the Second Amended Complaint. 3. Paragraph 3 of the Prayer for Relief, requesting that this Court issue an injunction requiring Oracle to "correct" its prior statements about its intentions and the actions of PeopleSoft and its directors, should be stricken from the Second Amended Complaint. 4. This material should be stricken because it is irrelevant matter and requests relief that not supported by the allegations of the complaint. Code Civ. Proc. Sections 431.10(b)(3), 436(a). 5. This material should be stricken because the relief requested would SF:21543392.2/2021039-0000302835 2 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint. WHEREFORE, Oracle prays that this motion to strike be granted. DATED: January 20, 2004 Respectfully submitted, BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Howard --------------------------- Geoffrey M. Howard Attorneys for Defendants SF:21543392.2/2021039-0000302635 3 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DAVID M. BALABANIAN (SBN 37368) STEPHEN D. HIBBARD (SBN 177865) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4067 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL WILLIAM M. KELLY (SBN 108011) ZACHARY S. MCGEE (SBN 224790) 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: 650.752.2000 Facsimile: 650.752.2111 DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) ORACLE CORPORATION 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood Shores, California 94070 Telephone: 650.506.5200 Facsimile: 650.506.7114 Attorneys for Defendants Oracle Corporation and Pepper Acquisition Corp. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PEOPLESOFT, INC., a Delaware corporation, | No. RG03101434 and J.D. EDWARDS & COMPANY, a Delaware | corporation, | MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND | AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF Plaintiffs, | DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE | PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' SECOND v. | AMENDED COMPLAINT | ------------------------------ ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware | corporation, PEPPER ACQUISITION CORP., a | Date: February 25, 2004 Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, | Time: 3:00 p.m. | Dept: 22 Defendants. | Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ---- I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................... 1 II. ARGUMENT............................................................................. 4 A. A Prayer For Relief Unsupported By Any Allegation In The Complaint Can Be Stricken.................................................................. 4 B. PeopleSoft Seeks An Unconstitutional Prior Restraint............................. 5 III. CONCLUSION........................................................................... 7
SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 i Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page ---- Cases ----- Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993)............................. 6 Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963).......................... 6 Burch v. Barker, 861 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1988).............................. 6 Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104 (1986)............. 2 Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. v. The Limited, Inc. 587 F. Supp. 246 (C.D. Cal. 1984).......................................................... 2 Gilbert v. National Enquirer, 43 Cal. App. 4th 1136 (1996).................. 5 Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939 (2002)................................. 7 Licata & Co. Inc. v. Goldberg, 812 F. Supp. 403 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)............. 7 Metropolitan Opera Ass'n, Inc. v. Local 100, 239 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2001).... 5 Missouri Portland Cement Co. v. Cargill, Inc., 498 F.2d 851 (2d Cir. 1974).. 2 Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976)......................... 6 New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).................... 6 Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 123 S. Ct. 2554........................................ 7 Paradise Hills Associates v. Procel, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1528 (1991)........... 7 San Diego Unified Port. Dist. v. United States Citizen Patrol, 63 Cal. App. 4th 964 (1998)....................................................... 6 Smith, III v. Superior Court, 10 Cal App. 4th 1033 (1992)................... 4 Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976)....................................................... 7 Wilson v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 3d 652 (1975)............................. 6
SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 ii Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
STATUTES PAGE -------- ---- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 431.10............................... 4 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 436.................................. 4
SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 iii Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIZED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION There is no legal warrant for what PeopleSoft asks this Court to do and no court has ever done it. PeopleSoft asks this Court to enjoin Oracle's tender offer not because of any misstatement or omission in it, nor even because the resulting combination would violate the antitrust laws. Rather, it seeks to enjoin the tender offer because its pendency is causing uncertainty and apprehension on the part of PeopleSoft employees and customers which, PeopleSoft alleges, Oracle is improperly exploiting. In its companion demurrer Oracle demonstrates that the SAC does not allege the elements of any of its claims. But even if it did, that would not justify enjoining the tender offer or Oracle's communications about it. The proper remedy for such wrongs would be an award of damages for any provable injury thereby sustained. In an appropriate case, there might even be injunctive relief against the improper anti-competitive acts. Under no circumstances, however, could this Court, even if persuaded that Oracle was using the uncertainties created by tender offer to obtain an improper competitive advantage, respond by blocking the tender offer. Doing so would be wholly unprecedented and directly conflict with the regulatory scheme established by Congress for tender offers. Unsolicited tender offers are, by definition, hostile acts. They become necessary when an entrenched management, determined to preserve its emoluments at all costs, refuses to allow its shareholders to consider whether to sell or merge the company. Under such circumstances, a prospective acquirer has no choice but to put the question directly to the shareholders by means of a tender offer. Inevitably, such offers create anxiety and uncertainty on the part of the target company's employees and customers as they await the outcome of the offer. But no court has SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 1 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ever held that such anxiety justifies blocking the offer. If it did, every tender offer would be vulnerable to such attack.(1) Our economic system presumes that productive resources should be freely transferable and that neither management, employees nor customers should be able to block their acquisition by someone willing to pay for them. Congress balanced the interests involved in tender offers by enacting the Williams Act. That Act mandates full and accurate disclosures to the shareholders of the target company and then leaves it to them to decide whether they wish to sell their interests or remain instead as shareholders of an independent company. It is they who own the company and the decision whether or not to sell belongs to them -- not to the management, employees or customers. Of course, the target company can complain if the offer is misrepresented. But PeopleSoft makes no such claim. Not only does it make no such claim, it told the federal court to keep its allegations from being examined there that it would not challenge the accuracy of any statement made by Oracle in the offer. See PeopleSoft's Ex Parte Motion to Remand, at 6:25-7:1, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"). Nor does PeopleSoft allege that the combination of Oracle and PeopleSoft, if it occurs, would violate the antitrust laws.(2) Indeed, its only reference to the antitrust laws is its claim that "Oracle's tactics threaten an incipient violation of the antitrust laws...." See, e.g., SAC Paragraph 102(a) (emphasis supplied). - ------------ (1) In Missouri Portland Cement Co. v. Cargill, Inc., 498 F.2d 851, 869 n.36 (2d Cir. 1974), the court stated: "We think district judges should take arguments of serious harm to a corporation due to jitters in executive suites with a fair amount of salt...." (2) Whether the combination would violate the antitrust laws is under review by the relevant antitrust agencies. SAC Paragraphs 43, 44. PeopleSoft would, in any event, lack standing to challenge the tender offer on that ground. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. v. The Limited, Inc., 587 F.Supp. 246, 250 (C.D. Cal. 1984); Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 122 (1986). SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 2 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Again, this claim, even if well founded, would only justify relief against the allegedly anticompetitive "tactics." It would not supply a basis to prevent Oracle from communicating regarding the tender offer or deny PeopleSoft's shareholders the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to accept it. In Gearhart Industries Inc. v. Smith International, Inc., 741 F.2d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 1984), the court reviewed the history of the Williams Act, noting that, in enacting it, "Congress disclaimed any 'intention to provide a weapon for management to discourage takeover bids.'" (citation omitted). The court made it clear that a tender offer can be only be enjoined if it is based on false statements, and then only for the purpose of correcting them. Id. at 715-716. It even held that no injunctive relief could be based on the fact that the defendant had entered into a standstill agreement which it violated by proceeding with the offer. In the present case PeopleSoft does not allege that Oracle is contractually bound not to proceed with the tender offer. The only connection PeopleSoft posits between the offer and any purportedly improper action by Oracle is that Oracle is allegedly taking advantage of the uncertainty that the tender offer is causing on the part of PeopleSoft customers to obtain a competitive advantage. See, e.g., SAC Paragraphs 57-64. No court has ever enjoined a tender offer on that basis and accepting PeopleSoft's premise would expose to challenge in state courts virtually every tender offer made by one company for a competitor. Accordingly, Oracle asks this Court strike from the SAC all requests for relief that seek to enjoin the tender offer or to block Oracle from communicating about it. This relief is necessary and appropriate because PeopleSoft is improperly using the pendency of this action to suggest to the market place that the tender offer might be blocked by this Court. There is no such possibility and it is misleading to suggest that there is. SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 3 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT II. ARGUMENT A. A PRAYER FOR RELIEF UNSUPPORTED BY ANY ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT CAN BE STRICKEN. "A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint" is an "immaterial allegation" that may be stricken from a pleading. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 431.10(b)(3); see also Smith, III v. Superior Court, 10 Cal App. 4th 1033, 1042 (1992).(3) Although the SAC includes a prayer for unspecified "lost profits and other incidental and consequential damages," nearly all the relief sought is injunctive and nearly all of that relates to the tender offer and Oracle's communications about it. See SAC, Prayer for Relief. In considering Oracle's challenge to the First Amended Complaint, this Court proposed to address it "through the prism of 'would the First Amended Complaint state a claim if Oracle had engaged in the conduct alleged in the absence of a tender offer for PeopleSoft.'" RJN, Ex. 2, Court Order Sustaining Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, at 1. In its pending demurrer Oracle views the SAC through that same prism and demonstrates that it does not state a cause of action. But even if it did, there would still be no basis for enjoining the tender offer and preventing Oracle from making statements about it to PeopleSoft's shareholders or customers. Oracle has obvious, legitimate and legally protected interests in communicating about the tender offer to PeopleSoft's shareholders. It also has an obvious, legitimate and legally protected interest to reassure PeopleSoft customers that their software needs will continue to be met if the - ------------------------- (3) For purposes of a motion to strike pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 436, "'immaterial allegation' means 'irrelevant matter.'" Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 431.10(c). SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 4 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT tender offer succeeds: to discourage them from defecting to industry leader SAP and thereby reducing the value of the business for which Oracle is offering to pay over $7 billion. As explained above, supra at Section I, the SAC provides no legal basis of any kind for enjoining the tender offer or Oracle's communications about it to anyone. Accordingly, all requests for such relief are, as a matter of law, unsupported by any claim in the SAC and should be stricken as immaterial. B. PEOPLESOFT SEEKS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT In addition to asking this Court to enjoin Oracle from "proceeding with the Tender Offer", the SAC seeks injunctive relief enjoining Oracle from "[m]aking any written, oral or electronic communication with any person or entity known or believed to be an existing PeopleSoft customer, with respect to: (1) the Tender Offer; (2) the impact of the Tender Offer on PeopleSoft or its customers or products; (3) plans to support PeopleSoft products/platforms; (4) plans for migration of PeopleSoft customers to Oracle if the Tender Offer is successful; (5) PeopleSoft's ability to survive without being acquired; and (6) PeopleSoft's current business or financial condition." SAC, Prayer for Relief. Similarly, it seeks to enjoin Oracle from transmitting documents regarding the Tender Offer to any PeopleSoft customer or referring PeopleSoft customers to information on "any Oracle or third-party website." SAC, Prayer for Relief. Such relief would violate Oracle's rights under the First Amendment and Art. 1 Section 2 of the California Constitution because it would constitute an illegal prior restraint on free speech. When a requested injunction relates "directly to the content" of speech, as here, it amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint. See Metropolitan Opera Ass'n, Inc. v. Local 100, 239 F.3d 172, 177 (2d Cir. 2001)(no injunction to enjoin "fraudulent and defamatory representations"); see also Gilbert v. National Enquirer, 43 Cal. App. 4th 1136, 1144 (1996) (preliminary injunction against defamatory statements is an unconstitutional prior restraint); SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 5 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Wilson v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 3d 652, 657 (1975) (refusing to restrain libelous statement regarding the official conduct of a public officer by campaign opponent). The California constitution affords speech even more protection than the First Amendment. See, e.g., San Diego Unified Port. Dist. v. United States Citizen Patrol, 63 Cal. App. 4th 964, 970 (1998); Wilson, 13 Cal. 3d at 658 ("A protective provision more definitive and inclusive than the First Amendment is contained in our state constitutional guarantee of the right of free speech and press.") "Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions -- i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities -- are classic examples of prior restraints." Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993). "[P]rior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). Accordingly, a prior restraint carries a "heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Alexander, 509 U.S. at 550 (The First Amendment's prior restraint doctrine makes all "administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur" highly suspect.). Prior restraints are permissible only in limited circumstances: where necessary to serve compelling state interests that cannot be served by less restrictive alternatives. See, e.g., Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. at 558-559 (competing compelling constitutional interest not sufficient). "Prior restraints are permissible in only the rarest of circumstances, such as an imminent threat to national security." Burch v. Barker, 861 F.2d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); see also New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) (prior restraint not justified to bar publication of Pentagon Papers, despite possibility of serious national security breach). The fact that the statements PeopleSoft asks this Court to enjoin are being made in the course of a tender offer or in a commercial context does not strip them of their Constitutional SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 6 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT protections. See Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 761-62 (1976) (holding that the First Amendment protects commercial speech which does no more than propose a commercial transaction). A court cannot enjoin matters of opinion or debate between competitors. "Robust debate between competitors on matters of opinion, and claims that one product or service is far superior to that of rivals, are encouraged as part of the hurly-burly inherent in a free market system, and indeed an open society." Licata & Co. Inc. v. Goldberg, 812 F. Supp. 403, 408 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); see also Paradise Hills Associates v. Procel, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1528, 1546 (1991) (reversing as unconstitutional an injunction against the "expression of honestly held opinions").(4) III. CONCLUSION In its companion Demurrer, Oracle demonstrates that the Second Amended Complaint states no cause of action. But even if it did, it would not support PeopleSoft's request for injunctive relief against Oracle's pursuit of the tender offer or communications about it. PeopleSoft is using the mere presence of those unsupported requests to influence the course of the tender offer. That is an improper use of this Court's process and should not be allowed to continue. /// /// /// /// - --------------------------------- (4) Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939 (2002), cert. denied, Nike, Inc. v. Kasky, 123 S. Ct. 2554 (2003), does not suggest a different result. The statements about which PeopleSoft complains concern its products and the tender offer. Nike expressly avoided addressing such statements: "The United States Supreme Court has never decided whether false statements about a product or service of a competitor of the speaker would properly be characterized as commercial speech. Because the issue is not presented here, we offer no view on how it should be resolved." Id. at 962. SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 7 Case No. RG03101434 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DATED: January 20, 2004 Respectfully submitted, BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Howard _____________________________________________ Geoffrey M. Howard Attorneys for Defendants Oracle Corporation and Pepper Acquisition Corporation SF:21542363.3/2021039-0000302635 8 Case No. RG03101434 _______________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
EX-99.(A)(71) 11 f92476b8exv99wxayx71y.htm EXHIBIT (A)(71) EXHIBIT (A)(71)

 

Exhibit (a)(71)

(PEOPLESOFT GRAPHIC)

The Board of Directors of PeopleSoft will be soliciting proxies for use at the 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or at any adjournment or postponement thereof, to vote in favor of a slate of directors to be nominated by the Board of Directors and to vote on any other matters that properly come before the 2004 Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft will be filing a proxy statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC in connection with this solicitation of proxies for the 2004 Annual Meeting. Promptly after filing the definitive 2004 Proxy Statement with the SEC, PeopleSoft will mail the 2004 Proxy Statement and a WHITE Proxy Card to each PeopleSoft stockholder entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. PeopleSoft has engaged Georgeson Shareholder Communications Inc. to assist it in soliciting proxies from its stockholders. PeopleSoft has agreed to pay customary compensation to Georgeson for such services and to indemnify Georgeson and certain related persons against certain liabilities relating to or arising out of the engagement. Certain representatives of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co., financial advisors to PeopleSoft, may also solicit proxies, although no additional consideration will be paid in connection with any such solicitation. In addition, directors, officers and employees of PeopleSoft may solicit proxies, although no additional compensation will be paid to directors, officers or employees for such services.

PeopleSoft has filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 and amendments thereto regarding Oracle’s tender offer that contain information regarding members of the Board of Director’s and members of management’s potential interests in the tender offer. Information regarding securities ownership by certain members of the Board of Directors and certain members of management as of April 1, 2003 is contained in PeopleSoft’s proxy statement for its 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, dated as of April 28, 2003. PeopleSoft stockholders should read the Schedule 14D-9 and the 2004 Proxy Statement when it is filed with the SEC (including any amendments to such documents) because these documents contain (or will contain) important information. The 2004 Proxy Statement (when filed), the 2003 Proxy Statement, the Schedule 14D-9 and other public filings made by PeopleSoft with the SEC are available without charge from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and from PeopleSoft at www.peoplesoft.com.

Permission to use quotations neither sought nor obtained   © 2004 PeopleSoft, Inc. PeopleSoft is a registered trademark of PeopleSoft, Inc.
EX-99.(E)(11) 12 f92476b8exv99wxeyx11y.txt EXHIBIT (E)(11) EXHIBIT (e)(11) PEOPLESOFT, INC. CRAIG CONWAY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This agreement is made by and between PeopleSoft, Inc. (the "Company", and Craig Conway ("Executive") as of May 10, 1999 and restated as of May 27, 2003 with such restated terms effective as of that date. 1. Duties and Scope of Employment. (a) Positions: Employment Commencement Date: Duties. Executive's Employment with the Company pursuant to this Agreement shall commence on May 10, 1999 (the "Employment Commencement Date"). Company shall employ the Executive as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company reporting to the Board of Directors ("Board"). The period of Executive's employment hereunder is referred to herein as the "Employment Term." During the Employment Term, Executive shall render such business and professional services in the performance of his duties, consistent with Executive's position within the Company, as shall reasonably be assigned to him by the Board, including direct responsibility for the day to day operations of the Company, having the management committee directly report to him, Company financial performance and hiring and employment termination decision-making authority. (b) Obligations. During the Employment Term, Executive shall devote his full business efforts and time to the Company. Executive agrees, during the Employment Term, not to actively engage in any other employment, occupation or consulting activity for any direct or indirect remuneration without the prior approval of the Board; provided, however, that Executive may serve in any capacity with any civic, educational or charitable organization, or as a member of corporate Boards of Directors or committees thereof upon which Executive currently serves, without the approval of the Board; provided, further that Executive may devote a reasonable amount of time to managing his family investments (notwithstanding Section 3 of the Company's standard Employee Proprietary Information Agreement). 2. Employment Benefits; Indemnification Agreement. During the Employment Term, Executive shall be eligible to participate in the employee benefit plans maintained by the Company that are applicable to other senior management to the full extent provided for under those plans. Upon his commencement of employment with the Company, Executive shall be offered an indemnification agreement comparable in form and substance to indemnification agreements entered into by and between the Company and its executive officers. Page 1 of 12 3. At-Will Employment. Executive and the Company understand and acknowledge that Executive's employment with the Company constitutes "at-will" employment. Subject to the Company's obligation to provide severance benefits as specified herein, Executive and the Company acknowledge that this employment relationship may be terminated at any time, upon written notice to the other party, with or without good cause or for any or no cause, at the option either of the Company or the Executive. 4. Compensation. (a) Base Salary. While employed by the Company, the Company shall pay the Executive as compensation for his services, a base salary as set by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors ("Compensation Committee") (the "Base Salary"). Such salary shall be paid periodically in accordance with normal Company payroll practices and subject to the usual, required withholding. Executive's Base Salary shall be reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee of the Board for possible increases in light of Executive's performance and competitive data. (b) Bonuses. Executive shall be eligible to receive a cash bonus on account of and subject to his employment of up to 100% of Base Salary, based on a determination of the Compensation Committee of Executive's achievement in excess of the target milestones, with lesser or no payments if the target milestones are not achieved ("Target Bonus"). Executive's performance shall be evaluated by the Compensation Committee based upon performance criteria specified by the Compensation Committee. The payment of any bonus under this Section 4(b) shall be subject to Executive's employment with the Company through the end of the relevant evaluation period (which employment requirement does not apply with the respect to the Target Bonus component of severance payments made pursuant to Section 4(d)). Executive's Target Bonus amount shall be reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee of the Board for possible increases in light of Executive's performance and competitive data. (c) Equity Compensation. All grants of Initial Stock Options, Initial Restricted Stock and Additional Options (collectively "Options") are in all respects subject to the terms, definitions and provisions of the plan, if any, under which they were or are granted, the resolution or unanimous written consent of the Compensation Committee in which such Options were or are granted, and the terms of the Option agreement evidencing such grant (the "Option Agreement"), which documents are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent there is any conflict among the terms of the plan under which the Options were or are granted, the resolution or unanimous written consent of the Compensation Committee in which such Options were granted, this Agreement and the terms of the Option Agreement, the conflict will be resolved by looking to the following documents in this order of precedence, with the first document listed which provides a determination of the issue being the controlling document: (1) the nondiscretionary terms of the plan under which the Options were or are granted, (2) Page 2 of 12 the resolution or unanimous written consent of the Compensation Committee in which such Options are or were granted, (3) this Agreement, and (4) the terms of the Option Agreement evidencing such grant. (i) Initial Stock Options. As of the Employment Commencement Date, Executive shall be granted stock options (the "Initial Stock Options") to purchase a total of two million (2,000,000) shares of Company common stock with a per share exercise price equal to twelve and eleven-sixteenths dollars ($12-11/16ths) (the" Employment Commencement Date Stock Value"). The Initial Stock Options shall be for a term of ten years (or shorter upon termination of employment or consulting relationship with the Company) and, subject to accelerated vesting as set forth elsewhere herein, shall vest as to 1/48th of the shares on each month following the Commencement Date, so as to be 100% vested on the four year anniversary thereof, conditioned upon Executive's continued employment or consulting relationship with the Company as of each vesting date. The Stock Options are intended to be "incentive stock options" as defined in Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), to the maximum extent permitted by the $100,000 rule of Code Section 422(d). Except as specified otherwise herein, these option grants are in all respects subject to the terms, definitions and provisions of the Company's 1989 Stock Plan and the standard form of stock option agreement thereunder (the "Option Agreement"), which documents are incorporated herein by reference; provided, however, that to the extent that the Stock Options may not be granted under the 1989 Stock Plan by virtue of the limitation on the number of shares subject to option that may be granted thereunder in any fiscal year of the Company, they shall be granted outside of the 1989 Stock Plan pursuant to a written option agreement containing the same material terms and conditions as to those governing the option granted under the 1989 Stock Plan. Any such non-Stock Plan stock option shall be registered by the Company on Form S-8 prior to any vesting of such option. (ii) Initial Restricted Stock. As soon as practicable following the Employment Commencement Date, Executive shall purchase five hundred thousand (500,000) shares of Company common stock at a purchase price of $0.01 per share (the "Initial Restricted Stock"). The Initial Restricted Stock shall vest (i.e., the Company's right to repurchase the Initial Restricted Stock at its original purchase price shall lapse) as to one hundred twenty-five thousand (125,000) shares subject to the Initial Restricted Stock grant each year thereafter through May, 10, 2003, conditioned upon Executive's continued employment or consulting relationship with the Company on such dates. The Initial Restricted Stock shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Initial Restricted Stock purchase agreement dated May 10, 1999 by and between Executive and the Company (the "Initial Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement"), which is Page 3 of 12 incorporated herein by reference. The Initial Restricted Stock shall be registered by the Company on Form S-8 prior to the date of purchase. (iii) Additional Options. To the extent Executive receives additional stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock awards and stock purchase rights ("Additional Options"), such grants will be subject to the terms, including vesting, set out in this Agreement, the resolution or unanimous written consent of the Compensation Committee in which such Options were granted, or the plan pursuant to which such Options are granted, and the terms of the Option Agreement evidencing such grant. (d) Severance on Voluntary Termination for Good Reason or Involuntary Termination Other Than for Cause. If Executive's employment with the Company is voluntarily terminated by Executive for "Good Reason" (as defined below) or is involuntarily terminated by the Company other than for "Cause" (as defined below), then, except as provided in Sections 5 and 6 below, subject to Executive's executing and not revoking a standard form of mutual release of claims with terms generally used by the Company in the resolution of employment disputes: (i) Executive's Initial Stock Options and Initial Restricted Stock shall immediately have their vesting accelerated to the same extent as such Initial Stock Options and Initial Restricted Stock would have vested had Executive remained employed by the Company for an additional twenty-four (24) months, with such accelerated vesting based on service-based vesting provisions only and not on achieving any performance targets or milestones; (ii) Executive's Additional Options granted prior to the date Executive's employment is terminated shall immediately have their vesting accelerated to the same extent as such Additional Options would have vested had Executive remained employed by the Company for an additional twenty-four (24) months, with such accelerated vesting based on service-based vesting provisions only and not on achieving any performance targets or milestones, unless the plan under which the Additional Options were granted prohibits, in whole or in part, such credit or acceleration or waiver of performance targets or milestones, or provides for alternative vesting which cannot be changed by the Board or the plan administrator. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restricted stock of 500,000 shares awarded to Executive on February 6, 2002, grant number 034756, will not accelerate as provided herein, but will vest pro rata based on the number of months from the date of the grant through the date Executive's employment is terminated; (iii) Executive shall receive continued payments of twenty-four (24) months Base Salary at the rate in effect on the date of termination, twenty-four (24) months Target Bonus calculated as if there was 100% Page 4 of 12 achievement of Executive's and Company's objectives, and excluding any other bonuses, such as the annual bonus subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors (unless specified otherwise in the resolution or unanimous written consent of the Compensation Committee in which the bonus is granted); less applicable withholding, in accordance with the Company's standard payroll practices, and (iv) the Company shall pay the group health, dental and vision plan continuation coverage premiums for Executive and his covered dependents under Title X of the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended ("COBRA") or any applicable state law that provides for such continuation coverage for the lesser of (A) twenty-four (24) months from the date of Executive's termination of employment, or (B) the date upon which Executive and his covered dependents are covered by similar plans of Executive's new employer. If COBRA coverage and any equivalent, applicable state law coverage terminate before the end of the applicable time period set out above, Company will reimburse Executive an amount equal to the monthly cost of the COBRA premium each month through the end of the applicable time period. (v) Any amounts owed hereunder will be reduced by any other salary, severance, bonus or benefits to which Executive is entitled under any applicable laws or regulations, including, but not limited to, WARN, but only to the extent that such items are actually received by Executive. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Cause" means (i) a material act of dishonesty made by Executive in connection with Executive's responsibilities as an employee, (ii) Executive's conviction of, or plea of nolo contendere to a felony, (iii) Executive's gross misconduct in connection with the performance of his duties hereunder, (iv) Executive's death or permanent disability, or (v) Executive's material breach of his obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that with respect to clauses (iii) and (v), such actions shall not constitute Cause if they are cured by Executive within thirty (30) days following delivery to Executive of a written explanation specifying the basis for the Company's beliefs with respect to such clauses. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Good Reason" means (i) the failure of the Company to appoint Executive as Chief Executive Officer and director within twelve (12) months of the Employment Commencement Date, (ii) a reduction in Executive's Base Salary or Target Bonus, (iii) a reduction in Executive's title (whether or not material) or a material reduction in Executive's authority or duties, (iv) the requirement that Executive relocate more than twenty (20) miles from the current Company headquarters, or (v) the Company's material breach of its obligations under this Agreement; provided, however that with respect to clause (v), such material breach shall not constitute Cause if it is cured by the Company within thirty (30) days following delivery to the Company of a written explanation specifying the basis for the Executive's beliefs with respect to such clause. Page 5 of 12 The Executive shall not be required to mitigate the value of any severance benefits contemplated by Section 4 of this Agreement, nor shall any such benefits be reduced by any earnings or benefits that the Executive may receive from any other source. (e) Termination for Cause or Voluntary Resignation Without Good Reason. If Executive's employment with the Company is involuntarily terminated for Cause or voluntarily terminated without Good Reason, all payments of compensation by the Company to Executive hereunder shall immediately terminate (except as to amounts already earned, which shall be paid) and all vesting of the Executive's Initial Stock Options, Additional Options and Initial Restricted Stock shall immediately cease. 5. Change of Control Vesting Acceleration. Unless the plan under which the Additional Options were granted prohibits such credit or acceleration or waiver of performance targets or milestones or provides for alternative vesting which cannot be changed by the Board or the plan administrator, in the event of a Change of Control, any remaining unvested Initial Stock Options, Additional Options and Initial Restricted Stock held by Executive shall become 100% vested and exercisable. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Change of Control" is defined as: (a) Any "person" (as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) becomes the "beneficial owner" (as defined in Rule 13d-3 under said Act), directly or indirectly, of securities of the Company representing forty-five percent (45%) or more of the total voting power represented by the Company's then outstanding voting securities; or (b) A change in the composition of the Board occurring within a two year period, as a result of which fewer than a majority of the directors are Incumbent Directors. "Incumbent Directors" shall mean directors who either (A) are directors of the Company as of the date hereof, or (B) are elected, or nominated for election, to the Board with the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the Incumbent Directors at the time of such election or nomination (but shall not include an individual whose election or nomination is in connection with an actual or threatened proxy contest relating to the election of directors to the Company); or (c) The consummation of a merger or consolidation of the Company with any other corporation, other than a merger or consolidation which would result in the voting securities of the Company outstanding immediately prior thereto continuing to represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the surviving entity) at least fifty-five percent (55%) of the total voting power represented by the voting securities of the Company or such surviving entity outstanding immediately after such merger or consolidation; or Page 6 of 12 (d) The consummation of the sale or disposition by the Company of all substantially all of the Company's assets. 6. Certain Payments in Respect of Restricted Stock Awards. (a) Based on Executive's relinquishment and waiver of any claim to acceleration of vesting of any restricted stock awards, upon termination of his employment for Good Reason or without Cause, or upon a Change of Control, Company will pay Executive an amount equal to the value of the restricted stock that was granted to Executive prior to a) the date Executive's employment is terminated, and that remains unvested as of the date of termination; or b) the date of the Change of Control, and that remains unvested as of the date of the Change of Control, as applicable. (the "Applicable Date"). The cash payment will be equal to the fair market value of the Company's stock that is subject to the unvested portion of a restricted stock award calculated as of the Applicable Date (reduced by the purchase price, if any, that had not been paid for such restricted stock). Payment will occur no later than three (3) days following the Applicable Date. As a condition of receiving such payment, and effective on its receipt, Executive will have no further rights in such restricted stock awards or in any other payments in relation to such restricted stock awards. (b) The Company agrees to pay all costs and reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by Executive with respect to an action (i) brought by Executive or on Executive's behalf to obtain any payment owed to Executive under this Section, or (ii) instituted by or in the name of the Company to interpret any of the terms of this Agreement or the equity incentive plan under which stock awards or options were granted, as they relate to the Company's obligation to make a payment under this Section. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company will not have an obligation to pay costs, expenses or attorneys' fees incurred by Executive if (i) in an action initiated by or on behalf of Executive, the court determines that each of the material assertions made by Executive as a basis for such action was not made in good faith or was frivolous, (ii) in an action brought by or in the name of the Company, the court determines that each of Executive's material defenses to such action was not made in good faith or was frivolous, or (iii) the court determines that Executive is not otherwise entitled to be paid such costs, fees and expenses. It is the Company's intention that if the Company contests Executive's right to payment under this Section, the question of Executive's right to such payment shall be for the court to decide, and no action of the Company (including its Board of Directors, any committee or subgroup of the Board of Directors, or independent legal counsel) shall create a presumption that Executive is not entitled to such payment. If the payment under this Section is not made within three (3) days of the Applicable Date, interest will accrue on the overdue payment at the highest rate permitted by law. Page 7 of 12 7. Total Disability of Executive. Upon Executive's becoming permanently and totally disabled (as defined in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 22(e)(3) or its successor provision) during the term of this Agreement, employment hereunder shall automatically terminate, all payments of compensation by the Company to Executive hereunder shall immediately terminate (except as to amounts already earned) and all vesting of the Executive's Initial Stock Options, Additional Options and Initial Restricted Stock shall immediately cease unless the plan under which the foregoing equity award was made, if any, requires alternative vesting and exercisability treatment. 8. Death of Executive. If Executive dies while employed by the Company pursuant to this Agreement, all payments of compensation by the Company to Executive hereunder shall immediately terminate (except as to amounts already earned, which shall be paid to his estate) and all vesting of the Executive's Initial Stock Options, Additional Options and Initial Restricted Stock shall immediately cease unless the plan under which the foregoing equity award was made, if any, requires alternative vesting and exercisability treatment. 9. Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of (a) the heirs, beneficiaries, executors and legal representatives of Executive upon Executive's death and (b) any successor of the Company. Any such successor of the Company shall be deemed substituted for the Company under the terms of this Agreement for all purposes. As used herein, "successor" shall include any person, firm, corporation or other business entity which at any time, whether by purchase, merger or otherwise, directly or indirectly acquires all or substantially all of the assets or business of the Company. None of the rights of Executive to receive any form of compensation payable pursuant to this Agreement shall be assignable or transferable except through a testamentary disposition or by the laws of descent and distribution upon the death of Executive. Any attempted assignment, transfer, conveyance or other disposition (other than as aforesaid) of any interest in the rights of Executive to receive any form of compensation hereunder shall be null and void; provided, however, that Executive shall be allowed to transfer vested Initial Stock and Additional Options and Initial Restricted Stock consistently with the rules under Form S-8 for estate planning and wealth management purposes. 10. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications called for hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given if (i) delivered personally or by facsimile, (ii) one (1) day after being sent by Federal Express or a similar commercial, overnight service, or (iii) three (3) days after being mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, prepaid and addressed to the parties or their successors in interest at the following addresses, or at such other addresses as the parties may designate by written notice in the manner aforesaid: If to the Company: PeopleSoft, Inc. 4460 Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588-3031 Page 8 of 12 Attn: General Counsel If to Executive: Craig Conway at the last residential address known by the Company 11. Severability. In the event that any provision hereof becomes or is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, unenforceable or void, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect without said provision. 12. Proprietary Information Agreement. Executive agrees to enter into the Company's standard Employee Proprietary Information Agreement (the "Proprietary Information Agreement") upon commencing employment hereunder. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, the plans under which Options were or are granted, as amended from time to time, the resolution or unanimous written consent of the Compensation Committee in which such Options were or are granted, and the Option Agreements, which documents are incorporated herein by and the Initial Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement, the indemnification agreement and employee benefit plans referred to in Section 2 and the Proprietary Information Agreement represent the entire agreement and understanding between the Company and Executive concerning Executive's employment relationship with the Company, and supersede and replace any and all prior agreements and understandings concerning Executive's employment relationship with the Company. 14. Non-Binding Mediation, Arbitration and Equitable Relief. (a) The parties agree to make a good faith attempt to resolve any dispute or claim arising out of or related to this Agreement through negotiation. In the event that any dispute or claim arising out of or related to this Agreement is not settled by the parties hereto, the parties will attempt in good faith to resolve such dispute or claim by non-binding mediation in Contra Costa County, California to be conducted by one mediator belonging to the American Arbitration Association. The mediation shall be held within thirty (30) days of the request therefor. The costs of the mediation shall be borne equally by the parties to the mediation. (b) Except as provided in Section 13(e) below, Executive and the Company agree that, to the extent permitted by law, any dispute or controversy arising out of, relating to, or in connection with this Agreement, or the interpretation, validity, construction, performance, breach, or termination thereof which has not been resolved by negotiation or mediation as set forth in Section 13(a) shall be finally settled by binding arbitration to be held in Contra Costa County, California, in accordance wit the National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes then in effect of the American Arbitration Association (the "Rules"). The arbitrator may grant injunctions or other relief in such dispute or controversy. The decision of the arbitrator shall be confidential, final, conclusive and binding on the parties to the arbitration. Judgment Page 9 of 12 may be entered under a protective order on the arbitrator's decision in any court having jurisdiction. (c) The arbitrator shall apply California law to the merits or any dispute or claim, without reference to rules of conflict of law. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by federal arbitration law and by the Rules, without reference to state arbitration law. Executive hereby expressly consents to the personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in California for any action or proceeding arising from or relating to this Agreement and/or relating to any arbitration in which the parties are participants. (d) Executive understands that nothing in Section 13 modifies Executive's at-will status. Either the Company or Executive can terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause. (e) EXECUTIVE HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS SECTION 13, WHICH DISCUSSES ARBITRATION. EXECUTIVE UNDERSTANDS THAT BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, EXECUTIVE AGREES, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. TO SUBMIT ANY FUTURE CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF, RELATING TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, OR THE INTERPRETATION, VALIDITY, CONSTRUCTION, PERFORMANCE, BREACH, OR TERMINATION THEREOF TO BINDING ARBITRATION, AND THAT THIS ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF EXECUTIVE'S RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AND RELATES TO THE RESOLUTION OF ALL DISPUTES RELATING TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE EMPLOYER/EXECUTIVE RELATIONSHIP, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS: (i) ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYMENT; BREACH OF CONTRACT, BOTH EXPRESS AND IMPLIED; BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING, BOTH EXPRESS AND IMPLIED; NEGLIGENT OR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; NEGLIGENT OR INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION; NEGLIGENT OR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT OR PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; AND DEFAMATION. (ii) ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR VIOLATION OF ANY FEDERAL STATE OR MUNICIPAL STATUTE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1991, THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967, THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE CALIFORNIA FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT, AND LABOR CODE SECTION 201, et seq; Page 10 of 12 (iii) ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF ANY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION. 15. Consultant & Legal Fee Reimbursement. The Company agrees to directly pay Executive's reasonable consultant and legal fees associated with entering into this Agreement up to $10,000 upon receiving invoices for such services. 16. Golden Parachute Excise Taxes. In the event that the benefits provided for in this Agreement or otherwise payable to the Executive constitute "parachute payments" within the meaning of Section 280G of the Code and will be subject to the excise tax imposed by Section 4999 of the Code, then the Executive shall receive a payment from the Company sufficient to pay the excise tax and federal and state income and employment taxes arising from the payments made by the Company to executive pursuant to this sentence; provided, however, that in no event shall the Company be obligated to pay Executive more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) pursuant to this Section 16. Unless the Company and the Executive otherwise agree in writing, the determination of Executive's excise tax liability and the amount required to be paid under this Section 16 shall be made in writing by the independent auditors who are primarily used by the Company immediately prior to the Change of Control (the "Accountants"). For purposes of making the calculations required by this Section 16, the Accountants may make reasonable assumptions and approximations concerning applicable taxes and may rely on reasonable, good faith interpretations concerning the application of Sections 280G and 4999 of the Code. The Company and the Executive shall furnish to the Accountants such information and documents as the Accountants may reasonably request in order to make a determination under this Section. The Company shall bear all costs the Accountants may reasonably incur in connection with any calculations contemplated by this Section 16. 17. No Oral Modification, Cancellation or Discharge. This Agreement may only be amended, canceled or discharged in writing signed by Executive and the Company's General Counsel and a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. 18. Withholding. The Company shall be entitled to withhold, or cause to be withheld, from payment any amount of withholding taxes required by law with respect to payments made to Executive in connection with his employment hereunder. 19. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 20. Effective Date. This Agreement is effective upon the Employment Commencement Date. 21. Acknowledgement. Executive acknowledges that he has had the opportunity to discuss this matter with and obtain advice from his private attorney, has Page 11 of 12 had sufficient time to, and has carefully read and fully understands all the provisions of this Agreement, and is knowingly and voluntarily entering into this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement. PEOPLESOFT, INC. /s/ David Duffield - -------------------------------------- David Duffield Chairman of the Board of Directors EXECUTIVE /s/ Craig Conway - -------------------------------------- Craig Conway Page 12 of 12 GRAPHIC 13 f92476b8f9247601.gif GRAPHIC begin 644 f92476b8f9247601.gif M1TE&.#EA4`*$`_<```````@("!`0$!@8&"$A(2DI*3$Q,3DY.4)"0DI*2E)2 M4EI:6F-C8VMK:W-SX2$A(R,C)24E)RWN?GY^_O[_?W]_______________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M____________________________________________________________ M_____________________RP`````4`*$`P`(_@`_"!Q(L*#!@P@3*ES(L*'# MAQ`C2IQ(L:+%BQ@S:MS(L:/'CR!#BAQ)LJ3)DRA3JES)LJ7+ES`3:EC`8('- MFSASZMS)LZ?/GT"#"AU*M*C1HTB3*EW*M*G3IU"C2IU*M2I3!@HX?+``8$$# MG`J^,FA`=J<"!@X6*+BYUF9;M3>_PG5[DP':KVWESI7;%BO;L@X:O!U,$VU- MNGK[DDULL\%APF/+LO5*%NOAFG(=$]9Y>+)7NW3'>FY<\VUGT'/5VD7M-ZYF MG(YSCCWLV.Y@O6!Q=J;KM7%LW6KE.ACK8//>SF,2CF?,.7WGX\_9@Q58V;O[L MZ+>580<9:'C595Y:V?6U```9;#4`6EH-E,!6$%"`@$`;>$!0!1<^Q($#"FD0 MP0$/$#1A00T0U($&!5%@P`<'2!#BB!44I(!!%#`0P0(%=:"`!0AEH(`$'1*T M``0*=/#!!0*!.&$'#&R`D`9*?H!!A@8]X``&!%$0P4$=(,`B01!H^`$%-1K$ M084L>M#@0#,M$*%`&C#`P9@"4:#`FTE",*=`)VI@9D%NXDG0C1\\T,`$'V"Y MI$`\;F"`!A`4>9`'"5!0$`-*\GBFI0QMH$")!ED*I(H_-L0D01D8RBI6_H-^ M4","#_P)J)2`,M1!!`P4M`"7!/5:)J*Y/I#FJ,!^T,&;!9W8HJ<%K?J!`@Y( MBNM`&`BV;$$0;,!!`0S$>A`"2E*IT`(/6.!J01%H<$$'I`KD`9X_*F`FLU9" M($"#%A!P@)(&((!6`;(FL(`!2!)0P`(._,L`D`8<4*F_6EXH``(+U,A!`Q4$ M\('`#CQ0@`5A?;``KQ"$?,`!0P[W``(.%%=`F`Y4RF@$`UQ0P`'D'D"3`A,. M4&V*!7P8HP,)<)```@VP*,$%#A30@`4T1<#!C9_%G+(%&40@P0`?"$!MB@9P M(`$!'Q20<@(-7(A!`A,T`,$#$JR%*0%K,@R!_ET-)!!!@VA#<,`'!#`@P5@/ M#.#WX!M;\*(!:"4@\0<37+#`X`:<>#&``60O,H?#"`PD!HX4,$`%!S@@`0- M.("`TGL7`'<#8&MPHV`24Q@!*#!`"/BK`1DP@`>0=#KA74!+2YK``Y8'NPP< M0%09&$`'#%`S*]F&?F@[@`4413<%&.!P9Z)`!_24`:\$C`,#@`"O>*0E`RQ@ M`AB(V@8&`,$"7*`"_@E@``0P0``%1*``!"!5Q"AP.3-%X`(C[)W_?*:!`Y`/ M;I\;7.[21KG3&:!6%DA``5ADN09L;X`BVQ&7+&>]^SW@`)*+@`/D*)`7!F@R1$O!`AJBU34K.3I<(^Z,"H(>P+UK`8\RD``0" M2H"<.?)$A3%6<2@P`)`*0)\*0,`$#!`Z!)"/@QX`GLDD<,0#0(\`&V!9!2K0 M@)124FD$<)\!WHD`!'!)`U]$F^($%S`?Q2R0%Z!DH\(Y3@7LT`!@"T`[%<:Q M+^%5`E_SI#%IYP$,H%)M8='`A9)H5:9^J7X\/&9>*_"`"!C1`!=%FP4B@`$& MF)4"#X@D!P1P)&=^(%R8E0!1T18`JGF@G4F5_L`".B`T!2"15`68J0!J)"CZ M::FG+2P!@=@S(,EH)$#X)(%!$!+RDE@ M`QF@9=>Z=@$*4,`"3]-4@/W+`9T:X`(23!1(:>F!FM&2H.JB9;HJ>H$,&)AT M7*M`Y21@`0LPX$4DU@!@,7`!$>V*`J]-BQ")28$&3V`"&X!`F?ZY0@LT0%,8 MF,!F*3"!`SM-`Q2`,(23;`&S64##E>.2`R!<(@AT6,@RLD`')"#B$E=`4Q)X M@`=&!T41_W#!7R8R_C$AD($,V"4!&,BALBK``49-8*N`)7&K=)K-"'A`1B2. M<`0J@&`)=`!(%KA`H'V931%_2=$2P`#I6)QD#7SY`__D@+$Z7($,E*BR&"!T MY1ZP`9U28`.6-C#7$GSG)\^9SA%(N@*T^R^CTN5A6AJ:W`5^]IAK9&`B;R#.$#!TP$FJ MJ0J,6=LDI:4#D/R!*8-4Q%M6%YDQ\&*SV=L"&.!`HG7<8`G6R+EF-G53VL\0*'$#/'"! M'-+RV^HRM!R59.5GPUNUOM0V!?:UE0#8ZB+2$LB:KL61#61=7@@!<)4<MTGTH&O;V3N!K'BVT%"T+4C M!/`,$=>S&Y(L:SL$\?!VO$P@,':%="``^@T`USVBT;-+I`.5][SH1\]YNW/$ M`Z$G_4+4[A(.I#XEH&])[!>">L1K/0#\TKSJ=\_[WOO^]\`/OO!)SP',5WWS MPT^^\I?/_.8[__DH*7[ND0_]ZEO_^MC/OO:)_F_\F[Y^^^`/O_C'3_[R$Z3X M^GW0]Q.2XW@UI)L#Z=4"\+2F;S>DTW2S\IWE5:OZ$6I=C"(0$K`NF%)@)W(! M/V80&_`E$H!-2T(W"\$!`'804V-H"4$JGM8`E7/)::6(0\R(0%J!26;)9 M,G)W8P)8+#(W#\%P#Y$LB280"=@E^`(L',,0&&<0Q$8L"-$K1%8\`H$O`U$! M"[<00"*$V215")&`7&,0[-,B`;@0)-5"(KAAEC.<0>)0SS+0C`0;23+??%`#5",!-T4&CT(AQU-28S*@=# M`3$S.&:%0V>A*<-!)PHP`2M#-PZ`BD#C-7=1)@E0(]5B,#O2)@$`.X'T``=6 M3QA@`'KRAX*C8U9C)Q>@`&$!,\51)UYR0T+$``]@``U"38FR--0D4F$V-SRS M)/AT6C43-9-$8B^"48JB8Q)D.T-"4@?P-G,D/Y!B/\#3@$QT`'HT+6)".!R` M`0N`3Q8R*MJT`'KR`*WB3[PR*M,%`08@9):5LF4SDA0SK%$6;@1$],`SRC4B?%IHXC`B*G%4N]7S(X`>!+3()6M4&(40,V%^`U`_`O`E`]!'`B#!`^A:,`L90Q M1?.'\#=&<=6;K=4P250!!_`B&H![S*-I$N`Q_$5`8..+!G1$!'`J^91'!)-( MHK*B`=`!Y)->W$,W"C-;.ID`&Z!YC4@Y$Z!6HZ1+.9,X%]*0S>D`%H!$8?,T M$Y(`/I)5=M538;,E9*I7K,1%)I-$-N$_!L`K?V@R^S5)"\!=!D`P*2I:"8`V MG:,6L91<%$`PKBF/_A/R-66:0Q001!?@,1<53K$S4Q(425EE71V0H0RPH8#R M+FSC+P\B$$Y%.FE*23X640.03`GPHI+R`9XF`7]Z2PBPI1.0.F>!`#,E.90)`1,P*I%%IA,2+BXUHX3C4[$$1[(I?X0CB29&`/H$F0@,';L82 M<+0T:`$V7IZ6`7>F`5T%(KK(A0G;-3=6*QU)`?*V;%O"9;&&G)CV0V9$_HA% M,T%>LCH?0"D@HG^DPP$/XV8S*W(U@R:`]61-9T:4`Q:N>F#X8H&(ILB5$IFX+=S.)1H2)0GFPP[,L M\D1!5BNY@%6:OTRV\2EG=0CS4M``8!R)FA$(30"E\ M";25`W,!IE.**:]L1FZ<%8M%]B%/UBZ;&S-,0F%4M9A3.;.Z6&0@,D!$>UJY MEBZZ&G!_!C6@E%)?X@"-5&?$P[0/0+G_]$0I_O-L+&9E_8HF%(=>:-V5Z$B&&!+$! MG*(K&;%^#>%V!$P149AXEU(!!QP23.*,2"@0 MW=0^*2(WU`E*0')J_E.Y*BG26:`4A0^J@1H\$&A9$$]&-S@K)")(53UB*Q5*R0?A>DBX,1MP@@JAA5L1`7`X$`^*(_"G;@/H M?E2Y@&0B*RFL@^4Z/YV7$.R&$!>@(1X`;PTLA#=W*>&9$!WV)=;V?1=P+1\R M)QT@)8N,$)N,@^MR8&B9(9P\$+C"S`T78&_2>,3VS!&17M*B:8[QO]Q&P7&& M$%SF4$7H$.-E>Y13S<#RPUO1S8DB*T-T8_NE7QM:F>UC1'33/K&H:%PS,H#U M3\4#.#5W`9;S@1FZ([/#-#)R0?[D4.UJ&XJF8V%C.)1T-O+SHU]29$GD_@!$ M1C`4$`#0DP!U8Y"R$BZT"CND0S?:ECX<4RG>+$8(T#$-,EQ/=SK=4JR#]B+3 M:3(&Z275TZ5(8YP!M6>V*MU0S^$Z&`;X#>6)6+'@S"9PI((0+*K MR$X=.E!F4S8$D#$\33\!34D\B%D(4.$,Y4\TD@: MVZM^0SC$-"0V$;.TE#3%,P$G,R2+,_X[14"#!-!,-/#S53 M3AHC=J+3BRHE&K+7G[,63.(!`I`CL-F[O!9P'@-GQ@F;-H%(LY/FV10U5M[! M.&,]QWH`&7`AN74!_A,R=3[&6I2%4P/@IK0UZ(UR(;&S/`+`3PC0E@<02R0U M`1YS(78%1RV.2%-6G&CJ,=C4.],R1R>$,<:53?A8.+MFXI(N=\R43,/!(>/4 M`,486@N0`58G/_*7(1>C)9>C`(K&*4,W./3%E_*$)/RY,`:3(FC"``'%(QJ" MLS>EY3B5+ESUG^DI60Z.*L#2`/P4*2[QZ7*#+J(.V/>NEH1/"*R'4 MRCUZ1(UE:$QF`3V4S0:F:.0X02TV-`&'5+WQ:`)VUH!F+9\C$@-34,LW]E-V7'`UJ]^D^!83)!-@%?&HC&63GB M5&%?1A9;X6,^`BOIBX]0HE.D5B'C!2)&U$C_`T5?(2)D[@&_Z6_6=S@T,\(D,>=D,,/$*D<\JY.CO,;9P,8$DZU9*[ M0G/$=#)>K]L^XH\Q\V5]OHJZ:'.#O8I/$Q8X"U@\S;U?^=FH4Y&:*K[%=96#L:U6\_@K0JC5FO=).GJ@G!:9+5#4A M7I&Z/\9BE@5*IB-W1Z+]LS-T'-,^3&2FL8` M6.8Z0K3ZAE773P,0"#XDD*`!@H*!&"9@8.!!`0,-#"A`@)#@0P4)%1Y(@,`` MPH8/"R9,8""!@<<'"Q!"P"!P`00+%1YZ0)`AP@(*#B),L/#!@84+#R)S"MVK7GUJ)C=Y[]^D-MV[E'0["] M6??I#!A>X_Y=_#1QV[Q1^RZ=&@$'W1`J("\>_#5SX]ES8]=>?&CHC*(GZ.Y` MP3/WU:0[!!">&61W^/'ESZ=?W_Y]_/GUOS:O^P+Z_0(4<$#1,@"0P`\X".`R M]Q!T\$$((Y1P0@HKM/!"#`E4L+T`WLOP0Q!#%'%$$DLT\<3?%&2P0Q1;=/%% M&&.4<<83-\2,11ISU'%''GOT<4<5;X3N1R*+-/)()).$ST8+!G#@K="$(\V" M!RX[ZKO1&$B-@PD$2JV#"M!SZP'A,'#``]\Z6,`"![@#C;/&'.`@@@<2_FR3 MLP[J'`T#J$23DK,-(!C/M:XNT@"U"AJ#DS,-*DA-*$<_T%.T#;##@(*ASO(` MHM*L]$R#!QA0"CP--O44T8]46W.V4V&3J#,.)."L*ZTL2@X#M8;\8(--.TNJ MM`8HZ.FT"2S2$X,W0YM@`RTYBP`W#UKE#((,("B(LP0B/6K8T320$S,R;:/@ M3\_$(IT"M3U;`*$LOT@V6ZUK';2TS#@`+<%-)B@ M`FT[8RI,/#W4:=#1@K2`@`,^(.`!NNHG;KL@(T$,!:`Q;( MH``&'O#@Y)$3X$J!!PR0X%F!$-A@`>@H2$!*#A;H(`(($$BTJY%GCJ#B`A0P MP*DZLS*``ZPE"%6#!1#`M#.M>T[@`#:M92""!"8PF`#?7F+`@;OKJI(DOQT5 M2&O$8W8@:`XJ9YDD#2XH@#<+`.#@@((-*$#D!-1BH'+'/I#`@;0AT""#!0S` M8&J###`LY0\.H/F!S1#`X.29)3#`6ZXDN(P`"00"#F#96S;"@`-XKWUO^UBP!C`2HPC$ M*0>XR?40@@'"?6!U;D.``4;BMYVIS222PH`%&)"HE*4+(:$*&E*^EX"2;8`` M#L"`17S'&04(I");(X"6ND(`G#2@*X`A203>=X#`^"R(`\`8!C$B*0%H8``) MR-H&2/@Z"D`-4P>H6$8VD#^H4<0!+YD=S1QP.`/T1X")0P#A,`B2Y0F`60X@ MB5`L5A@#>$0!'H.,@=B#&0(@P`%J_,L'`B"!"0P@CX=#R,CDI8"372``*C2` M`A(`F@-0H&,#@$`B>\:`@U$@`W>S3`,(\($!#*`##O!:AQ(P1%5:K"H7_F`` M%#,@``Z,#&JW'``!*F"4`DS@?@GH``(\(+9J(D!6'>B``BXP22P*8``>J)C0 M;-D!30X`EW5JP.DX(`#X0>UX`K#8!PR$``1H@``&H*8 MI4X"#$`#U(M`!2"P3S4Y9FI6H^<`XH80`3C@F0TH@$XHPG=3`!,>H#3&:`#_L2+`W$Y``XDH*8$J"@">H(!]/&L8LU\X\@^P``A M,B`#*5T`4A]040.H+JL")G+(A>I M$CB`TH)C@`UL;(6\O*4`.BLV@2T(,UQ,U-;H%!*@_.1@D=F7S*S",0W(Z@`* MJ`"NSAHU"N0L`^/+@`,H<,T;1F`O6/L`G;B4%+!A:@)%^8!1+I"!O"33PAZ` MB5$X=="C*!$A8$2@;!)UW@*U(3U4YP)F0;1V\\5A&R ME\.$,Z,@RR<1$(N6!F`5O!!O+`GN,5ZTM(&WL`:M.>D9H$OL90=;@",;T#$% M")`!C(S8+T"YGZ#4.K,)Y*0A'I`,!:)"IS,]*<<9_G($'EL4+>GD3E42EI8T M#"J-?D":$K@*.T.28*,\;B+74TB)'_``7,NN34(1%@0UVP"=5$"5[/P)7AK# M&.@X@"P7D*5F+6`4WCRS,0?PWU`F8F(O9\1C3H'*M1N0)PF(>2H!WD"=_O*D M`473FL$3L'%$SKHLWB`;-&C;5$-^?0$.3$8A9C(/F[:&$0L(A-[IZ7& M[:X9^G#F;IP-Z+=!2GH0O_CNF@WHO$<&K0T'!$\BPD/([W]OD<1PQ'C(1U[R MDZ?\A)CT^,IG7O.;YWSG3^-X#WE>]*,G?>E__G3YPYM>]:MG?>LM)#$G&5TT M_%+45R`FFHF,YE08"%5IZ$WTY&G]-N'R"4VYQ)O>I M]PQ>@*Z>485&31!`CZ)$@R7CP)LSY^X6[:D?9$`MOC/1`T[#5B.KJ&S&\.[W M3*)"4Z5[.2\UEY$6F-QUFCIYN>CSD](@/M2X@+CKC*&0FIG9C$`AGM>@DE>! M%4**#0Y`CYW(C7HAGH0!OYABCG8+O2D108HYD9,E7*IW;ZI_&; M,+=XF)DY%-TI&H1`_@`&>X`$T";S.(`-8+`EPATF.X@!@J75@"KHT;`$00!J MFP"IVIY?6P"=H(`#F`R^((P&6"L5&XJJP1VH4HN&4@`*8(P"^(KOJ,..PR0B M8XB#$)J08#2UDH#'X`@)N!F2*)G909SWD"8W*PC'$I1+E)>08$.AZ(KWP8B; MN8D,Z)A=D8`>,PE9R0"OXI]3>@`F7!XR^4+%$8H)F)V)L$4_6YT%H#9;29`& M\`N]*!E,>8`Z-`E/&S*C6(`%")0;2I0+D*2A$:U;@@KNZ2["4*&5>@"681G# M.`KN\9H#V)I*DK4*@#2*V(D)NB%H$BT+6*0AXPDY.2!;)+0ZZ9P.T!NL_CD< MFA$+[A&>KSD*Y;@<-7D3(2.RLI"9@RB+Q>`PSB@`(:HA?X&*OIB`BBB;I*@) MB]$`,Q'$GZ$9CDRMDC@4M"DI.@&T!,B6(P2TE\@]"^B*7^,9J$`V>>0`Z+&A MX.D/`[BF<^N98+$QQ*$A1;O)!!B?G;B)XUG%^'D:T#@9VN&>UGD`I#(/^KF` MP4I&QIB(+'R/C'(H+_E"JQ"*(9,,D;`,2*H8\N*-B@D`&R,O2ZH*`DB`#0"` MLN(,M"JB[2J6DCD4BX0MDJ*W4;*OV/%"G%*MD(@DOO">_Q,(BV(`O,JJ1#&` MYP@`OA&JFDP+O^$`"F"EHD*NEY3%H[@`F#(`_JM!`'7B&7I:&LY8GKS#G2;" M@``@I\9&.V\*^W!E9E+`'7" M"0=8SZ$@(P88@+NZF($PC:R)B+O9F`7KB8%@'$>K*`)@ M"-0Q3GSBC%FR``.H_@"%JIAA7*X#2("I4">?1`!@PH#+@AZNM"2]&*4`4)1; M:L\W&B*9>``H\HD,D,4,H*E;"@"?H:?A,LU38I%\.DXOU8CF+#%I9*R=F<^= M&*4F>KHSS8PAP9L**`"LG*SHVBX&&8`I>A(+>Q),P8D'8(FUH!:I60NM[-0' M&,-ONXR.R9.-4`F<$0C-*K$26ZB_H0C(0!EM\IA!,8H$("1'\0##B)=V\AJ. M'*UJ48`7JPJ.H0"!6!BR(R0PM0B8B)ZNT$F4B@#0F)G.`94&X+D%:(`#Z$5P MH8@-D-*#`2&9&48BVP@%\`!9:;=VU(DO](!N;0HMV5;941DEE(B(T!(%_LC# M#'Q6A'24':(+B_@96),+L3@K;WF+072HE-B:!;`((JH`@BP!V@WM3I&L5B(8)$U@>"8CGD)/H$.6ET+B]&+QDBJ.@ M=G7%`:N6)UD(B^B*F?D*;^J8K,@G[\F).;J-N7@YPM"F7(FBQ4A8GA$.%'O' MD/&6([2`;$D46)J@J4J?GC#%"X"QF"*DG)@(B7,`?1(.OCH(VQ*)ET@96(RI M!MB4:M(`"F`9/JD32R-19@&TC:``MX@,_[$(OS&3@1#%AX0`3G.+H>&P=A,4 MBE")D&B*OLA6PNU4O(Q5CDDM!?@*B964H^BQ_IGAVIP)%9L[%&WZ)H3@"4S$ MB`O0"#1CR\P@.H;YDO@`C-<(GDX#;(0E)Q1 M'-2(I:@(/82)L/&YN]0H&NQ5C]Q8166K"A+4#=XCCA4\#>`E#5H+/_43CYV( ML(2QC3IAC1?,M)'(+O6@`.J#NRA1#OE`P.&($?D5#=E;CQ4)WP=Y7QVYOOW3 MN?@"``=V8`7VC`5X8`H^C0N@8``0/@PV'?EHP0>98`KFP>+8@.<+D+K3CPTV MX-^```P6X>S0`!5V/=NXO!B6X?IP"`SFW])0@`T&@--```R..P'`X/,[$0;` M8(`A/0S&/.V(`"2V_N$+`3TH'A`'P.#_"XT-*(`>?CX"H.!;\HPAIN`B)I`. MV%Z^?&(9J>'X6&(U?@TGIN`DGF((H6$Y#I`+"&,'!JC1D(`>!H`XWI4!".'0 MP&,''N/]:,$C7M_4`.$'=F$3(0L#\.']2&'Y>.,'_N,ZUA"]8^),K@\.T&(* M9KL'Z./5*9``H&`%)F0`.-_[,)-(=N`21HVWP:?!N3T3N8D'=D_]*`!\HF5# M?@T^IF`=[F0$81*<0QBYXP`2O*8,>`\-X*;5L`"(&^;.R$'L$KP$!(]=B6`H M]9/PY1+2T-_?'1:7..)7+2#W^/0`,'D#.8.<^WKHUI&#-D)5&R3L,_OZ3 M#?`TU2!A`5:V>2&3"^@)*X'G!]8`=3F\[X#FT:@4W/@.;LZQ"]CGSF"8\1"R MT'@^T+PZ/_FBSL!@>E+`[="505$(1;Z-^?.,R\@(*Y$6E,,,&\)@052-9W[H M=*F_O8F7G>B8C)#/B=B:"^LF&1T?H7D)8A**IQQ$:SF3MP$)_%0T M.V*6B5"+3!,8MEVAQXD7JAA$KITY19'$\1E$*R%<"T,V97L`&263AGJ*5_%" MO2FQGN&(J"F;$)HYQ%FKJ)`7M*FG'@-B"B8A_DP1E)>C8`$XY0>&"#,IKPG` MX'14IVNL8IF65Y1*L%XDI)*("I9]N9%9C)#%&X8("7DIPI&9``+H'"\SZ$+& MFLDJVL,(GFV]H]&BF8:X'D%!FY+AN30:OZ(M"^CX0JP9,C%3)RDZ*]X8UFK" MF(V4)9]0B"K1B[MMI[X0,EQI[1Q>%ER*UHGCB".4E$X5,KH8+0K"%H,965## M"]Z(2"*C$ZQ6`)XD'(5H\(R]%&\*GDVQXJ"HEY?(-);"B&"AB&P\)*C8)<@9 M#RII'8>0`#6Y'XY(B5BQ,%02W`[HB$\[W?+DT*KH"].@$@B@)PNSL:BAV*Z@ M5>_!C+=X&EG3$DGR_K2^\`BNP\M@\9@P<459?!(OT[`(4R&,P10ZD2-!8;6< MH8C)H,,$`<)]"K(U<='RD@!Z*BXVH2>GR@J'V*[PP>KC9&V)2`F%&AG"A(Z7 M`R6\.H"BH*?M0AP$-*"!.`!=4AWFE$[1? M#:A'[ZF?2I2[Y(!@!$G8C#?+3:^HJ1(2\VH1B,H*<""!IA M=^!J.E#UM!CH&8B[H:E)&D8!D->TJ`Q<*BE4YU$(0"CABYJE3*X*.,PX_AL9 M`\C2W`I=:5>`E;,GE$'U#Q@N"]CG`S`>#=M@CW@>S;I-J0J`:_NK`;")YW`2 M!(":V,0,`9@L*'(@=1+TLABE8VH)D7$:]FHGGB*AU3K2.\;@9S$FXN+W,'*N MGQBEGU*.`I@=%54=Y?P``,B9/D(GO5*JCU@=;:JG"=#,P5F/L\"KN)HJMN`J MTZ`+4T.N)5TMS8*I7$H4>L(9PP`-CK"8'AN/GU(+?>JP06R:F.+()A*EJ3J@ M;4N`X1(.`6`L5_^@IW"NG:`IBU!ZC+\VG4@)%:*=BF"=1.D+JN@(T6H`:Y(D MAK!68QVQLXH`^%J+&IQ&D8D,2>RPA>W63@4Y_K!!"(C`JY]!(,?HBP3B":(W MB9YY1(!:F4"\_(D@"9Q("L._6U-BP[1!MCXJ_;]``+6:BLS/T@XPHL788*A( MB6X*Y`=&"WJN(5-B$RLN4!I=>0I&B`+H&0>FKFC_-2L2)H"?(_8B`&''RD*T MHA&5JM&1?`R6Q="]+M61%968JB>YMCDU(W^Z2?:Z'BS""``@:(((,-,O@63/CU]]%+'UP`4P$> M]%*2`&ERY9@)L?-+ID7*$6R`!< M0?JGP:@R.B2D!P^0^M*8^FDP*ZT,>@!7!AXH`-.F<`4@H*RS/NI?!'`]F1^' M,`5`'Z'12CMM?ACX2>U_'#Q;7P#78OLMN.$&BH&8_5D`4T4=)`!3K1]X8"9( M$8$(5ZLEOOK?6#`M$$$$\(*TZ0?YSEJ`MP2B_@J3JOT);")F$!P`%Z0-4@#7 MB1(\4`#$MN(*4KL'1BDIL/H)^Y\$<+6FT\((Y)DL3,NRJJ.X,MXE(6GUFC#"YW=_C+UU^H-@`D,WE2P"/"#N"'7#^6W^A@W3` MZ5C"5)R=N`8K>'\9_BR_^`>U`[`LXY!?':_FW7M?\[;VF?H]^9JS_)*4O[]T MKP9%SI=?F"\-,.#2.Q;?N'\44)!0!7S#5:=_?@8T.^6.;'#)D'_25"D#=4`" M%=`?!6;WF0ZEKS\=&%GS2H2`"B0/@U.#2T4$M,#S<:P^<(E-^5*HN MH$`'TB*'TB.B#8`4,`"'3`> M`+HR)"DM;0,TL2--T`@2["7)`AKB0`;HY)=4Y<>-CHL2@5QGJAPAC&X4_O`5 M7!!0%PT=43^!%&+T#,2!"61``A&0@``!0#`N!NXEW3)D@:3DIA(9H`)7'*+R M6M0?"DQ@80%H0`4DU"M$)2A])`1``SK@J0%H*`.$$6'R\N,G+V*`ET*ZP`4* M]L/Z2+%F6%2F$P>D@2]YX$:(4N*(:H;$_VR`/GPST#(_H"WZ6&``":```2B` MF>I!8`$-@,`%'$"3!4"``SFYP/XR\(#!["\Z%ACH`R$010=0X`$5D``MCRD` M_=ED,!*8@`.:HH&@W"8"$$B*4200Q396H*0;_0Q",DJ!T4F`+0>P(S0K``&& M`@BK0)`9( M``$(,``!%@8LFBB@`_KD`.L`D!DZ`70P?GQ*!OB%@88^=8T`**DKO\)(N!#@ M`%RSR08<`"/;\+29UA%*!&BYE`=@H"4)>$N]R!*!#?@%`D;<'D@(`E&D?!2B M.L6`!1*P@084M$030$A^%F`!_=U*3!/`CU9S%Q($U),#!XA`!GBR`)%.%B0% M"&P"Z".!XD3GHT+UE0528H&+>H"H#GE@;![:QMDZY*`@RZ&`P/PD'T)/9P'5+!-3*#AO8-#H`47HJ@(%4"2X>&$A^;A,:WL&$,5(B0&B-10#= MZC@!!G!`:MF6ERP.BP`$^`OR]K0``G"```,P6@$,T@`QRT:'U0YV<09@@'\; M(`'6LZ\0" M`*_>1C&`O`70*`$8Z/$#TJ(;HJ#90&4W@(`;182YJT6`H@^R7UW3IB%X MI38'!HKNM3-`-B:U$YBP$+$!A'V%SR=E]S&1EV&M^&5J(@$4B3&2_%3D.P$N'42-`%`QR93X36_`"=WTV$IK&&_PW`2Y6& M`FK9TX'%:K!9[LG3`B@@G;2&`.8&F6V2XG!+$!'*W!Q(,N5'00!%',*A"CW3 M\G"`I8&'?RS,5<$$`*F3T@"/?JA:;.5/[L38ASA$)&U`I5@/`%P3@E27[@P( M!1@`!;Z$9+3A?T"2HJ`2'`V``W30\OA'!IS3?_3,@%#,@+S+`)Q?BX1*R:"+ M(<8$CU12S'!B@1!-F]QA3B&(!H0/SMQAT800,<9,<:V/T+3-?[#.2LD._H&@ MU7_4(IO`#\6<#ER\87\HVQ@A2`$5R"8EP`%0X.T(B`."1#5F#T@,`"Y>$/2H MB2H*B`HS^"RSI9SC\.9,P4!MLTBGW]AQXY5H%( M8_[`13H&(TPX4RF-C8!P(P$1$AQB``3H%44:2'4QS_V\Q"@-SCPZ2#RFXCNB MTS-.BIO\DF24SCJ6(T'6Y)^PT##:I$Y&"R76FX`D8XD0#_T@WS1"I'_DSC6! MT$7R2D8V4H,`)0#T%(/0RW]8&@% MI9#@)$VB)5L6"!S!C#S*2,?,2X04)4RD([V!_H0$'=]+&.,V9HR:?",7+W`EE8:6P5-`"$4AD5B0`#`ME@H19^`<<)8"<;*9L4-9:EN99XJ0N:B=H M+@?Z$<@L'E`=`AE1^L90$)*>`Z&:\*0L'_)"* M$**!P-:Z;4#HL4@UQ1)),I]"0:9_2B9T3A&]^)$'R->H!*(^Z@=@\:9W>J=H M2AD%`!2"N$T5T82U_JC*-'V&8CY0>>;/0X2FLUF+$#U0DGQD!DC)`TGB@-C0 MEV3`&$7,(WF`@[7A[;"%$<%2];`(SZ2,JWI@$RJ.DU`>020TB`_@$` ME%,Y101P)`=TJ?\1P&)IFO0]J])M$%AL@"D/1,9$^<&G3P95`>Q<0"AJ:QQ/[E MUT$4VP$`!D=:@/GAB@%81TJ8`G18`&(.U*V4C3Q<=8/8#U\0M>^,K^<."P M?0B@"1@#6$`G(0^`I1RXAI8%`(;?O<_2-80%+,`%^%G`?)(H&EZ36(5D.P:)S;WL4GB=F5_(0[+0"Z-0`"R-.PN(C+ZFT"S(_5 ME81YL==E(C;XE5H*1\[IB<`:(O%3.N>AHR% M0$0&,$!J!8"@965L_EV`^)K5!E"@;Q2`;GV9J.@3P@(M)%9`5[B%%6X`J1R% M"P8`W,:RN5KKZW6_$;`U&@$S<7_EF M60"<5B>-B4E\!N9*;VR[,WTH!5'D35X9G!'YA0F.'^--%_BQ MKFHTI[3UE&$PW@$X4/D:!\.A!46LWY9QM$6T_H1#N2LFD5;L+<5/Z=8KR[1J M-("&W)/+#C7ITI5G.-%O(!9=3`!MM.U#_1YI.J`7YK4;VK42S`46.)54J)/P MZH3UV9<=WTAZA$::V55C,T#)1==1%`1^M-)!T8D>*H`'\):QB?.^7``':@#W MW4R*.HA!S!>#.`9Z!HE]@DL&M.:(2$9V(\A<"DH<=D!X-P@'_&+PZ$>`#=O!^#D"Z!=!T[ MY62T8$`W-D@T>8^._F9H@VR`#DF.TYPWAX\XB4M.-XFX*9JJFJAEB;>XB[\X MC,>XC">),"KXC-\XCN>XCN^XN+`XC_\XD`>YD`^Y)M4XD1\YDB>YDI4 MIYMLDX-44`;@AP=\NH7,TIL#2/@,P.CN#RT1A$=$I`%0_AT^B*U(Y`@/#*E;/MQ-.PBF8DLF*LQT<_E5.)*\WY0>A$.\"UTUV&(YQ"X@5M=%"5'Q$1U9, MNBM)!D-Y.01X@-%^F%-YU$<56*5!%%L\-T4LUD8`%`R]1H"PXWHPM]$"E(U0 M@$-(AP,IU#076'NJF&L-E$,KMD4L!=P^E%P-E6S\FE`EG[C"4WYP!$KPD'7` M[9<$P`-XZV*ME'P)!S<[=Q@'"56$EESA$U%U_M.'E523R-1E60?-88#2F95- M4)3^<-(A>_M!!?V8.'V8!TD2:TO:RI-3&)Q7.$A4G,<".)'*TCM\V#Z]!X`DBN^H\A18"#Q7Y)39;S)QV0)3C M;HU[;O/#*_-]@T=".&$GX8<;BVL$J`O=N=)!=9+1!D@`:'2'1JU:,=_K!BP0(&`#P(@?'!0X,,'"0(\ M$&`0\8.'`@HZ*)CP_@!!AP0?-#CXD&#`AP`4'J04(&&"@0,=!%Q@0$!!Q)L. M-20@P,%"!0,/"C"P,"##0@(2/J2,,,&!P@$$,B@PP.$``8T,+@C88.##A@00 M$%0@<.#`!P)+&V!54!3EAP(@'UC\D!/#V@L*+%I`0*`IVJ0=##`HH+'`!`@% M9@X8L&$A!`D(*"#@$`!#`X$5!FA0*<%!![%Y4TZM(,$``@T%##@X$('"W0(< M!EA08-"!A`!-"40XVE3!6[!A)4@@,!:E!P48(@Z08('`4`,$,-S,&0$L!)`5 M/U"(`"'Z!@(#.BPH()GU!]L4`%]H"#B!A0EJ.;`F/^`!>[4?'EQ8T'>\_@_^ MLH`!`Q:0*(&Q##!@@/HPB&`BDB"8(*L.G!,0`0\>2.#`G!A0:`,!+&B@O?$Z M.""#Z`I20`((\)NN@H@,:&""!AR8S@*B+`M`@P5\9,"G#]**:`($\MMM`+0N MD*NR"MXR**L/.'"@@MW.2F`#OA;@8($*"EC@@I^$Q*`S!"Q;2ZT$(DA.`0X8 M@&P`"B9PSH$,$`!K@/.@^RR"!RZR0``-$$C@`@D>H&@E\*XBP*8";NPLK`XI`"#L1HP((.1 MRG.`@9P&4,`!"!A@0#&<,$`@W"\UR("!!XQK<+@)QI*`*P324H"R[L!UH"ZU M&F@`@L8,T.#5@3I([(,%,H!(S0,1H#$TUA+(;V(#$KB5W@\F()4!%!>0"5>I M%&@+@F`K:';3@"/@8"W(`GBJM9$;]$E2>\?,@"A8%TB)@`(P<."X#0Z"@`(6 M[S)`(U89`%@_!1*@@`)B\_O8`PL@4.#J!W!-R4#/!FB@J@8BB(`JPV#-=0-N M#]"`P`/XM=<@I`THX*EY+XA`R`@T>&"!42>P`$ND";A1P`>JD\AI@`4*,ZVI M=ET``@M@,V`#@=*B_GQLA33X%@*P"H#6S`XJ6-C8";``"!Z/78@[0+J8PZE`"`A.)$@:HI%@@`!S` MR`8YV,$-:M"#(11A!T%(PA%Z4`.Q.6%$/-"!%;X0(QUX``Q+B!$.)!"&+VP` M!SVPLAKF$(@>]$!#@H@1"4#FA"U,8A%/>`'F;!`"%W`A$R5`@0K,)X02_I@B M1A:@`0\`$6I,#&%.5OA#)FZQ@WH3HPCO9L8UOG&#,GRA&U=H$YX$X((!0"(< M^=A'/_X1CAI8$B`Y")0O$A*1B52D!R.`1B96("DY-$D0*>"915[2@QR0(B$Q M8`%,?E*,'*`>'M6C1U">$I6I5.4J6=E*5[X2EK&4I1\O$RI3SA*7N=3E+GG9 M2U_^$IBHO$P>]QA,8QX3F$YO9E!(I+;BN M)'K`C1VX0"0M(,TX8F1)EOR@E"*"@2]>`(06X$`&I@@L-&Y`@QNX0#$]<$AT M.K&8')BG"#>@@7!&Q),>Q(`ZA2C%)XKF`QWP_B2PGCA"#O2S@^)D*!T3VD$, M8`"))=P`!N")$>9X(`,5)6A$,]I))7)PD/14:0?79="P;'`#&1CD"%,JS9EN M<:1T#"$&.J!2;WI0HT#D``8B*<(6.C(B*85J!STP4XQ4P(DE[$",=NK"CG;0 MG&'!@"8CT@%_?N"D]/S`3M53Q*):=8064*L0U8G5LV($I4`T*T;PB=""GM4# M,=KF!;]VF@M8@`*%JH`%+O`W#$"@`E&D0%`N\,5JO4\N$K5`)ZF%@2MV3X,# MV!AC&2N!ZI2G`AP`WD*P*`"0/&=O1*O`;*O%'.)-8)P2T``$()L!"6C0+)7) MP&8_T+X$2$"*3ZG=_G<*D"0+:``#$XBN[B*B%>3.%B,':(`&3'O%2F8`;QUP MG0&"(J\A`L9JTITL8J4[V\WFR+O1'>L'&+!834J@`A'8P`0$&=W0?B`"%P`@ M1A)0`3!MX#L:X*X$M.N!Q`)F`UV:0(R4BX')5N"C78Q+'O'?)A3Q.CWAD'I`O80!55#)$-&&5AA]9@[#2`5;Q!]J-ZJYUF-08A M`,ZV.(RM@`?(#,DOBC;`OBWS9G%U`<^X9@(9F(!T)\"4@SG1LU#;*GX]6RCH M&D[)7*8!``':``B!SE@.@ZR^]_HF@F"V7#XC+ M7JMQU`'(^`&PG(5PD@,:OP<0``$``.,9+T!QSK*!EEDX&,:B]$!A+:Q+UU@`!>XD0.._K(!AEM1+1WXVU\T```"&#T` M^)&1A9Q]&F?0>=:"&LF*,`[H(+M-[>#<"J=8# MK$(J!FN74?_NSOYFA($`'`P!]H-P?JK%(:;D2@,'Z)U*\O,7EN'-9A#(0$7H M5I>!W8DPJ5'AQD?F_A,&4&!!JO'=8`3R%N&-YXM>`CP\H"M@[H`V!6CHA=G> M(C<&J0%J9RD,@P*@I3P*4#U>8ES^12M2PT84`@#B1`$68"`VYD!6@U$,C@%8 MQK4DX&(TXW::HC[^Y5H43R$$0-`2P`,8X#^6)``:X-\<@&QXJP4%@)283[MZ M9P,`0/'`8Y#((P#<9H9XQP=3,..J$.,.H%`$(E8LHRF24`$XQI->Q2\>(`)\ MIS@`H(6^IBAT,%`20',RD`'*XB$)@$*H-S0CE).;E4R)`!LQ72.ZP$"X'8$(BJP)`/:_F<% MGX4D1'`WO"T3OV-&.J4BF(-4&@``PL](,F"W.J8#52($6_%#`A$`LB(.O[!` MP,7$0`0)'F`F`W M`"`GZ"56"H!`]NUV[@<"`J!61!!]5DL$!<\*'V8@5$\DJB0#G4XK%J`_'&XV!$"` M(```,J<&+<-(BJL=#:!%!*!7$```Q,M1&DLM,,!1=,,H[M!6]@[*AOI(UV"H`QQI`V8HB*PRHLS2 M@R9%%P4+B![`D;0'+CD(P?ZHX;YI@PS`"CMJKZAJ+[$I*HV(GN22AU8FA'+M MA!+3J1B3@SJ`FVY)FP#))*N0).^$,G.)`-GJ@ZQP.'SI`D3SE!8@*P&#C\`2 MF0K`"E4H,_OH\[P2IU9MEFHIFF;SCSS`"D4$F79+\/YR-*NP-'DSE+(2XQ@* M.3MH`*P0BYI3.D-HF'9S.M-*ILM(,TL@H_SPI'(HXTB`-(]$M3:C'QJDLS8J3&BCG#LH4^RD8[ M8%UJ"%##"E@^5(C>-"R8$YR@BP,<"5BD-$SE3$0CPC,BB3&5B*(,K:F8_L@S MD.A#XS0C!$I0\0JOK+0#-M524Y2FKC2D."B2]K2L%`RO_,GC+HCTLF\D/G%= MFK3'\K22&&NI[,@]2F:S#DNN3M/6O",HY$JN-(@!BF.D=,JA\DTQHJA&K0B2 MP@B`#HVQQLG='$"0G.@3(0-@-B!']@F2L&K7!+,*-V4"3&G7.@FZ:L0G,,[B M(*>^Z(O,F"I=O:,X\"LTP.:*(B`I,.`81TKE8F,I6`0F5+,*'V9-_F:_+,HE.6C!.L""H`]5"PI;H+T,(Y\*&.Q8 M;0`VLSP]:;(*)`$"H#P!P"0``T)(9',8..,"0"LL[C_#PCM&!@%\ADDHN($! MP#R&$A"K4!._5A=W14`31BT00`8`R)@F#2S-A!W M:"\,&(J=;'.*(U#FPC@60SE?QET24)?X8D/R!UN<4U1F1&'L+G!#D" MC,1'EM@AQF5$0+DD-*,[&N`!E.=D?J_PR`8_JKE5"H\EP1E;[&6'D!$06\-% M5*(`IE@7@993_#.$W84.:Y$`+JZ"&RAIG\L'QX(!`.!]%32$O?$JGM&$@S@0 M8:7;(H)Y`F`H]%DY&4(!**4@_L5A&U@`2F4JQF6&Z+*!`:93K,3G%L"%8#)< M`D!22+-4!(`@`A0PL`(I7`R<(?KHRK.2&MAU_K!C;P<@`D9F0P"Z/-W%68I+ M\=[1X3B3W@*Q@#%@AG2P(D(8+,X%:!K:GK-R)$C%5JI$`GZ3BW6Q`&I0`%.C ME]&%7R#')`%Q8RBE1YA%)R8@(>2"0+I1>00@-HA&T'SD>)Z10(C115C%5H9N MS[)N;93R0V:B)U2B-5H%;Y;X1AB`/NM#>#KE*4=H8YB(>5X(37<)`Y`Z*^4I M(I`T$&\%HJ&1+[6F"N\O$&]JA-RX@3L*M1?ZC4FB@UQQH8F(@T@[Y^*4M@'` M+=U#2A0:J#,)AY`*H]TR(P`9X^+S)'`[H$,X.D_"GZ#[@#MHBFTB267$"CW:*RKD"DX*(48\\4S[JL^&N/LLH/` M&.."UXBR4C8#S:D]2$TSCL-)`J,-P)&FF,>-#KRK4+RONH(CJ0,"\:RPXF$Y M"(Q=$[X#D;P2IN2@N$(M-$,Q\T(]*#LS[K,WB$@SF"]?E(,QAHL`H//,G\F6`OQ"D1ML.ZBLW]O0WUB:Y/S!+>`P14C% MO=-!V]6,>CKC[JKHJA`U<=SD-@B,`T#'3\C:`:#0V\D*45.$-&#CWCQ*2#VASC;IW9?_F-\)W MW3?(G@5]@P*>@ZP\CFR8=Y#]@X)B00#/.,TI$*%JN.-]X@U4V"TT`S"^<@Q> M+HF=.)F]W(N(Y->^K#`^(IQ^@S:=NJ\[S771LD/(1>-[%W.([E$^JN">HL^= MIH:<@XH^19L\A!G*GM%=+L([CF*;B7B[/*_"X9.>@[K>XFT(P->23S/)+$'H MHM!\G3(*1T=UOJ7DV9_4GX#OD/;^<>-(YS&N[&YT],>^"M/>"K6(G4BU3'_( MXTN^]S$"]T_>@U2>@S0^OF/\JD(8`CSTQ_E>,D6H^`-=2D15H'S3"L,*Z`O_ M84]_KR"Z4;=((_@>_@"N%"/L^$[2'C`(0.:& M`1TV-!SPX0).D1\F5!A`04'%I`<\0&B)]"C,E`T+3.B0X0)+#&IC=I#J@,.# M#0<11*"0X0.`O7P+5!280`#?O0HP>&#P@4)7#10&`SB0(26'!@<<*^:0@,.& MF!!PRE3[08$#`TUERG6LP.``"1\R+!0\V,`$HSXS="#@V`*'"QL=^_X-_J"` MAPM2-7Q8`!LX@`$;&KS\@$"Y<@-I-^/[`+13(WD$`CL4T$`%942#@8$P5@%X%OK76 M$`$2+,"!!@P89=1*&C3@6``>(N#A8`&TA`$&.'G@VP-&56>A8PZHQ,%N)B+E MTF81H+6!!:E)($%J'"APEH;88=!!!P)$!8"&,2:P`0,(=*`!;U/A]$$%%&HG MD&@61'E43"YYT``$)6ZFTI";>:!`!6CQ%F,`>5E`0%`9+"`!`1@48,`#$`R` M@0($5$#9!05`T$!#$T#P0`#P#7#!`P;9R0"A_@;(9X!=<7U`V@`'5.#3!QLV ML``$"7S*0`4&%-```@Y`L$`""D"@@'$$5&7``!H,4`"?!3"`P0`&&,`!`0@` M]<$#4-4GX@$6"&2D8P.`&I0$$7P0IV\04%#`;`;@08ZQB[Z`GD6[L$+!"```0( M$`!R`APPJP`%(,#``L,&@$!RON%YP`(8<*C@``.T*X"3CQ7`<`)[#IMG!`8X MX$`"!'0`,G^_#5L``8)6<$""?"DJ``40'+F>@C)CJF-TCM$G`042,N`LB`)( M#(#,!*`L&)P\/>#;_KT#@0$"!/@,0`!. M'H#IV'P=<($%"=39F&,&)#`O`1F>DXSH[`%6O&RQP@`0,^+5K!69)T,"D#,R*@0`6D)Z70!-,$`'A"TS`@`,4 M)'#8!PQ8T'$$PEY@0`-UPA?!!`88#H%>;Y:$:*0#>'#``0X\<&0`!K8JP;@- M.'J!?.\E;$'T'`!P`0,))$J!`P44\$"8U`:(@$EB?G#`4D[+RR[&J4P!$8C` M``A`J`9L`%-6.4#W"J"H`8CF@`3P`+T6B(`)%4`O'4)`!BH@%+HM9WQX_JN` M>;+GFPM$X$A3H$`&%>,8 MYU%``@X@SV"\2`%JM8Z,!8C`]A@0`>0X9E#/\\``FIB`"+P->1'86)AJ]8$# M.B8!BGD`27H4J9G5RB0)^!NP*)#+#0A@9!>H_N$#<*D`OG$'21J`9`,0"9\% M7(``#NA=XSJ))'NA2P/1>T`[>UL$A#X8.0AQ8I(PV5B`=$8M&&3'0B!Y&H1(HD$==HM*$:,8Y&,Y(1BU#4 MHB2EJ$`>*M&)@K1(#=D`!!98T8980'`"H4H&"C"8`QSD(1L)'%^F]=`/U&PO MK&G(1U.:TXBN%"%5<0QB*FH0@12-+P982$*H"M3!B*1(>8':8%[JU`\XP"<3 M60A(7XK2B'I``Z[<2P,<@J#!Y*6A0[T(7/O*4HL>YX[`60!*H6+$P8#0J3AB MCT0'LJV]5"2P2MN+_GE0*MB(3%6$D]6`6P5B`,>XAJH2>)!*+1(3F.3DH0H8 MS`:?*CS7,O2T''PELQ["G<%`0+"%<8A&'?I1NK@4I($]:5([FM&4IM0B(W4( M11MB&(MPH#,.P6I.%]*\E3Y4(\Y"VO><^+7H)HX"P0P0!/ M(U+9O2P+(DL50'@'DEN^L":]$)F`53GBQ=A@)*Q\,0Y!C+J7AT1$M3'Q:V`Q M(D6!@&0PL82(2BZ\$?(&#'=/+*"TGLC*@/DUL7SIE'K9@Y'(`N"^^!4P1,A4 M(@,/1(0C'@B!]U*[@?A&QIY"\4O?2Y!\<37#.G8,1B2I7_XJ>][J8($C>BV$+L@$@MW@P^X6R?P?S98J(V<:B+@/`90FBY0*7UT&#F0!Y/1!:O@B`*@.)[QE.OZZ(+,&@!E9C*J]\*@@=!Y MS0(!M:@!(R)17R"R>T9(HO="`!XGD\('3F5$D&U>9%<:(TL%@*D)XFA5#R32 M?R:(BM>]Q-BP^-D`J'"1;3O@-I_XTANQ(*7A_BTB?WL@E-!>=ZP+TF4`U/K7 M%*_X1[Y+98MK?./!!L"P"\+OQRA``3)S3)H)LNQF+YG0AD3``1#`Z$)R->!Z MA1H^RYS`!<+GHO)R(+(G%R_CRN/I>$,Z8),> MS+H_D&>^L/,"%3"KUBO=:8Y8F[[LH8"I_HOR#CG``F?W#:/_S1>,+'OB&Z_[ MK76MT*O;?>]5[OC'>VZS"LK=A5;.=W^B3.T/C%W6OQ&ANR&":-^T,#?M;;QO M$$O>91NZO!WX]EY,3&+Y3KT\5>?+U1?N&\?W.]-+$[O`"1(LFXWXYAWB2\E+ M#&LC0R3B=.>[[Y4L_F6%$OGWQ.?O?EPKWI#[IND$:7?OEQSQP:A:YM#&2)]# MS9'H^^;Y`_'\;QC%D=AUYTF<8W%=\"X@1>&!&D$5&C%>XA9E4`)F];$N`+!IXM4`!/!+?$%!QG$4 MFE$0$A!:V5,`]@Y8=`F%)V0,Q][40 M&V@0SZ,W0WA(;Q=ED<$!%0"#R>$]@R)A^:%>!M$SD0!\('7OX/"M18T_(B`6W$)$Q:@OC,P1``)N6'2.&+9,WA(XB M/+\"5"]2$'4#A1MTA!Y(`3FHB!-P%.EE&PMDB6N($#!!$.MV;4/G@^>E8']A M$$`85[#W7<)B21N@)^\1)D:G`9Q2`1?5-U&")A+P%D61%QI0`"]2(ADP`'GQ M+A?R01$`0AI@`#C!=7W#%AA0%#Z1`&>`&& ML1(5`A,=$#D=P`#2LA(8(#1^<@#W&$MA,AS@>!X$(#8IH8]3\S<2D(WH80$Q M`Q.Z(0#K]380X"`"$`'TDX?)Y"F3!0+8!%(86.@XBF.XHT5HAZ])3N[`8\X MI"DE4P&&]C8=&15!:1LO$5ZKL3_@J!LN$2/76"5?H1<-D`$%:2ZM%``$I!;& M@2X30(_TF!0[&4[G_D)/GE$[#0`Z'<`6#9$`R^)9,+$22C4!+-VF4,!]D6( MZM15SR(H`\`!7_8=<>*-3_D!$<`!"+``#:`ZLZ(!AK4`@R,![X(G%.I+:W``.M.4IX,\462E(^F8?K(A&7`Z54(`"=!*N"0`')`G_CVA M>)T1;@I0`#Q"0KYC.!"S7[/B'\R!*Q/``>[3)%TU*]=R.GSXG;9B`!:@+AU)/Y1J)/%CJ8V6 M)R1Y+,*$)_-7K,.#+:31-,;C`58Y`1MT``W``$>2,RL&@ON``:@$"%D0$P1#H=@"WGB"Z4\Z:`PDX($&W8TP`)P!R[ ML@!Z"@%R$;%[LFMQXH4ARCUJY3[?A`#:E*'7BE!1Q"L@`A\B$12[XJ1Q@G5` M4C(/J"CVD@&M-"KZE`!0JR@`P"L;M"\9\)6[`C4A.C[C$TF[LD1ZT3R8%$O? M5(J9]"W?Q',-0SP.$`$XVSZP4CGO(P`34).N0A?`$F:S,P&OTC^STJ-]I(^( MH3G\@P$(8P$(DC]EPSC0T1/>DC\DP2KC$@$'$`$!H"?M@1Q,`AT/@`%4&P`O M8SQ+ZB=JE2HU)!R'_O1-">!>M]&T#A1%]FBRJ')75ND`$J`R#-``(G$D0AW\H3">`MV/I#>B$M"X!H MIK)!$]-UF/0MT7,D#SBM'N`A%L1.WZDHWA-+1Q(^>C(RK44M-618*F.3_.-# M04%#/*M%,&,`0:-6&3"]'@0=7]$Q#\`UH-E*,'.VAFFY(`/^6D M%I2T=D,2KY-,.H*MOKJC5)-_K-" MJJW"HAB@B_1'7LJ(7H4\7AB`-[))7]?&$8K,9!BP?N.%B'R7?R-Q(PSX8IL,912P>>>! M-Y`&`9)<=QWP'>;%R+@6JGH\`:B,:[R#7AY0;^(ER^,5?+SFR78GDK_8R[UV MR\%,S.,E`;E,S=FLS=O,S=W,S0Y8 MS=XLSN-,SN5LSN>,SL1,S7Z,S_FLS_O,SQ3Q M77?\69`G;22(R1ZA69"75%,%>T,W5%$&RD>X_ETHU5$*(5T?A5S`+%YTQBQ3 M>%L/S5?EE7]]!5=]G,C-*%44H5(,D=',.,G*R-(&@=&0!X!3.(4QS5$9P5T' M+=.!/,E$U1$8\=$@W8#,-5/*E6%%DF$&6&",3`.-B$DFB=$52>&7,9$=4@**$7I3$1K>PYT2'UI`#]D6 M?'T3R;T=*I(7?FEJS$8MHOP60G$=4=(!U03D9Y\&:,O$!X4/@%T8C MVATKD.W;%*`11R(3+E$HN*V))Z$B,0(6L7T4;!?+G_$0`Y"Z"^`T$.!!.+L> MO!D:IJ0;TS4;.7D0:JH943(0>[)VY63A="$2C8(H/Y(A?KD9Y;@04$%*+#$0 M0F46"Q07+C&;:(D9$%Y51I(934&/CFD<9KHER+G'A#TF)G(@`!OP+VI[*$?2IV&K MNLPD/XOB$T@9M9."N_QS'!W@F32[C$/6G$IEM'%`AJLN-HX@3P1*'C*-7:_@$$1(J?I+FEHBBD([@[&**9 M$2WXNK.N"Q49M`"O$CV^DTRHGIZGTCSWLFBD@R+SY3'.,ROK,AOOF$>#>A(Q M(N(3$!*VRR>DDA<&,!0:D"8#D4.BT@"(%C;(=`"=-^\" M,>A.,BS122^I>^!"(U04T^Z')*6(,0'Q4S&UM``O_Y+TSP*E?*)6K3V.MTBIIEH_XFY/1P)S M<[Q6?AXI@[-"9%0Z?A0!(F&QA`@S:3(I_2*-KJ\IVR,<`"$@@X(!'@@4X##@ MPP4`&PX@J)`!PH0@ M2"GW=#)*,.WDDTDI/[#P44<;%?1(#025<]$/JE3R3BK[6O),-@^U:3XU;7+@ M`DN+W-.F-..T2:9'_YQ@@B3[C'320`7-D@(';E5Q`D67K-6"!+($5,TV[-U.!/1(W4,M9N12WR@`VLQ-)/1Q5M-U-RUZ1U MSS&UC(""#YZ=50-FK40R`P,T@,""Z9!M,P((X_0@@^2"9!9,#C8P??_:9.Z![QF]HHX]&.FFEEV:Z::5+0 MH-:FH?:Z;)\QT-5LM8W\R6:\D&/$C)-P<]=-%')[UTT\N& MW.W#B]P7`-=?UQS6UUT7H.K3C6:=]-SAWAUI#&8'H`"QO>Y=[>*9!KXAJQ$` M?J*NC^\9>J"E[[IS(0E`X(#"L`QY@R4G'FC6A7[J@&([N9(@;.\C2,L#_@TV MF)@#",`NE:8+L@0^``[V]][,C13:G[\X<`$,=,!?9EI6N-P7/XKUCX$+GP;>Y[X'J`M^%)M.`X?(``'"CW4`8`\*Z:.D=6&Q2UN$7Q?C!\8B M#>`!P#/`&B-I1A45X&,3>]_$S-B!#$C@8T8Z_E":0CF!\JWKB^YS0`/R.!T! M?LR5-H%*!:+$GC_VT"\`V-_$9!C,-#4'>!A@DP?0$H`($$`#':((!!R0QRPE M`'@/@&&62E)(0X:RE2]+Y/Y`M"^ND(D""Z14!A1"`0!L:G\,N(`+;<*5#<22 M8BBDY!@!772&2PMP"$WB8M5.C2L!2S@``U(0`$0`-0+..``+L') M`B:@`?8D"`$#B``#!J``#ES5K0?0%Y8*\(`'Y.8`%2$,`7H4$PZ@Q+(%P,!# M*:"`OR3U*Q_0T0!M9"<@ MS1(Y@`(%\8!AQ;I3!(CQ`!>X$`0L5('G9J8`2EFHPP8FHA#AYP$+4(@"_D8B MDPXP-24`8D!;`82@`R3OAUDK@`)<*X$NA2@#".#+9:5"`.!A[T4>2,Y2[FB` M!5@7J)HM@$X2L``+G!4YY-*K5IL[@)J"IB05P(IKF1N4V$RC`0;G"9*3DAH+$M9``8M*EG8IV6"@10/+VBP!/`J"R M3!'8:H`[EN%H8#^>O$SVEC4`#CSZPEBQ``82_J#,'B:'("_Z4)2&/!8#&(`F MN#D/<#H3D@TE52(JX4!;[4BF!R1@10(0JF7JHQ2:V&0!!F`M5P)PH-08H$<` M0))FQ)I)`729MSRVWP?D6/#!!"DX8^'M103#@+B^A:D5Z$AE<`(!._O:`8\& M2I$``(')",;;,&Y`!UCK;@3`^T,]EK5,CH)+![A7M'"%D%Y5E)S`X+DPR!5I M1R"@U8"')@$EZ8P'#EQD!6_V`0K;\G<++&U/3O8FTK0L5X9<$H74MS*OB[PIS"306U?`10(`> M4@'_#&BA1^12A2CE_H%U`J`#!A``"[FD:*;&1`.$62H"N*ST`[R%``HY`-6Z M0O+/XGTC!K#SFIN-5X0*"=XN5*45LQG)\LVF86:<@`4,>+`U"E-32M)C#B'` MK'"9"7BUFPX''.#&BF6)`521X9)&&,@>.FF&'FB`+E^8J$6F*0-!2IN.J<$UG5L.\/RNJ/RNB MH3+*DOXCH6QJOW79%(K!$G\)%_9C/"31HQZ:@+"IO@"B#W=Z(5+:%^]9HPWT M(C#:`%59/RFR"?B!F"\:F#^9OBRI#@&,/?8;(@^X`)L((EN*H?U)DAGB_A8` MJT"BB(`41+_78;88ZB%^`I-`\A_=`\'^>YE]83_@`Q<9#";SVR)\D@GWT<&" MX4+UHP_X\24E(4`ED;\KQ\K@C\/U",8^I@_G(X'-"#QZ[(`VI0'T+WJBSU_643Z M.,,>"AS]T1H(R!JFR8GB.3Z=:8O+"40]VJ/;*1OI8$6X<<5]:1A5+,3*::*R M2455/)ZR@QV?P2=5M)W1V8"%:1KK^9S$R9]75,9E9,9F')H!`!YG7)O4.4;$ M249IQ,9LU$;0X477V<;JZ<3!,9QKM*+F(CEQ_IP;4CH1%"D@N-D`"]@+"T#' MGVD8H8H`>52:F9F`I#(6ZLD9?>1']E,:#<`12FQ$I%''I)*/X<&<`0()"CA( MPZF_T*J`^8`;`SHHJ[B?K>G&L?":B7R^4#P:]\&1H\#'Q:'&FUF<4BRM`?@J M``@`DF!(4U0)E4"`WJF*DU*)`A!)G=F`-W3)UQ$`]9A)(VDTE0"0WI$HI(2, M:AN`N=NW93F:Q'A*VB&)8.P9'_J\$`(OH'&KK33"KC2:(WH*UXG)'3*:8?R\ MEP2`H6S*LMF,FMPSGG&(FI21G4FIFDP`1>F,N0.`L?,9#3C*RV*/?3A&:4[IIZIN>0)H9X$DQKC&9AZG6URSMN$R=KT&07@3MNJS\ M`5(:_0J$H8H0";:*_7:8L[P1(R#4\F,9(-T!<'I9V'BL8B>8`UO'11"<@@XG(`D>I5$\.W]$@>B;(MXZO#@@(3!+@D MX&FV):F`",!/`%BI^I+-V;D`CX"`SCB^-SS`!5"Q M-86`S^(1\H"`V0D`P@`.9*6IQUH[`BV*=,.D=LNH!ZFQ@F,>`%4P\-(*#0"> M>TR?JIP=#'">-DNTPC@KUC(-D[B`/@*-HR*/3S5"B7-.68,+ M9?TA\H!78WJ=Y-A+@R!.U]D*O'NHE.C9UFJ+_&DT!/`)F<6P9K,DL9B=BT54 M5_E2UXFJD$H`*(60_@X`Q3=,GKSX,[-4UK;\JHEB,L&-QC>S*84IS@!87`#M M#2_+"R@=@&%1I[C=-P_8-V$!$0P0@`G8*PH@+..`@*:XMPIXP\=#`+$JD@L` M*@_`MXE0JVT9EK?PDK89$@_@V]N-``VH$-@]L`,H@-9X*PY`J1"1#<@##N6B MB';C,HJ`QYIYJ`Y,%)J`"@M,*;H(_4((>WX MR="2V?`0+3>M@/VZB>1A(;Q(@,3X4+BX"=5M+4MZH@%%4\[JC+!#TP/`_B4+ MV(I9Q9Z-B`G@:JXA&XAFB\SCJX#YF@C52)X>VXL#4`"D36)G:I`\+8_EF@U) MLU2;<@#AC=N_Q*T!F-MN#(#5Z@UFJ['LDX\)"$YFNXCE`]+'@)/TA9W`>XDM M-I*-[3:P<@"W0@J[2)X*B2RLF0GYG1UZ`HWJ&%8`X+'O.F3C$%[U..`!0(T> M4K3@E`FL,JN%:`@F=MJV&``..HX$:.*A-(@$*(P.$JII4ZG.0@X."#.L`J). M3)1[^KX+")<+*,'Z\Y>65;DL"40#_GT=BK.E^QFZ"##G#D"`1.$` MS97;^M.7)4%6"WT?\V&G*OV@8N:`"6#+``@;#$B^>GZ=_:"8/*S#8V;F-W.1 M'B&E*&D>+/$2ZT`UPI@`BLF7`8I;U)V/#,C8V7F`#-`B&(I;M>HACY:?^F(? MDSB_A8@GC_8.<-V7`&)F+\&`G.A9!;A5*P)H[!2J&'+4[BQ!5^F`GFX(8F82 M-)Z=Y!@@^K"`+99'[W`5X'&`]R'(#0A8`$"I]T'F`TZU3_'G$%E0PC#G(++; MUP&1;$T4+#,+4`:3/-2B:RX@8P[J+=8B&2+(F<;>:]2`N1[6='['A>@C-PT2 M[ZB**J5E([%EGS/G_G@B("WL@&S6HID.$H<"G_KK``)J&!G"@'=^OPL(1"SI MY7B*')KQ')5,&B0I*Y_)SJ7)'W2LZG;:&7)D'>5LVM=>3J`1&[:5V^FLPYZ1 MSITYW.3`4(ZF;2.8&`"C6F=9^C.,1[Q/5&8*927+F:88W+>!X=+NFU+L&7;>[^&6T)SI`%)=C)TQ MZCJDBJ%)0[+6[=F1;UGL;0DGU9J:DA]%4YTY7`(G;Y])<=>A1*,Y7)&>_I+* MB$:=N?#9R;X#UQH'I\_Y[F[MGAWHSID?_Y0KWIF>[G&;T5-XD:EQ,W25J=@5W4K``%)QP.>`_5`<>(3UYF)%?+HCO!]Z6G@_O,UE7`H]?-]$61(7U8I M]_"?Z0!8K:2Q=T(N=TWJYQ,C?RG4GU"C<)*.7-H=WUU.>9U@;1??%U("WP?1GT#44`_D[S<%Q)-S].A.\*C3<2"L=SG:G<=:X].;->9G%;UXIF`_41VEX=Y>_;)78]TG@GY"E5TIV%W'^?X=S?N M3R_RHT9/3-H7.`:`1"UX2"_0G.GRH7&K#0T`@*?U?;%UHL'U.+?Y5=^9T@+2 M#_>;8;]XH?P92M;Z,LUSC_<9&VRF\&1V9#=YYTC.$-\7!R=E MQGY5[A1I9J^`O[_._L"_[L'%,Y-6?),>ON@!WIE?=J[I^9RA4DW/&:!?>IX) M=9\1;R095N?1F4.F`'/6^[Q/[)WQ]_$^&@P0J?`,QJJG"([/&?U>>!KG3[QW MD83.?8GUF5)R;^GN3>7U1'_,&V-O=^$^>[/,\]2'SN2\`*1_'8)/>0[?F0$_ M>7@'U:[G9M"W&@XX"?7=^9=&#O#7&7\7=:OQ@(]R3NFW&@=O>LIW]_G$?J'_ M;M/K3PP,/$(!NV"`0P@$/'"8T\(KTJ88/%VO& M5,#SJ86+#SYTJ-!RY8,&#PAXZ-#!P,4+'2#T%#@@`MRH07MNG%@UY@"S$PU@ M8)#`P0UAPD4%30U\T+DR_]N6%RXNP,!:P#DVD5X- M3.#5?Q,ET%IT#T@`VD4#7*90`K2IAE0"]$U4_ED%&`#UP04,2-`8`!4P,(`$ M$FPPP$44_(24!`\X4,$$8$%`06641??!`?5Y\--59P55E@<$.&!!<@F5=<$$ M4'F@@&8710A!4!U(<-%5T3$``0-O'2!!`@=(%2-2OWWP0(]93G0`!Q!H0(%L M1U&FU0(-<`%07[@0`,8K%:D:SXQ!U0`&-Q$@`$>2,```P58D)ID M`V`@P`$-)/!!`1]`T)@`"42`P`0*(%"!`G@-\``$!4RGTP<&//!`!`4@T,$" M"I@XH8X%%%6``2Y.%($#$&9T%@0-,-"`EPM.I(`"#2*`@04#<(5``A9$L.@" M!^RF4*M:X7>1`1I(_G`!L`FH-!%7&QI0@``:7%2`9AX4D"]Y"FEJ7WX:,``` M7PL0((`"&0A0@`+"'I#```CD1Y@!"+E%00$0L)2`HQ7(Q1X"%R5PEP(4+!F` M`1LH@%N:`<(*@`4)&!!@J040D#("%DS`0`8=!'R1`[0VH-0%-#H@(`<0`Y#9 M`PM,8``$"]MU4<*>'JM$!"EP00`4!,H#`L#Y2X,"1-QW0 M@0)?2K#P!SE%T)X"@9XJ@`,..)IS`14L#X$'-=TT`(("+/!``4\RE`<^=C'=].8`!*%

VRT`:\="3! MN"Y0+HV]S]!J"CGQ6+ M`,X2UDJDYQT/'&`"!\`B`#X5``8(RB,36%)"V`.!R3QRP5Q2>O*8M1?#*#*<#&>`J M7'HB4XQTP`$4*&I+_=03I""U`D?1RTJ&@Y0/4`"H0?**]IAHD[+L3*Q%T8KA MQ"K*A!1`HF)SCL_>P@&;0"LA"6"J>ZZT$J#T-"MCC58!+9"=OVZ`@RN)9VNX M4Q:D,@`I,6D+UFKJ'H$<-JD3K`Y@-72PAAU(,4B3#()@)1(RE[@MS8KE4OKUD2!";ZU]_`IJ8-'2Q'_IW" M5,#.)T)#$FVS``1?(%*,2JI6&[%,F^M7O*&/8/;F5I2`LA%0-F"H`D$>0Y09Q`KQ%:H0&`F)? MB@VI%2E(7LTU(PY/L"!+I$@&%CP1#P]DECK2[QL)3!*"1!8`/#'(?@KR.@8) M)`(A*4B$+W+?AG2`PP-P@`1BBU6#@)@A#FFQNQ3\`"Q"S"*\T4A_.S40QB9D MR03AP#?EQ\:S&%@@S;ND!N@X56#M5R8'V^^G:&(3^^8YT(*6VHQ'66*#('B4 M(DN[>AKEX0!`U?(,PTN$%^S>I0J@^T%&W*!1Z]$>!"7N&0# MG.ZGCWI1-S$WU*L^_A`E8@<")09HXWA"Z]?$Y"GB`TP__ MK2T:8/&-=X@&&H`J<9$3[P9I>W(4-BB'8%'<%8!90B968@RX"CMO*<@&7`6! MM,=`6$OR(BD=[H$ M,$#+?>?]ZSMRG:\I9(.$8;O>'[#\RNQ$^!@I_O<%8E/2MWMU%5"YU='MYZF7 MO_U5YX"UB++?H5C`_H*.R@7FZQKY5UU>6(#_^5Y)#$7_995,'.!\W95^_GF% M=US`5.@7__D?^ZV9NZ#;`UH`@0!@!XI;40Q@!G`@``+%`&)`<5@=!1)*`=*: M6/6?45A@1P!%_T4@"WK@_4E=0MG@#?)@#_K@#P)A$.99K.&%$!KA$2)A$BKA M$KZ?DCA-8\P&;>3%:01(94@A8X@(C>R*B"R``W"-%$9'!;S%%'I$60A3`VC% M!E1$3!``ZFV%%=+&;.1'FE3&>-@/0]"&1S#*'W'3`.11'=;4^GU/DC6+0.1% M%)(A!F"`G,P&M#G``EA`3$1'(T9A?I!(931B&MV7'.'%))85!?1'T;Q%]!3& M%,HA8)PB7)!A'.8%7AF`7\1A=*!B3'B``JE)_I#H2(1`1$@0P-V-(6T,(*A\ M8@-8AW9I%RM*84\8CHIL0)>DG,=1@#T=@/$@Q1?&XB%F8A[&21U:&'MTRA2V M8ARZ![`T1DQ\74N`8QY&(>L,8G1$2'1<@$UT0`3DX0-P0"2"HT`(SP!T12WI MB#A68B5R#26"(R+JA7O\8VZ8D_DX=AAHEYD8H_H4C+V"`;P1"7* M5SG28DQ`@`5HR[)8X0900#S&A+I$(@>\8RG*(AR"1IA!(5X%CA4&BA4V8A[R M3P/LF!PN``9(8DQ8XR%B8SC&A!IR8T\`P)]!T3HIA>$$S9=T0'M@0`(,C0S9 M!VY@@`1$@.^D$3<9_D#1?)T!,,#(R!&E9`U<80"G/``".,`T^0AZ.(#=:,#V M!`@"1`HY`I!`A$T!W)`,4<`"<(T&'8>Q%$W^6&4`U(@P8=`'.-$^!8`M']-$OT+`U@H`A[)!,^?4]!/5MPC%6MT0@$ M9,0!N.:LU-@Y+@`%-$!.W(^;:.67",YG-@NG3$[D612IG`O.0(L`X(5EC(@$ M_"5#&`#DD(K%5`X"1`#;.!*-L(T"6-ZI^4@#:`#-7(##4``;V0L%<$WE_C3. M`EB-76R*Y)S,*W)`R,!,+?X0`$3`J<23`'3)!AW.LA``M]Q$0:%'4KA)@`3- M@$F`)R6`*G5`5XQ*AKJF`4C`YQQ+`41``UQ,^'S/PEG1INQ$`03FITP9-Z'0 MI^%H+2%``7P:6"``UQ#``R144TCI;B(`:^;+S)V+WS!+9*A%5Z[*BK;0B&3` M`B!3`3!`!;0'/X;/K:3=7-*&`GG.EWR(0?70`G'`YPB`NL@77V9`T'S/H/1B M5T2FCQC`Z.6(W4@&:@@IC;3E6RY/IS0A%#4`.H76K`@`=@!,W_AE%VY/GD[` M@&X(-XFAFJ:&H"``5X`B/W8``FF%:4HGO&G=_J?,IP.PJK0\@%I836,,0/X( MY0,(Y01I!3JQ5#X-P`2TDZW\![[P9P8H`'AT21=ZDGM]"BO]S/TD#-<` MP`/D#-)00,2A4"U-_DH'0`S3'("(BL[2_(QQ+66+/@W$P*L!3`#2#@_*A&6) M>(J*O,KW+$!TP)WJO(J;6)Z2V(IQJ`G->.W1,>FF3,J]RE?2N,?7R5%*L9&H MG`RJV,6`/H#33,`3?<`,01(!:,#_%&E[C"N"XDN.UN1OB2']W(@#H1,%5(]Q MX4I&3)F:?(^@K.E/4DA["``WP1VSLE2TBB3;7A.\U9$50A+._T M,M5C=4=(L%`$P&.=@2\&U-DQ@:]?Y`9\9`!08D`&U)A-T)__Z@7JG!=#_E@` MH4@4_?X)-XVO8^[,5C*+3\`%\R8P\W8`0PR*6)W@"?X)0T0@:$A42#'$_MZO M7_!6;NSO"(,(_:Z7!M38!7<'HPS031"%=$4@H_1O5H2$=UB449R@3RBB^XH( M<(@-;-08J*26=Q"%!3P``X.@:^QO1?74^69`G>V,5L2C]M(O4"J`\H(4^4K4 M4(A@D]C$$?>?1R&*^V9%;IB?"#*5^3*$=BBBB%B+^(J4`1_@`R?P%-%?;DBP M7U0Q_=47^!K%!0"&!UNQ"]O$4[DPH_@?95V`\HH(4VTP#BNP1(&&"ELK4]E$ M#GN'8_[$=\"%!?CO0Q6R`0.6]XH5_65%_SF4_OM"Q/,:!62=C",[!?T*Q`8J MV$,%B?].@%SMKUB=<#QNH(C`!BI?<##WD(CLC/]N,<_`R!5S<%;<\@4C5``T M8,7NX!*^!%5,G@#=#SG8$:'=$F;]$FC=$JKM/QA=#^O]$O#=$S+ M]$P[-$-?BYL,!(!^3X86VT#0"HZYH3XNRUQ&DX\,77Z@!$%0P.A5AB%-&YA( MGT#H"#XKM:<$VJT4_@0C0Q-[Z,B%-(22=571(`6.-D0WOD1XXD#=,71V7-!',#VM8=3QZUQ:$6# M!!A+49P"[&![5,``:$4'D')H'Y@'C)W3?;`&*9%`*!CE-<"(((A`2(I#6$"/ ML.YHGEF@(`]_:LR.S5M59`]V:TNM#09D_AS` M^?@2IHP/F[5NFFR8JBQ.YY;&U]D*DBAK=I[*!J!FI!Q'`/1JY;Z/`OR=Y=D4 M0_C2%-G.4C.*7^ZM_L01P43`N4B)U[IV4LSC`?@).7D`?@1`07D)L`)K6,XE MRZ`.VVA/2DF.`N0H5>;;\K3LXG71VPPH%-6EWMHJ!X!F5\?1 MUSF`$TT&/B%/,B5)`%P/^PR&Z"S9O(WKT@@`LPPXK'+-S+E/4ECX*;TY`P#- M7,I1&D7$GGX-!DCNP60&!J@5WE0.@KP)"6V8LZ2(PW`%DD2/'R:3!=BJB!"C MJC2M#^WEK$Q1W?"/Q*P3`5S,9-S&ZW&`M$@`_JPHQ0%\":KXCEN69?1-T?V, M2=T%0'5$`()2TL7,9>LY."M-#ES8AZ0\@,2&N2WI2K6HW5M$VFCFA.%(#Y7) M>B1+QM?E$9/V*IRDZ6UF@,-(``4\+(T"CD#LII!JRCVM>MW]#(59@.ZUB-7" M:ZI*3U+4)?\(:=`4`+,H0*:.$"6YNFKD2%W:ZFX6GY>4Y9!5@``@$SD!ZZ?< MS/$ZH9'GJ+1`^,(DP)_N]0EU["N6!:5$BFC&!*ZT2()J`+9."O^PDH@%@*7C MAV3$3BUAAWN9)G@,COU<$\KS3XV0(@+]*5X(0`^%5G#3B+6^A8=W\:5_2L39 MA<[8:JX(@$VQ2(O:_H2'-PWHNC;NLNW1?";`[/OP(--@:,;WC$_^(&D!W4_P MO2BV3!/7_)'C+$"Z1NF=Y$_'0A\R'8#WW3?,,LIK3LM]U@:ST(SS>DKGDA$R M1;+@D,[JG4O0SS>VYBI_"CG7-,M3S8H&.#Z-BZ$!S8^U>L`^H<_W/)7JT(BU M<(5./(R%[V8$I#H;75/D2>L$`0#*U(QGGZ@(,##`0,.(A0@\"&!!0$9/IB=H-5"!H(.,&C8<*&"!0\4 M.K2MD.'"6@H/*Z3U<"'#W@D:/M2]2R$M!PN$`U/@@$$"APF3T5[`X->"!@R) M/53`\'BOZ`P;*,S],`'#!H):)5]@3`'#A;89/*#^0+=#8`N39VO00,$S;@P4 M+"3NH'EP!0Y:-7"0K;5"Z-6UVUZXT)6P[<1[_C5<2)R:LG3-%7Q7KV`2-6,. M%#P\;DUX0^C"JPGOSH#!\6P(:"[OM+.L\FQ(`OSTR4+L'MB$LP`P3B M4FP""$^;+C"JW$-/J].22Z"!"#1(CK#A`CM,JP\Z^,L"!D?;#KWX).AIK[8@ MV""NUH[[X(,-)AC,QK6<:R^M$U_3SH(&TOIM-K<>;.M`Y?CR`,S:-E"MNAWI M/LT\`D MR`LV#L*SH`,-0M3,_K+="%UNOTPYI.JQTSYE;(,?`ZTK+0P$^,R"`)X34TP* M)#!6V669_<"#9J&-5MIIJ:W6VFNQO18M:I_-UMMH.>C2V`DBD+9;:1'[5EUG MUY5V@W:;Y2`#).%E]EUCP[VWWF615?;%KV?U^I9Z*&)MOF"!QA```$`F"Y`(0^+9EEDDDV.VNJ4 MF_EAD MA0=(X`"\LXW``&:3:_:`;,43LP,X/U```0@4$,\#!8P]7$P&#M:@W`46^"#= M#SAXH&IGRQ;3Q4`H M\`,44_/5#%(6?,.QE=?8><5$H(,%NJ4<_@\D2+W:]S\@.]8PX`$.T-7A@`>M M!$QK8.)KG)@V<#H()N]8"TAL`$)4$`&"F!#BXBG`!]1@`,>4(#M`<`@#6B`]AY@I`D< M0"B,4YH&!B"Y!'A@>`8H&P(*4($%.("`711`LOS6@0`HH(H(B,`$`*#'J[S+ MA@]0``,,4`&_>2`H&#C``"@`)P@DBP`'4,`!&+``KRA@C1F@20,.X(&2B$D` M"9!``390@`-()0`4($`#'#`6#E"N`4IK"$O$1L@H=J"3?+Q7!23@`0)`0`!/ M/&,#UO+(\"B``UT,0`6&1Y8/1(`C`1!*2C[``*2`DH)C*8D#9OF`!K!0`1H` M0.A$20&H?.")?'RB_B6'1Q<+*,"(PV.``P1P@`8\A0$'D`!4.#!+!W0Q+0S( M'M)&8I0#E&N3&BB;`B"```O@40!K9`!B!("`@P[/*PLP(C\SD(`('%&&3EE` MN>@9Q@0`)0$4,$`M#;`35&:1APL9;QU;P@``1D):4FEJ&J@5#S`6`AA@`4VYP,B29H`(B&$)B``-[UF)>BDP$04.L1_@<' M@`>4562'O"2R9J*P`'C`;U\5P`?&>@%9CB62G2-`N80+U@)H@(\6Q!M/'L"8 ML;@D0@ZP``X-8%FN:/:0!C#`!A9HE`)D``(/H)`!*.```RS3`@;PR"!1^=L` ME.N[&Q"`!<2IV,=Z<0'@@XKY#-`!C=!3=P7PR%@.2L\\BLZ.!#@)`69R@75^ M!'`@(0IP"T"!"&!DO@GF+39Y8M$'O$UK!H!3`SBP7O,*9S<,2`!&XFJ!!1@` M`Q%@"@$>8`&\C>6:,@QG52)(@`F\<1W'>"Z M'<"C2EB2D>%18`!,[%\"9--$N7[@`1=0`(YM_EG-!F"```=6"0(0LP$(K!,! M.W$S`R-$.3(`-S%B0&1`G`X[V@0P<60(MV5Y+ M$("[``S9CK$DK2=-R8%00\`";?8@/\0U_>-`99(%@?`PAC)_KW%<,KS-E*?727_OGV/I5*K9 M'>=U$E"`B?"&'.U,/>^#BDN2ECH!V9`7`9HQ46<.&:71T-QS2UVJ6Y(U$&&A MYS\$Z:@;X[TIF!):H40Y`G^P1$"&NWI-Z_MF, MB@$94#UA8B^9&C/&)Y\Z^VIFAR37V/PO:U;56K9'D,EJ;61X019D5K-4_D4Q M`:6^.E7D3?5$P_`FJBY^KBT(()BV[B22#SDX8#`&!#G6K5PJX#(<*^R\!#TV M(`*>(UG6+GM,B.DF`';$I$L2A`!L0\GX3LZB)#4T9T=VX^/D+4EH`TGZ0@): M[^^VJ3;8KC7Z;NJ")6=&1X68128"1@,ZQE\>A@.*!5K.I8;4)8$P1@!ZQPDI MA@@G+0J;<%VDL%F2D%G"SGH0YUL\@,76!5&XY5L<*UHZ0&P\PER4!3&P,%J0 MD%DB0&PDJ%KF$%O,<%HNJ&#V\&:H)EMR*&_F_J;NF,80A^8+%=%@.H8#W/!C M*$!L-J@1`P;C%L82)R8^7(MI!`":MM`+H27;!@``CBT0F>7P#(!I$@!J$'%K M"H81\64"`(IIFDI57,=;DO`D'L`6Z65CO(5,%(!I%F"$L@4"L\8!7&A^.A$` M&(![J&5>>A$`%.`7@=%S(J!NG!$OW"42N84"OHII-@L#9'%9PD9K_E`3V\6' M=$8='\8!,HAINL\)Q68MA,MNS$U:.*`!,BA9J%!KU.5U'*`4`2`!%,]SQ,9_ MXI`!XA$D!H8#$E!KEE%9)$!L`&A^M'%LLJ)9Q(9Q,`"=$M$HM`;"PBF#8(HC MM>9P+H`@Q88`I&QF>:!%;&QBES)((3$@'BF169@K'C$)6U1) M:[C"'>L%$]L1*??%AGPR:]+16"@1`UY1:RH-6CB`)C/H`?XQ:[X%U.PF`'Y# M;+JP`JI2(T,1`L3&H9IE`4:R63;,)P5`)NE):]B._L9'V)PR'ND2N$:2*.)1 M`)!0*^UF(I=%+>72@8PE(IEF+`K`)_\P`YXR:TY23(!E,I/%6H91:Q22*;V% M'5O',]N%'ZUR(1B@*P$@P%`R:P*`,?NQ62IB;`H``2*R*KW%+`.3-+,F%-," M'PF3:1"`8>9M)'FS#>W2#B>3:>;P,;-&`H(-+S$H)9^2TYIE%87M*05J_C*[ M<':2$V>6Q34!X#?'Q@#.I2>3LS(%R2K#*I?$1A:?,VO"2S35!1.#(G?4)S2- MY2[6)N\V2-&B"S_!D)L`9UF()UH@0!E+,#2Q,#ZM!0V=I1(W@'(\@#E9L0GA M46L8XT3TQ6Z6*:QTDS6C<$PV,VO80FSBLW"L4QY1$P`4SBW'1@%N M#$:99BUH[UCLQ@`NH(92;"L9)5S&IC+)PD$0L?\ZP`!.2VOT1UG`4QZKHB*W M37HZQTBZ;3QY@@%(4$P0*6L(('6*LCE)%!4A_E)K9$=(M6-9.!!;Q*G*7[NL\`<'#.)(``D*4`%LR0(@MO%L#* MD"VR)&"@FH*;9@BX,B+H'JQFES1,2YL4`(JQ`5RK4L>&(RRE&J&T M:1Q``B"'S,2F`(3J<6[V<8B(=%JR`<((WB;@*\:F?PS`)OJ&O,2&M>#C`\:& M(63LV\CEGTKV%5%#G!9@@9XH7)XUA@:@(`BIM;Y"W4+)J+"HJ0923"I0&1?@ MNMX$Q6CSHW#FNB[NEH*-MW0-*B@`HW`(`:HGP2IM`'Y")L1RD]@+Q1)C`7XK MBU#MJPB`YE`-`G`7R6XIG/Y)R"`GIUQ2G)H"?ZRIB1*JR:3MELS"**YH_K-H MDW'$")0,:JB(JW/V5$>O=FIB8MN2",G:29S&)B.(5:S&9H-.\R.&;#P;H";$ M:JP@R2/"CI.V;<[>!:)O&!LDZX%F^MS$) MZ]R/'A@S)!H)7YGL0X);R1-GD?0`G#.?BQ@F#D`K1]C)59C M`RN0`Y5"]18'-29EZ\)EF$/$F2OCD';:H(DCNB1`>+POND(DF:3.L;(#.9[% M^BCJTZA2MWA36EB'#%^F+Y?%8D@T76D425>S,8V%H0*(+)>E2:,%MAG(6,J9 M:<1PA<0F--^3:0"(+^I';+:PC+.&M;-':PI43#Z4T`IHN2/+M8T%I2GH_C>4 MI9\5TUG$9G",98[\4FNJQCRS9DV5)4:3U5@^5`!*%HS4J;FY&W0^8Z`)9RUA MTQN;18B;QB).B%J$FQKG.S,I4K3'Y+9ALV7*<5F4LA";!14]\]22TU*M^RV= MY7-.&P#2,7VA1;:M)48-)[>5!:6C\K?1\;6#%"&U9@XU.#D!P']413PG\P_!\[8!,VLZB,`'E@U1-FOBB@$Z6UF^ M>8@=A@GM9<#5D1T-7#ZKY<6*2V8XOWU93A3"**7>$>7>424T\]S6?539 MLP:[Y7W7Q:37^9Q97%,F[#WA$851C%UKD)W0_=T3&_2KWG5F;[)&K7W:=6O* M,]Y3"=/7BQL^P;#;_C,]WC?=TXTE/5'46J8Q:Z1P0LE<3Q.].H'[A2BQMK$\ M=QP<6_9]66Y=R%]<6<(]7XG;6@0]19,=Z+/FM^('O\9&Q;6&@CK^ M,ZE]6)+\ZI?%NYG&ZE=[VVTSGSO3Q?\=SP5^-YJ^U;UR60Z:[-GP.X]]T('<"PW= M6]8\R-4<63Z-Z[%>8>ZK@$ZC6$Z-`0!T-1`#J:\G#R=%7^CB`N3PMN!`M@4O>/#Z@8$"I24[!.!J@8"! M#Q@23""P@"N&`0X<*,@@8$'*`$`C)'`0`8+A_@H)#'@@D*`"XX\7$B1XL(#! M@003/TRPT`"!@0D-%D`P@"%"A@,'(C=@T,"``P(,&"P0")N#`0L0`BP4L`&Y M!@2J"6!PH*'#<`00CA?`F##`804*')!/:$!!`@40EGX020!"!8:W%6R,6&#^ M@`1#`@`0)!&M^(`$#_AD4H"1""43PP`$2?*!A1",:T$$!&PR)T``6+!#9`0KD M))(#/!*`@`/%#;B<`A(XP`$"!5P@D@0"((#C<"(%=YQ,#R`@P``&8.19`Z!- M%$`#$!P09@.#$N#``0TD@&L$*2J`HP$!YF9``WM&L!@$I7UPE'<28."0;!DX M4%H!>YJXTE$&2%#!`"6^AH$$,E(0P`+.1>`L!AX40,`&!_QW08W.%J2`H!$Z M&.0$`BQU46,3+'#!`58]%(`'V&D@``16!=!GMP9$<-QA`ZC5WF\$<7"E9PY2 M(`$`'W2@P`4-%+!`!I`ET)AO::7$@`8&T%E``1W49QJ+`ECP@``D=?;!_@!T M3I#`:WY:,$%P:'*ZP`(B!0!S`G!!>HU1`"9-OT\@`82 M+IA0`2MND`%"8`.`X0^!*D"(&*F*T$+\/N!I`>XM*<"-8ED`7P'1%``V`C,CT4D`1>0P`4P\,>UB:0#=IR` M!HC2I`'A9$`/P$`&^N3"3`)E-ABDC4@,0(&!TC$#YDR<2%Q8`2="I'W)!(!4 M+'`E">CQBQ%A$3=I.8$QKK%)B)G`N#!040\TU)18)&1%-3@;>M)2`Y"\*=9.%$(!BR)IX M@0ITM5\>"3 M9$[+(&N%7$3D4I$.+)0MF?SL5D3"EY(8S[`>V$!F-8LNGD@4KA7Q5"SQXDX0 M]:DBH.R;`'Y;DK5&Y"]F3=UD`0#&05`];(6D?!>P%KR98!<')F0[Q:$ MB79-+UN7"0#<4C>N,>^_C' MIHQ`YNJC6B!/%E@`<-Z(C5R13/IWQ1%8$`,D`&,FYW8"Y,&45JS,Y1]?R5%: M[G))O.D3\%C@R0,5K?,N\&0QN_G-;,TQ87@,YSK;^PMGG3H`XU M6QZLT9*@>$FB3K6J5\WJ0A_:(RA\0(3Q`LV2Z).Y`GX`19SY@)5LV4\.O,`# MOKM#MB"W(AA@@(H[$`&L25BV#B!NG"%0H)(<>\PQ.BL3V6*6&27`(0D@;4D$ M7!*MD(4"#W!(L0MR_M'R0(#*%B"U3LSR`0I8;\Q*A,"U5;+DAUS8E%!9;J[? MFYOQ_A2W4*V(5SK"$Q4Y:P'DTG4"J!V!#8"%WBKA28-U614;=N"S'IC6L1F^ M7-(B5Y_TI@M;/)#!PB(U/AX8ZB@$_S9.<%T6<#)!!0 MHDO;(TD$R@(LWF]K%PBN?WGI5^J=;KQT@`)H1E<=#?))=7:E3188JP>XX@"D MPL0@@O$7!&LF*F[IAEDSXR9\'I`!:5(`4I)A@'&"M0"$O0]-Z3&`E9!H@.HP M("FP2Y0''`VI/CFE+T0.?`C2``PMP4@,FXP"UY1!2_3&,0SI0I`@PX"@%(8CS_!H`;BZ` M6#?:0),>$Z,%0-)6T*8`6!?@O\L%UI_&*5VO2U=V.K7&^60$3@20%0%TN1Y! M#?AIA:BB%O0(,D'.(DZM(F`<6H5N,NWQGPV-MKP/$.L!#)5#Z:$`[6(`&T1W M$<0B"X`[-X(U"T``'D(L!H``B',^$%5#ND0K")`!$^@`QU@L`8@)00'I7$"R3?A^`*]WB@4Z1`.KT,M5S`!KP'GJ2'N^1 M&@(T*!7U@ZLQ?G;X@,[211"2*981(RQF<3)B($611?X'3[MS&`LS0;6"&Q*# M(SW1@EFE=U`8`6!5&"DRA(+C?VC#`"52?':7`'4G'6L(-U,#-P_4'P50*[X3 M+WN6`0]0*)>#`%HA>`-`-QG`.PY0@I=S')=#`%I\1*34ALL$@`@9B,' MP`%0PP'"D9#C(4"C!Q6N2!T]`QI$T8X:0#`P_@B0 ML!@P_N>+/4$:Y&,B=,(BN8@`B>*2&["&$,`X73F3)3,I`]`!JK$!8K4B#F`! M$9*.*<$8&7`^C4D`TT@`W[(K1\-"4`@SEEDU`^`OD&$7'*`N!(!!0QF'%E!W M&/1%9O$`%J`LFIE#]^%$Q_E)WB1LH9,! M^B,G%6`TT*050/%-[0@M%5!W^L0F2*A.1I$?$ZO)(4AZ0G#04!LB8F_N!83!REF53D+2"*5##:C8(D M:Q87?QL@%2E1(-]D3;;Y32@7%A2E24)VOJ49S$`)VT M2]36)_T3[9HF[9J MVVJ=9@%TMK9P&[=R.[=T6[?,]6IN&[9VN[=\V[=^^[>+UK8)"[B$6[B&>[B( M6V-I!VNR1G(5L44%42U3@4!%=5EM]7$&@44+X1MXT6#KJ6*(P1/@>'0&_K$4 M/6L0#ELJ!MP_Z6PVM497,N%#$!N2&0M M5C<5,U$00+$0#O&=O.51MH9;^O-;D=07V35TNLL3T*%&D6M#L047Q@I\;-&? MI&M68Y079H5$'7"S;94!#%!E/=NM*M4!C9$78:$29+1<(EDY9D4K([9$A;4U M%>IL*:%:YL2$A4$0$T(37J$`/"03GO1ZO%%Q)G*4>M(`>C)E MOD)M$,>)QKM4_E=O#'!BN0$L_JX1HQR8/'I2`;JT&Z=) M=`54?K]6?%Y;`.P;;!,X)X>J&;,S$\@DKW;R,]R!``($D!.< MAN^V??&T0>;5*Q9*+E#Z-MTX(Z9\09K"':SZ/-CA:"H)+,;G`?*[08+'`%=B M`);$,A_``1UR=[;)-;:9?G/2$6("-[FA&X=1&G(4=!7@DNAS)9*!G%:S%V4LX?.4QA[O9T/R'!6D1M=21K+X3P-32RNT;Y<*&M=>2]V_DT9 M^E9!8Q%#8G.4G_D`TC$`$48SO;,3"U-QHU<=K3)!]]$?0!)EHC$E#F$[B-./ M:U$`:?(24Z,L*$00,>(<7.D[L**5C-H4.\@K$_A$37)BAX$A^W@YR`N,4Y)# M,4-T&O`Y$6B-NN$NO:86\NO8V2,!$2`=DO(Y(=,AQS%EIE$B`,#>B379$`DU<`RA$W M!VX5')!^`:04*,10C2%"R,4C%\.HAG&H[EUOW@8E.@N M[`V0[N)3K:B98UU6$C`R:5$_[@$OWJ%&4%,M_JKR,YOZWZTM-@&*(_?2BM:9 M/>_F+OFC'HS*A5-C,D$H&HK9$["H'H0!&6)"`3ZU<&BN&XC!&7W1`1*0$K@" M<=163"4:,3N4$L)B-$Z$(P[A0$,G)TB(`0KX/M'4;.G&WO+$J$7L43#:+KN$ M*\+"`8>7*4J((("$A+/C$)6CF>UX0;/!H2K%0K1!;7*D1C'3%4N'U!\1AD&B MSTCX1O8FDI`R.Z_7%55J2[671=])PE34;,VV%WT7,2*8'`?J?`>U$SI,'*L[A"=6S05B`=Y2 M4:%Z5`WZ);9#%IU1_D#8I.?R*FN'U"87U&S$`8JT<7AAQ$)#H2AM$J1_07T8 M@+Y/K$X7X$5!LKH(PD=@@80>Q1!QV%6:J129T@`>,!DD/!1(I17HAFYRU/#U MH9($&!F^T:TS(FP$=$$?HXL-\,06TO=R-Y] M84H)@*\D3"M-@2[1%C!M`4_T*2S(WE#)V!<8I!09*JZ2 MJV]=\6X$Y`!+818E6+(_I1PS`9]=T1GNN"[W@3PP&HY=5<31QB,0T*T("\&E M!5ZX:U8QBT75E2&M6UI%2UU&5K0)^;M<-OCR"_A)^[&,%K1T)6YR4E*"_H;Y M9T6ZS03YBGMG9S97HD^SX=6?-+:X>;MJ'W?ZBK;XA>8!OY:X-X9#<:OYMI^V M@JNWN__[P!_\PE^U>/NVPW_\R)_\RA^XU]7ZR__\T!_]TO]CQ4_YTW_]V)_] MT]^V"U,7+#M6%V8?BRX;3I1&LF\01]0!\C%62[:O'K.U2%AW7I1NWK2SP"5I M/^57*1LRO=KW=0<0'CX,)/C!`P:!#RIT(.AAPP<+%"Y8^`#APX,(%"I2X%!P MX`2/(0UJ^+!APH..(2T6A+"A`@:*!"6$]#"30H<,$C!\N$"APL"9-"TX$.AQ M)\&5!#=#N20 MDL*$M1X?2"S8-F0&CTF]>B0Y<.E&C4W[4B"<\2[FL/*Q2(QI&PL M@2L'KD8S9)AP8?1`#Q`XFTY=.R2'`'@M$##@8<%<"0D2:#"0(<(!C`\+>!A` M@<&'`CLW/ZY@08(#PA(F4,408`.#!1$FL$[@@<$&"!KHP`$)!LB@`P4H,("# M`C;K8`$.,/ALK@0M4."#!1>8``*++%C``P0VH$`!##*Z8((%-C@@@P40J(`" M"#*"("('%OS@@`HP_O*0`:H.8/"!&PN$X`$/"M`@`0@TH"`C"A"8@$`('U@` M/O,N>,"!#U*,T<(/&%"@IP$P.*D!#"-(8(($%I!`K04J@&`^"7Q+(,L.0L3K MRN0F.,""#2&H@$`-+*.`0)\4<&"!#!P0#Z*Y`BQ@`P04D@_(!"*0P``($/A@ M`@:RP^"`T]!SH(`<.]CNQ#<3_2!-2SV\@`'6#-"H`0P0>"N"!LCT4(,*&IC` MUX$2L"!1"J:,@*D!-+P`2P<0L*"!/PFLP,4'8L20@P0ZD*#3".!;`((X.Y5@ MR6\M2&"F`NKTJ8`/%(`+`F+`0PHP@K"D`2YPTX$3&T"@8'!AI"`#!C0(T0%>(3C@@TO/NK@!"1!H MX#200HP`@C858(!`/E^%CR1:$WC@`@U0Y'2F!QZXD($,*I4@@@7(JC?$CI-D M=P$%++``@K?@R(`Q]A7#B"ZA;P M560.&M#7S1SKDXZ`D0=0(,8$Q@O@ZP(.T+#,`7K]@(".H#W@@`@JZ)8![2"X M$`,!-D@3WF>K"^!5`CR`3P#&#(B`W0'(O'&#!2X(H`,#"*`Z@!LU&&"`JSB@ MH('J"AB@R"\KN'#%)QW@7=^_&?#]H00R&,"!_@-B!XF`#P*8R8`/_"83^]LY M4$"[!0J@?@`"CBR@`*A)%\"BD1NF@';R=\#,```18E`0*0#@,%\%X!+E8`TEDO M.PE0P`9\AZ$-!$`#(R-`BQH@."N=[TWP,T`!^.6CZ"@@`AK&@GOOG0;GX3 M&``$"$``C?RPA0H@70$2<`$`44YDU+,0]@20``L@$!7*`!#3S;=Q``G2RV$"*!J]ZS")``#IA)4PP` MVW06M@#J:6J2XV/<`68F2`3,Z0,.H.4`,B*^ZFDD=F1JP,S.R*(&%<``0E2` MY+A#10UXZ6("L$X$JHB]'.FQ2Y,T(QH;0!Y87>!+!@@?7C17M@9RX':+F]^- MLD<`"S"`@103@'22M2HU20!J'D"2E\8E@0?5:U`5`9+DON>3!Y`2,A+`8K88 ML"R?+.!##4B+IC:D``\@*'+@JD`")*0O#%RI2:?15(H0@"L'5$`KW64PU+B")[6R^TI>/_AR0 M@$YI\T8GU8#_]L/">B))3SM9E@4^,R<&=*!:A&G`#C'$H0+8K&='BT`$9M:D M"W2+*MFIUYK`ID,K8$]BTK M`=)0.H'0'F-$IFUEX`#[L=@'BL:!!ZRI=19Q@'[@DP!:/@0!#N`35;R$`1X2 M36B_@EF6-K`@I$F@M;(KZX5DU3"M*91K[9*`4I'*L1AIJ+)0`=+%4M2`#S%@ M9-H!R:`XM`#8&:P#!2,H!ACP)`@D@$P<:!-\J&:E!-%2`PXX:%-SA=)0X![ILE[ M<)$2(%U&EG3Z1V@7B)$',(*B:3Y`:\Z"@%8I`)4)I(PP6NF2!7+$`._-2;N3 M2\M!W9/."K03(J]334."4V,VWHW3P:QQG8LZ21S!4-E,;2;(F.GC?]:5"'6M2C)G6I37UJ5*=:U=#9B07L MHVI8QUK6LZ9UK6U]_FM<`QJ3GLYUKWW]:V`'6]C#'C:K>4UL9"=;V5$*:N157.G M67I@VH$2LD@RO!6$ MV=DWJNG46BJ@:=U\P%*4Z<"T=_:JH_R[(*_BB6D.5K>@U/@".\DLO<^2&0AU MBR"%GO-CY+*;P%@\Y2O7\4XL[/"]E-4U78%`!C"P3ZT-1%&)P7A!#DZ0_JFD M>0(R=C6DUI2C9D4`I>SZ&\SX3DMY6J"II$IYED:F3N_M;@(0U1!FS\.VH('$ M`F$:"DL5Q#K=71=4*-HC:='#78Q<=S[0*]91Z=DFB[+K`&=W$BTMA[*`$F@N M*A.>ZK#WJ],D0'('$.U0'J"SA4V``"'FP'_263`&7"Q3(SM`\QY@I)TQM`*( M@@#M!I;=S@9+G`_0BMUXA-)(Y4OWQKM(.H%+7K#5R0,-VV&3@I:=E_6*>@I= MDV>N],/)7H``?S)3T2!ZJ8X8``W+K`:0+-GSF/A(3/$,)R*(5J1-M M8:^46;'(09$H8AX.$`"4N1KC0;%.21IS80I2$@@#T(#A2YFT>)(1:0T%6)&4 MRRH7<8`PF3&N,8`'>,(6JB`A(I\>))WKP@#MF@")")\&>`!3"1T?,J'JT;B, M*@`&(!W;"2:(B!A,_ED@VKF0$Q2?."$`U/D)6$R`06&`Y%,>]1FF#D"?#'@= M=@F`"C@/`T@AUB&`A*$=PW$>_R$`+SLB*` M"[@=#4`EHADD*AH*(8JD!N``"Q"`^5`?`OB:3QJ(*1G'/R$=`T"`3#JH#*H> M(+$=L\LS\IF)D2FK"(`?`I"DA1P*TG$D[)&L#,">`+`4&1HD#O@K#A@DA@@` M]FM"UP$1!7`>(<*SZ\D`VQ$B,((;=A$`!!B9XHLQ!Y,MVA&`84(/A,E!(;H` MPZG%`3B2!1DPV/FA!"`=I#N2_ID.(;HB6/0@+UD`?1RM`VB0"2@:=M0__MGQ M'5WD"?9RD7.11S^"E@M8``.('==`)X9Z'`+"GA8Z&MI9(5T<#]#"&MEYGP^P M2G3BB=]C)F1\"]K!,\E10SW"F@,PD#D1`&1$`"%ZD5B$@-AAPG[IGNRQE#)J M'@10@+4\I`28*_TK``C02RM"E'&JDUEJH$:B'F&*DP%`*HO<#&CYR'&4K':I M@)<('7&LG0#(21]YRN=#$C,9#T4"D40QD!G3JOU(*X*)@-LX#PZQ&![BD%Z! M"[/:#P[X$P)L2#+!"(N($10CDN(SD;H,L=;XL,63LKE0B*29/K4@,/\HFTG1 ML+0:&MG:EI8PJ%6!B9CB$$BAFF[QCR29BQRD_A6263PQF9D!J<.+8!U_W!") MT9"Z_`Q+`9GT+,BKP8^<:,B.@=&R`R`-XY<'P`!"`PV4^!7*4909K9=V*<`N ML2P.`9>YL*R`F@!.69SY,(\++=``20LMTP@LT3T,T!#J5``.T!?N@JY5B8@A MX1"(*AC6.0D-E3*B()@N0<)M;*;S2(X_Z9+&*%`U`<;SH*5SG("I6#B%`A`R M82_T>!.OFJXZE)+6:Q@WH1HQX9,_'=.-T1#!RXBL4),/0Q0@>9,GF:BY8)'> MTHH00Q20(!,*,(F92*3 M4$]N/"D@X4`I.H\+_HB*UA">M"@[-7DNZM0/0LL(N&Q"S%*6`H@<"^$C()6; MAZ"8M!*0'=2P!-60EB"Q#B@+R.@L"!C330&9]]"=9]D4@AG3@]F/";"NM_C% M#6`H`+DY":"[5_LR#!@[1S,Y'+L/A0TSJO@R('O8,'N01C,(B4$.)CLXJCLR M($LZU6A82WL*O@BW;L*#VB[H'TT#L"Y4_.`I_NSHRW:7-.`:4M8>HNV@G5:J[U: MK,U:K2TU8ZN[K?U:L`U;L1W;&J/:E25;M$U;M5U;9>O:[&1;N(U;N9W;_EGK MV8?TB93]@/88"*I!V(>@`*[0B'?M&978%'4;"+-##C[!V9.;-C$Y6W++T\U` MBM3X"\FA#;X@DLCI@)9H"CFVHK%8C\_:9*OH1HU&8@2,@#JK!;W>)/=4<\GFL2_N0@".,2D,8_KD5Z" MX0^%Z"J]!0#8*4`S%0"ABBGZ4B?1&1@*$YZ=X<:!P)0W&I'^0+$`Z8D$T!R< M`.%!^9/Q8DWX&#Z58ZD.Z!?WL9S1@)E$Z0A0^I+^B"?)@0]VD4P1B:(AX11P MP2\I_15*60EKM)RZ\16,@)$K>8@`^`^".1J-:9T-"<!0.(:WL&YD'`("2Z"PG`1`"6X",.J(-J8AN82/+HF*"@"5&)&1%9P]#M@0\X"I\^B3/UG5*H:G^4BG#IR($=V/ M#P"`>]*P7,82=\D(ZR`,=LF``N!%=Y4`#E(`=\G3J=FG*"$=F'$OK@&765*I M7UP8-UDTB*8'_*=$=[6)#&KX?L\HD2/`F!HTM%;N#0`YQR(`%`(VEF0_L$) M'_(@I*.R'7YAQX'X*_A"@,+T@,^Q(OHII'\5I%HD@)+"D(E4'D3IM`#SQY-$ M+0+PR([`'N0BDQ\*&G:42D8:'!6KCYRLS"\*J8^LR8$89@XII.T8@!.J#Z8H M'T$B';@!G2+A(.R!RP6@(:4,8@E028U0@!"QCP1@1W,AP_DB(/BXSD9G<@,CNRV3$Y"3^)%`4HMAI MF.;CB02HQ1H:E:$40\8DK^NYC:J,$Z#.G@:A_AYHB1K+$D,%0"Y+*>JAH!UM M*DM`N@B)M*Z%/!20K)6-A!3L\:"WN)1F03$,(0X&NB3NC.RK`L^]1$7R?$AP M*:L!8S[BNQ#E>`!-T:$I@1`*HR?N:YX`D0\BS!)P^0^[T0H@P94;+.N,&!C6 MB!1)TC"=&0Z2%I@HBARU&!JR0*TCL0B+V5=#,<&?V)9LA2?(N)!C^0F9>1"\ M,)U7<1?QDIE9`DB!22;&*HO[$)[W8.@N20OOY#U)4@ZJ09D[/(^G?,&4TQ=, M/]BK02Y3G9%_V1V(FA,="JF/DDZ`[([%6Y,(A,672>MCT:%V091562G4`-=S M,8\K(8DY(8LY^<7,_I+&2^*AH,&2V]04$A(8YB.PHV*H='P/RW!T6#P8BU@3 MY#6>*K_-'&PNZ[H1BZJ6!8"<7Y&M5]$460$O\>0M&&&^CZ(N#>!7B$(PTQ(; M+G&1^G/.WHHE$,X6Y4!)E&&K)1D96X$*@O*5"J#LB,"+;B&,&8FDD")3R2O*,J. MG(P::Y&8>B5YN+2;$O&-`V!Q5*T;"&'HBJ:1/90;G:,5,\DJ_6C71)&;9-J` M\=H8""#8J-VQB`*T>%^RYQ6TF`T)<]L+[0TSJ9@Z?L,QG^*S,=N+K:>U_JI7 MLD3#L4;SV"'[71V##*_H^B93L[3BL\;`L;:WM-[B6!W[5Y[M-*^E6ZT=#L2G MMH78L4@[-0>^VL>G,H?T"+<]V\7/?,W??,Y7#;/M?-`/?='G_,L??=,_?=0G M6ZK]^]1O?==__67K6@'PC0GH@`O`V3V[N65]V`/I"C4KLI1=BX@:8+EG#).K M?#Y!7#A;-`JLBQ5\#J[P#B9SN:L`B;.C-+_(?@+R"^KTB.)H-*0]V)`H?H*0 MV.1G#*6ML8>(BH*H#2`ELH)(WY0M#=\`W(>[.+@2)E:G03,4_6!!0UF,%"5DL"#RZ=,.$RULA`N1`P8,'2A8 M2!I`I84!"2@0J+``0E\(%3!(<,"8PH(/#"X*=`!!`8,!&20@J%!A0H0+$H@V MGNI@HX4%&AR`IL#`\0,*$1I<8"T:0P0%%A`[.`W!`0<&'Q8$J"C@0X4'C2M$ M\/#``X,,$2A,>"`9PN0+$3Y,`.`!PH0*%R!`:&"A@6<#'V(O6$!W00/7%3A/ MI)!`@X4)&QI\(/!A_O,%%#P0H`,?)"!!?A'LMD%N#EC0FX(%?`#!=!I(4`%. MDW'%@(02,(`!`P]XMIN#$4S@6`0%*A#!!@)6@,!#B%EHP0,8+,!722L:<`%S M$RS0`003(7"!`9M!L!Y?%300@00>(,#!!!!(L-UKX/TG'`840"":&!C>+'%N0%=-()94P.TN<9B!? M:Q/6JB5('PB0P+(/3H"@J^%!@`!W%MAJ(`;*\0??1@C.]X$"6X*6Z@4+U,9` ME,K9BNH'!CS``'CE42!A`Q)H^22%%&PD0`,(H`6:!<*RAI-E/3J0@7(?'+!I M!`\\:!E?$72`L4R6;5!D9```-H`$!TR@P`.7)3LA`01X8*^$`?#7G'T-.*!> MRQ0E@9T((`%#+@L``4W(7`:`0\0P!H&DPY`0&HNCWOD M0L4A4%AYZBG`@7HT2E#<``80H$$""7Q`P7$#I)L;SQ>@;(#;02)@L@,,'"?` M=I,.!)H""F00``<'"(SH`0=L(,!%!<2Y40$<_C@@@0:Z7LWVDP,T_L$`!7`( MYJ4-6#W`!@D<<*B``P-0T,``'J1=?P&G1F#``1$L,$`'#+``#!"@`!%0&JHDA`#0$.!) M`:!1`3SP0/IQ8``7H<`!)$```!I-9&X+0)C*DIK](6`#!?Q``1I@`*"]+DHE M.4`!4C,0!@`J`028'O&D%BH)%"\#`/0/`]BRP`L((`,*,``'6J:\6B7@8_?9 M8'\(0!W^'>T"2E,`_IC^QA^!#.!K1E3?TQ8`OP+`KEZQ*8Y_'$`D:3&`/[<+ M4+T\M4&)J#$`MB,`:`8`@0(41B`-6`"\K(<8M&T/`MVS@-MX5CD.G>9KH$OA MUQA@@==%CVG]V=4`8A>Z*.VM`UV30)BI$"?/H``\$AM..EBB-HN5)WJ MT,@_\%-/GS@@(GM53P/]ZYL!@EB`CFWS@-/1S7:JPR)\BV-Z$%!$<]AT74095KJHZ\;H58 MF4`1S8(XN_"WO_Q]2V3LPC7_(N0M!.:(:IY"RP/?A<$,KH!0-&`=!Q.8`PWP M2G(IC)"N:-@D"C%PAT,L8HI8."H'!C%_V"8+%?^,IC#C.,HK]C(%@@`DL6LYC6SNE-<[K3!38ST[RB8ZPH9<<=X1%$**.!-/>%OQP.\J@%P@""N%,E`J5VM M$;UTY"D;@.U_"CL[L"F6#QKBEQ@`Q=X-5PN`!(* ME%K=`M&`4CR0L%CC!=MWMK8'O-S?#=B;`^IVB$H,?A!@907*3\D`C;72%G;S M%]=QR7BO.T#M`^]J3SL&]T&V@O*GI(7(1/'O1.Q=\0(34<^O\T"8V(*J_MA< M8"KKNP":)N0M`BZD9&0)3P;P."&!R<8@!W#;FP2&.>TD9C)'8I(&&"`. M0!*P@/N0LO:;&I2W+F+#PYVF/X6W@-K;9:?._CJ(+A3($OXA4";:?^;V:X=6 MX7'&[KB80(S'_?';!.P%C[0%3FP`8QA`-O$(6QC0D;2>!H0/=RB*:[21UH6* MEF3)>&17DY"':`C$O;2%VM72`>6=;'&@=4S'>F4`<]@;!52`#"Y)@`#=!/C( MVWP)2ZF+;I4@>-C@0.C&D,`?L!!&C=3@?S@.QF!(L-Q;&^$'_)7:B1S`GK3( M[07(!$#)8PW'GC0-!:B=_?&(SFB&68A=?Q3`E!Q'`%#(^7@`TL0/&VW+I%2' M/W$(GZ30>F@``N2/0"```R31VA15:QD&!`R`87T`""G5DVP0V7P`[>!/'R$` M`%PB)F)BTM$&)241_@,L0"9>8@(8A@7@TV04A^@HA-L(0*AS( M(4N=D`!8E.1,``;X$@&$(O:=CU8!#NI(2!;9_LX6 M71MJ@0X#1(`O!I#;2(``I%<"7(#43,DDU<_M0`_>B(\&$,3]*-=D_*&T-$Y) M>,`8U@X?)0<9T="+)%=T9$8%S8\41<8#3"4!:,Q!I$GON(M1<0IQ<$]P08PBFH7G@`X!M!T6`0!DV=`'`,!\3(H`B)-]G8P`W:45C==Z M4),@"L0!(%$"W$N<,`?!\)4`?-<#%,"3-,YW^4?LJ-/?J-,J10T!#(92H9!H,!-GS,<155`!_`T#X)-5]08?-1/UX),O8L`[ MF5U)`$!LI`WO[-9Q>(`"A**I',?V<`:W6)$@_OJ/57)&YG0`,_6-JD\`T`D]RB,LY)@9J'=[05 MF'`+[PR'/KV3(0V4!\D=2$!3/:$6RN#F<'C*.2W0TS$B9Y;'9QZHQ(SA,'9$V2U`878`(-TB.5G&!S1`!A2`%?6H8/C) M9>Z@.+W-`H5BZ(SG8=SEH3#3'"D=!`"`M!3.!EA'=<8.P50`EZ87;9FIA(Y' MV3G(`,3-Y7P-%@5*[!Q4W#`3`A2'`+P3?P1'[IRI59[F!+119)B0=SH`Y"6' MS7P>`AS'U)2==2#(_OCIQK]`JF;5HX1)1NZ,#3[-%MG0$_U4FK!U&F]BHD'@ M!$7XHIAUP*IB1"@&6,J!'$4,9R;BZI/%&D2X#VL1EHG_T5Z[I&(M)0"@VF9,E9408"EPX@*[:!(I?1 MV[UVF(V0';Q<+*%Q`))BHN`(;"82K)MU4R9NK'\-`"8*P,R9A0(4`"8V_BR! M22PF4JS..AFE:>S&'BNO7N+,&FLH6MD#A.+)UFO*)NV!74`H1JW48J+-MIG( M:JVT\>PE(NU!,$`H$JU_&>W9DJV49>R>Z>RQ]L?'TFS.5EG59N+5FD36PBU_ M<6TF>BU"#"R<><#8`FY%8"(:/L7",FS$JJ?B+MG2GIFY0IKA.L#@9ESBP@6M M*BMZYSAB%T6Z,J6Y_ MV2,`X*N"A6)=]%@H3EA$X*Z,K2ZG52[2N&R#'<1.7&":&5@&_.R*7:ZL39Q2 M&&Y!]FS+<>S48D"X-50"].9A.`5>>!M^%!XH_F;BA^A;*95:ZV8BM\#;6EWB M4JF$]$J%PTG>640$KOEO2ZS$_)3LV'E;K0J;1"2,Q_U;7^B;4.!;1HA<6^R> M3Y*%OM%J1M3M0#F`/1H`E'9`FA6$4W2$!)B.S#:EM^&;>.B;+Z*%OA4%!Z"8 M3&B`5^3$0]!(^0(``:1+L6+$5T()"K>K1.V$7C"F(`_#[$#[_$VFG`XV)B9'1`;F!BNI0P!V`D(Q M#7TE@SG@BAE%PBE%3U@O13S;26`%0NB$LLHO3'1`GJ6AT7S$GB2RZ3&>OC5% M955`3U1K$-5*2J3)_@/`FU(4AL,)3):(!UFTQ&*PA.%@0%\DX>3UA2Z*KT?5 M6ZU<9BA"B=!BHIV\W:#X(G@@R%3D7\GRILS0ZC12P`9D#KNNK0,XH+XR;E"U MJF%0``)\LOH][24*QT#84R@*904\L3(:8.&9WEG82<)<1LD*P-.0W56GD(A"2]\3!?XH!4CN;6K);P(M)43:O>R&+P M2&<9%?JH1I0ZQ@7Z,T&#!&]]WT$42P4(T,`^`#9GH@`,R),Z1NT=]-#-_C-O M"H`D"=Q'0`F=+$3U;D0&2(FKU%N:=,!03PH'Q)!D:$GA"4P&"(Q.),PV2^(X MU102V=MPN,EB'#1C/"FNR1U1$!%@-%!_V),'W`?0]',L1B;O&]\)#;L+5G><`$H,^=[,MILDW20-(TN3+83@"B M].0E7G2G@(9#X^^$&$:1;!!!0W%']8>'=/0P\XQ5E7-GL_;`2A%V[$M&N6DF M3E@'I)!L[S"[*HZ/F)!"FU8%L+1/&E(F7DV@2-(-R0G7Q([H$K3AO*;O,NXP MB[,'3THQVZ?:GO:'#`#DP?9UFT41>5:IS4=2_M7+,5MT`Q%14<30:<./UF53 M\DQG\0K`,,N,9DO(+3+SY3UI6VU3=0]SY(".`=3$01B&9%C`P+XS%BF`OD$/ M($FI;`PPV:$@-%A;0;]A32-TAY4C+ M9TC(&!J`5V%&`42.NS!?>D5`8TX2?_.HS2#*8Q<+`LS/11.)\E@0@*_5>&32 M?:!A_UC`UR`1P=`/X&`'%C'X5"^0E!<'_+2-;=I-NC`?4/BB`]QX=5\-IX8V M`$#&-,8A9U-KJZJ.M/S1:0.`W*`.3=^YJPY'`\@2`C!X)MK+0+"B>)]V`F23 MQ$#@73Y`G/-F\V4B_OI(C'O`3S\/B!D7S)V?4P!H#Y_+K&6$XTGYHB\%0/MB MHJ=(CE3R.7(`P&XC@-IQRI_3N-WZI'%?HF!L0"$/.`"H3J6&(K5L"0QQ@``\ M.@#@]SL["'Y?9J@@``!A4=N,DZ/?>63$#@!,HP9.R'$,!KLBNR^.!V"+$;[\ MSYT;T:`FG0)8^WS`BX5YK,1DAJ`:`/!)1@((0*N8CLV\3@7A#02`T+:<1IH& MZF6>AYE69]2T!W9PBP`<^`(0``>857Y9+ER8R<*%&!-:A?%RA)+Z%^+6+%2$ MHK!UKN!B(@&TG#N_;4.D#.\!>YB0QUO,K]4FN+>;+$=T1VX;F&_GMK']_J,O M,@1'\+H!2,#)9R*W%IA7I.D![?(E1B9YN%WA^J("T.I_*#T`2#-$[&V?QW1R M0X1ED(Q+0(3;8F++`34F'@2W+&YNFZ#29.*S7OQ!*`CV]M>;0,261&L# M`&N9%&2Z]EFKX1CL!J+[/GW>(L2`@^R`S]S:^SQ%E&XFJKY&5'/-2RY"U#W; M(T3:N.Z[_NU(L#;J4,1N"D"Q!^Q(X/3/VBZTBZT_SQ*9: M*/I]942^AEU*DG&`_IF9HC7MVPL$]0,$``\?"`(P>)!@P@T'#1Y(^/`"0P`2 M'B9\(#%"Q801&1KHH%$B`(T?)DAT4!&!Q`4:,4ATJ+&`1`T5-020^&!DSH0M M&;X<*3'`3)02,VBD<`'I!0P5.3`,8&&DAY`ZJ3*0>.&AU)X/*R1%6E'KP0H: M%4A4H'$APP)4V3:0.(%M3@DN!]*42*#BW(,$A#X4P+!!7,&#"1?6R"'`4@L! M-AAV_!@R2*<58QY<65!BQ9(,(42U>3#`R(L,,X[D>3#!S\P:-Q\\^3`E0PIH M)2+06)-A:HUN&>(T_LSQH$_)H$>690B5JH<,%QXL8)#`*7*P4QU_/MB78`,( M#[9WSJG\`@3GQL62E4BQ8@>)!B+S/@C7L5[7.0\P),#AH574(P>LCOP?P)P0 M*VJQQ@(\$,&'@*JH`H8$P.\#ZBR2*2?K#!(-HYR`,^BLX0[Z2#.3ACKN-I=8 MLM"[BB*XR;'3&M))(@&*DVBVG"PH8``!+(PN*@D)\^`OAAZ[P(`<=V1HK(K( M,ZC&A]3KJ+VW'I//H-(T2TA.`*1+2(/:-((._LF1 M&NS-L0T!$*XB.)64*,F*-J@OI)">ZM$_PC8($J'".@`U5$[-DTVC)P]B#S+W M#(+/L$+1TP@"'@GJH+)66X70S6*I0DPQ-HU=-BY-$UKQH`&*JC,D/"O24Z/1 M#K*RHC\[S%2B01-JS:!#"4H4*[NVJ@C2\C2:]"#?"OL34P4G>]7=ASCHCZ$! M!B#`7Z?2G:[4P1`KF"T/^#U(`(`)(,#536%-;[TH&<*U,%WEDHB!A#(0%F1B MF1WY`V0_L$"`##+`0$LGQ<6@K@Z6B\L##<0EJ`(\K:WH*Z8TM)[I^:1K_M<@G"C`LRF&;#LY(5L!Z/DA M"UCLU(-.%2*6W@]67K1H@V3<`#\/L%H@PU\)8M6@!!HPD&DO)=@@W0[JF@H# M#I+^8,\/-+C`@PV2!K)IICP8B&L`"'!@I@[(532A&I<$8"RL+OA(5H-HQ?D" MJ2&JR^PF(;]Y2_PP@$I;@RBR`#N21"0H[&@3$``!!`H@(('DG?(!2)%`4""!@`PNX@`)&!P`C5D!^$Q@A_S(0 M`0@$,$8:T(XP5RA']'T@`1;D6V\P<(`,G-$"83%(`?3XMPA4$I<:T$`$_B[P MOY78+XX&80`K)^"`#$@``K&K``0T((&,'&`"&RAFE3Y```A@H)65+-0#I)@! M%?9$`PKHV`40L,?\G9.2$5!9!"]@@0RXKP(92`!45K4!_75SD`[Q@`)Q28`< M:A`J;V1B"F?"``,`'`&80# M!"@`03\`Q6TQ`"]/.5T"%N``L*ZJ<`>AP`,,4("3+JQK1KVF!`K0`1=*``$- M**)H/4``(`H`2(C%RY]TZCX#**"U'0O)`[AI&UF&1+0?&$`!&L!7A&@``1UX M``)Z-R>30B`!&1A``[C8@90QH+<$>,Y$G0:5`M`Q49?:P``JL(`"*$`"!)C` M`@A`R0*4=RV_[.YG$7``NC8P`_HYB`(0L``,#$`##@&*7C_BR0O`-X/5E6<" ME@+*\E*``4U]@`,^5>`*X$AA&:'``@X&M0^PAP/I;1ZTMD6!YC7`0@*8@%[E MEDD&V,8"KTT@;PG0_H$$B+'`8%V*4AW07_4)X`*IV5H!'M!=8*47`$3TY`12(P`-BH0`#8A`8"%@``=`! M`S1Z)324P`&6"34">T`!#AB`?WLRE<]!H&U`*<`"*-"`LUB@!?_@VL M10&60C9Y!Y``'B-$E!\P:JO+!8$7'D`#IRX4`!KE;6?:%KAMED`".%!0`?"0 M8^R]0`,Z1\,(;)M&Y+8`:F?(``8$X",>E;`X"P#IT"+RY#NLYT31NX!K>I(! M#6@`?@HP@?(FX`$`DRN1!K!O!E01`!DA=^L,4L6F5P`!8-\T1B@0;P@`+LH% M\$!+-I!F;BZ@BD*F@`*JJ/,%;$=:N$YOTAV@<@)7V^;7[O752:+`!!0XZ1YP M`+D=H$($F%%&!P`CIM\\7K5:`,7W/4!BUR2R_WPK8;CS&!!)"2!G@4M8!(L6 M[LQ6%(T\/.LY^1A#ON4!W^S(9Q08'J*N2MVJV$,>?A^-*#8C'8O+^@FC?<6-9`,@('(JHOO2P_H*A&0<@WI, M[UZ>#V1>[_=$9@(L9&QXI3:(95"HQD,,`G<*Q5PD3B*RQ]\JT$E"8@$F`//, MIFO>;RG^1%H20EQ.CR!.QVT^0/BX!?Y`HP83(B0&1O0T8F5"@EA:+R&F#?DL M:6*(CT9B9?X>PVP4``,'8^->\"%F:%<(PHQR8T]RD$D2,`')!P&]4`QE,/L> MT%-P"P`,8)(>0`$L_B0`KH?^0D+RDJXO-!#U#J(#=^]<0K!$UD4C-@XH6,0P M3&N:G$.6@,9+9B12(&*Z+N"A0N4#>5`B9FW/W(\JIDVF,,!LJF@G0L(!6`8" MCD3_E#`)$R+](D/X+L7F!D<*0^7>'/&5G&\W7`*GF"/(^$\,ST1-3D99[<;UXJ)0#.`SRC%4LJ=DW+'KX-%V?-%-3"8,&9)9ZH1GA!$(029?_NBC M53)I(WXO4/#P#Z$Q44301'0"7K8""5?0,:[Q/;Y1$67+*$`F`RXK'3>R52+Q M6+HQ_AA16/!);,(1`!:R9"1B+2(#)Y'M']D"]MX(9%(D5I(Q)(X1(M'$(7LQ M*HLED0(`*V6$*K"DT'0$*\]TP(0`,"($P:)YSEH,(#&L"SNB@`:$R]WD@#C&AR`$B$17SCD*>2,(1H:I0&("?@&<#6DE7_2DU M*DDI1A4#(N!"@6*F#M\.(",JM'?759#:G$^&=W$.=1[=1- MY:T!EH-]"&([)$N*D*N>X$)E1&D!9*90'>!P1J@Q.B"\TI2T.@"U3F:J_G05 MFTB"E"9G.@-TZ0QI5>MSTB:GC`#HJEBK*Y8CG62(`L;T@1K*7B,,8BW@>V:C M@?!H.BT`/PB@EY3S?C*B^(S5I7`HSE#*3>&"`?+'H<+4-^_'I1Q)`E3V46TP M?2C'?3Q@:0*4?QR3`1Z5.M<'?4SH=W(HH"+J`S9O21.5]DZ9KTHH([, MJ((.@([,\NX:@(T>H``.X#780P/^1:E$*0(V2X(28"V,2J(2@)`J(,7.9UV' MC)I6;0*T(P)22Z[NRHPRP@#.9S;4ITBR[',DZBL!H!P/0&&ZK<$H+@#`BAL' M*2@\*7BUJ^DR9V2!Y/2R#:DR.+@Z\.89P)>Z,8^ M@+8PC)9&MP`V#2_BBLD(@J6@]P&R*.=,J,$\`-PXH`$8+0)P9*@(`"L\8`$R M;J@<;@$.8"WXT=LB$P+B#H;JJ,&"""_&9.X@Q[*T(WXK@(?G=L M;3#+"FI,Z&@!K+BX!@E'..`L(,")8`E@TBJ9HHX]*H`Q*BP!QE=:5:CN>'@! M3BTP_$N>X-?3/BT!:NN7/NF_R(U6J`NX)&B(P*JLAGC<>DH[\<*-56B2,^(` M@PHQP.@`9&0U/2M".FO6O*_;UF(\7I'K$TTL` M4N.,B/'/;$OM<-9\/BFX6$X!%*8`,HX!XLW3;'`!<(X`!"`PM*NM'J`^H.W4 MAK@"'N!!5$TDB'B1(J0!Y&R2E">JV-"9`LN>A^PY;O?-PDY'N(3O9.3X_H!H MLZ!*#5VKCP0@D,&.`Y!'`]*YT03*`%;$Z02@M^C8`SY:E23/A@`@K0ZL`D#3 M0;2K2N\*NP:`CB:@08J+O.9B;-GHR`R@EU8B@">I`6Q*KKC+`0Z@`H`LX3Q" M`;`LPM;-`2PM`1IN?VP#ZA8@`4+CU$+YSVP*K>[-`0I``&;CE;J+?U0ZA'EH MJ.$N`Y;'`5`K-`;@`/#IS_;JQCYGJF5$;>AHJ+^JK:(MZ5#KD]#*J<+Z`8JK M0B/@BUXL,N%IJ!58G\?VC1!`JQ>8/0)@L#,:E*QB-LPIM=1'NQH%HQ2`.S"` ML&J"O-[:GQ\@`'Q))-@0L)67`%K+.1KDSRR,_K+;*@-0E;L&(#3TEP*B>BU* MHJVDE0'2Y]3>3:L-`+RJC@'2N,E(6@%.+7VQNH+02:2U`[7TILTBQ.*B+9V3 M.D=60GR%ZZ@QS7]"ESM:NO,2A#TZ8$\4-$-]\3U'8ND.!"\/8[YUA^"> M8H3R*TH1!'3BHKYC12U'PD2E\+XAIX@@9*7XLS@$X\#CHH$&8\&7Q7\,1C<% ME68DG#`^C%$.D"K=9'WVF[]37,4/I)2$Q297',9OPX)BG,9KW,:/Y6\?\L9W MG,>C\I]`INEZ7,B'G,B+_`M)O,*-7,F7G"JV2:]0I:NN*LF9G,JKW,IKG#>G M_,JWO,B31F4RP'&X_ES,QYS,57PJM;S,TUS-UYS-V]S-P3"3PAPL0,1:K`5$ M1(\#^+,^2=1[V%-\:.8'-;-(\UPP;N;_3I1J_68DZ/Q$2\M3(*=D%O8P&D/[ M:A1L'D)V/"!`+1P&U7/2!R5%$5U5,/U7\MS_(H?2#\/1G20J"#TJ\`;$":)) M#WU+L#,K8OU#39'.J19$'O31*P?%L\)R=$+3\4,]:W35?P0&=SUFYAS9?R78 M2R;#`=`P!D73B<-5%O-V!4H2*ESOT#@ON>\,:0M(EE?+2;9E5`?Y2Y1S5V_KY\ MZ=Y]*AW'N\=;.33N@ACXQSZD)1,;*-VT6"YU# M5&'6I7IT:6^W,1"VB!!G5!N#VZT9!%G9?`= MZRN'$WUIC5A>`WQSD.;4Z)?H`)9&D\#\GGJ+4[T>;]IH)MRI:7UT=X2BLR*` MY"8'F9>C[8$'9O[,`A`+\._)X77UCF[>$26G8&&492AG=Y)3DT25G9*3<4O& MN-3*:;Q5*3S`H4[EYN=^:PT>9E(*`YK4^R1@_H+TINYC9W)>J+CH-NQ">"Q^ M=CE&=64F1V6J-:(X`&$)HMOD=`,Z'D8?%0(&9UL1E^!5YE&3$YDQ'^5U5?%A M-$!MEF40R$>UECJ58CG6#M]K=4XW(`)\HP`D8/GJ%6;GE.0)33&8!\40U0!D M!.KX0N(`(@,!`QH*$)@008*!#0$P,#C@0<&&#Q\*?(A0`,.!!1`8#-#@H$*$ M#P@L#"@PX$.`"!,("*A(P,("`Q*# M`R()$&#`H$`%`PLT5+`8H,&'!1\R#*`0X:2'DR^S3C!P8,-4#`D.='#*]@&% M#PS00B7@P<"#AP0^_IR<:Z!#0Y\4(5!`L("!T)L-+!0PT-%`@0X('"S`T,!! M`P,+$S@@7&`LP@(6*388L,&`@PX4.TPXS"!#@`P,GCY,22#!!+\?)F2V<'1D M`@N*'T@>:R'D`8$4:C/XT*##XP<;%-!<*11#`0@1VFX8D&&FZ0XQP(!94`'!P0 M7WM,??0!31(@T$`"BF%`$`$%4-#`9`M0P-4&#K2$P`82H(:``188T!P!&2A` MP`8;92#`1&\A<$!?`H#E``(=#&#`!315X,`'!P08`0$?(8#`C&CMQAMP_AQP M]D!8&BB0P00.>-``!1CT]$$"&`1`604-:$ED!`^`AT`$$."40$P4I2C`!0JD MB)(&"6@@P0,>#`3!`Y7U%,$"#[2%7P*327`!22\.H!$!$%R0`&H&E.273RYB MX*$$!U1Z`4>;46"<`F!1U-=5!GA%P`4.%)":!0+89,%`!36P%`!*+C!;1;(A M,,$`/T+0``(8`(!!8AT<`(%[!X!U0*(/-`#!2PF0V($"$!@4@%\)&5LA00=8 MI"8$0YD4@0+X$?"@`%E6"RRD-R4'P0!/06``!P6LZ'V884J0+A/MPS!1PX(!\#'#"[0`'X M(>"K``#`8;3*>"T"%VSWL@);#5F``Q+$IY)F'$W[0`!F M%I!>GA](X``$`7`''TG+);"`VDHZ\-0#US(0Z:L(0)!`N`$LT("OVWT`@0,# M<)3I2ROW'8`!V)9%0.#+T?J!`!I$H)<#"B1P05\&$,`67@@8]\%]$SSLYD(\ MMGMMP@1H8$`$.&I57EV2!UJG8%>_=(%;UH5]T@0(S%:G9A,]H!F\!CGP9LE" M>:"A!!,$- M$2ZV`2(5`SB#37@1"I2)(=.?&(4NZA%'_J0AT"T(AF% M:,8@?J`#,E1C$K/X123&\8UKK"$8/=#&KCP`AXG:XAA;\T3*G/&)0F0-&>%H MQ@E`X(QHY*$,RT@1L%6QD5%LI!^Y*$1&ZM`#-=0B$DV4R3!.DI)&Y.(1_E,B M1S<^DI!>Q&0FC]@7(U)``H;<)!JMF,8D%O&&J(3C%C]`1$B69A& MFE"Q9W;TXP\-8,90>B"8/U33'L_(@8;,,``),J8WOPG.<(ISG.0LISG/BE5QB(SKL2,+$66BMCG6+:=FSRB5CL+SJZ"M9U@96Q;Z2K9PAKVL5FD M2$M-DK4'<&`#&N!`!C:`V]MR@`,5>$X&-(#;&XYI(1W```4J\%O:[O8M2EQ* M!X![6PTDEP.UA2YU,<>`#CA@`[NM(08X\-PDU5!('7#1;'\;W0UP$KS1D0!W M?TL1!4B@+[;=;7-VFX';L@8\[>E*!G9+VP4JH`/^G8@6K4M4PV7 MY@#@;@`!P,P`@7/K_AX)!("Z)*K(!V1+$@(M,'\,,0,;`N8N`D"WP@#E]P+:UG#]0)>-5]L( MQ)C"0O&*!=B8._ULEUQ>+"[@TG'=+$09( M`#\=&!)Y:C@`RU0`OZ[!LG1TVY5741>]RGTN>"-,@?0$,,&;Z"4ZN7.*!Q["'1?)1P*%HW`*RT0!`PS`2#A95(88$&@#26!5 M`EB`EV@"@`E(`",5*I4'UM=ISLPZ@1)J%]X((($&Y(8B"]#SK&F7@$VE/#^!!!L!5"`!KBI`(M$``,05`WB8@+"*]U-AH:Z0+:,E#4&[$F`^GE* MU8TW`)%4348+<$M_?+(T%&$@4"+TRM54[N3)_LF((J!:7YP)*+JIYX$MZE9Y':U@'R=#%LH;R#(?(+MQ\(3%/SRP,"&%Z& M.MUBMS@*55RQ7WI6E!=+2:#K>?9SYB?HKQ^?*W4L"1?6I9B8`S@Y,0;"`+G2 M`YW#0(P`)0G0?&G/DMDQD"(6&1&_$-"<_QF@`A28P*(.8*0%]$55!UK@!#)U`Z!9%2(RF($;,4%A&"``%:`>"R`_V+-QN:%CBV<1&N01 M#N@D[U$`1$\TQ$62C(4(E0A M1.$KD@$BBS0F$.$D_FXR=+=3+`,Q0XGB@`?@?.;!.ODA%Y`G%W)R015P>B*3 M$`^`%P!@`0E0:Z.B+OO#`$'2'I;R&-^1.00`$=6!(ZYS-)SA,YMC`4F1$D3R M(`7`/6W1%0"0`0F@*@D$00EP(;.6%@(P`&\A`;:R2`L2`1XA,L11B3@A=B`!LW`--2)_[",PB0%`=1*%S6B?F2>;8" M+8F!79M1`6]2`<:"&4(R.9FQ(+NC*ID#/]SG,P209B^3`7.A=!MP(-R#`+H1 M>7,Q%1K'`.$R`+P"/2E3-3"R-XGW&9EA$6ZG'J(B`!!D'A-$0)ER$]P&_@`C M41T.,#NT]Q$%@#ZQR#H;,%0DD3-@X2[\4A0N.`%X&"D,Q``"T!B^LCEG8B8- M,P$".1+J,1].%B2Y@2/AT@%K8G$8$CL*<#X2Y"L`8!@74Q$3D7\9)RH;2"." MN"=S\B39KN`#7%8@G$S*S4QY*A(D00A_` M(H414'&H0A!T<8C(`I"YXB.W6VN143@-1%O"9=<-4VUMD8W M1$0?=Y=@Q5VY\W&N55H=0(ES!67;MF8.L0!4D9@!`9,7/678`5KHU5MJ,E=JNF6'\85'T>98$5[ M:^0>W75EP+1&-P&7G@E,M5:8RU5:N[5B?/F6N\F9>`E>-*&6RX)8?3$1;*DC MH1F7ZF5#:JF:@R:8-O2=NW5#)H-8`E!:OCEH=8F::[:78FF6I&F=Y'&7C>D> M:>F69ND>@*F9D`E6&`"5NBF6TS29G7F:`JJ6F8E'%6`!"XI@TE$9KE&AJ1><(DJBLF9XKEUDF_I$27![@'S5$1'?8E_AIG(:I7K`V6^\&4E&EI#4%:"<% M5--95.5I4Q5`)4MJI>94&O@T54EZI5WJI03UI'[5%Q659E]JIF?*3J_%I6@J M4W@T2U^&3K8U2Q+P7W%J4.;S7>>$6Q(D)JGU2[-E`1%P`9VDIQ4@0=H&3$Z& M2NLT31>@<1308.-4IN-$77SZ7Z=53FP$%GG:4QMP`1/78FR*4EOZ4J+*41H" M%5U8&#W25P)0`+!#3A00JT-!735'WU&+\J3I,*3OLX_CM^ M122<(DXR`16*HB-,`XP`0"2@EJE@`Q49<$3]EZI<@4[HFJ[V]$NIRF,442H& ML*Q/!BVF6E)J>JP&BU&*2A=.AEC7]$W=XK!IME<;4``#.[$"L$C?A",3*Z;[ M!$X4T*X3FQ;BY&D3VQX,FT[6Y[&)A:_?!*YH1:LM.S+U^4V8]5?@-;,3"ZS@ ME"_;:E2[00%.]JS&!`$,Z4U.]APXZ[`YH[`A]30,M:9/JU%.9BDTJY'@E`!8 MZU=E]1U<"P`@NT72B;5Z\TU'R[5M53DT2S77>DZR`;8O:TPQNT5?![:H\TT2 MX&3\0K.+JE#2Y[$2T&2(E4Y,:V-)ZV09@+4;_DNU&355MY).6I4@LV66SS69 M"?M-F.M5OS2YN^E6K`&7-EI)I;IFF127BWF@EX16X-6R?<,`/`M([C&TB&6) MEZ6TC-2V?T4E8X)8@4%&0X)8\$=@88%8AF-,ACL`)T$`&!M4WM0!>HM8`2`` M\O.,$YL2HW56AY2[??4`K*$!@)M8^P1K%#&IMCEH.]NJ(P(LBFJS462XB:4O M(XM8^Q16S-NJ0$NL?K5%L\FY@_9/3@:Q]>FQM9>\#ELCF1NL7K5<"F5,GHM. M"-5-,OJ;!<5(W!FLEHM.+TJHX#2Y[^8AB'EJIS:H&)`!7T;"&(!;#.`!9/<= M2A09W]L`7-$U5@A<_M!U`1>`PL"%`1<@0^AC`?D5PAI@`22L`22<:MT;PLH4 M=N2C7AJ`PPH@H1`#'==B6W`&'FSDJ;AU+4;6`,!5)ONX2"CWGQB0'"*,6[VQ M<1.[)Q72'/G;5P/6&Q/@=0K@9(,:8&Y\*R:R`1C`0HC5`.[U7;N#6#W&0!KP M,N3J`9E#`?`1O19PPT4L74Y6`!)`=ASPN@\K77YY`-L+``PP$6K#,!,K)Z-V M`9*6:D7\70U@R?(;`!8P$1>"O@#@'E+!1F2;6!/!'1.0`6OK5Q1V>.?#L/_U M&KMUD&D&:G`6RKT+7H*;:B?+J^X'ODX&9R3!(>&F993R8[3%RWT5+8/W_AR7 M;+438!/1X[!.8V`7\)DQD0%D;%N_11TGK$2_99'M=FI%3&%.;!7/L4+#-FHE M/&I.K&P9@,0]Z6B%0EO@,T,X;+'_91^LL8$#XFBG!F?`M1?__,,9@&6<]&7K MK"/#,[18]ET;X,C4=6H8