Xxxxx et al Sample Clauses

Xxxxx et al. 1:20-cv- 2530. Plaintiffs shall be barred from reinstituting those lawsuits except pursuant to the terms and on the conditions specified in Paragraphs VI.C and D, below.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Xxxxx et al. 1:20-cv-2530 and/or bring any claims, causes of action, suits or demands of any kind whatsoever in law or in equity against the United States based upon matters which could have been asserted by Plaintiffs against the United States based upon EPA’s evaluation of Pennsylvania’s July 18, 2022 amended Phase III WIP. EPA does not waive or limit any defense relating to such litigation. The Parties agree that contempt of court is not an available remedy under this Agreement.
Xxxxx et al. A de novo heterodimeric Due Xxxxx protein minimizes the release of reactive intermediates in dioxygen-dependent oxidation. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 56, 15580–15583 (2017). 35. X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxx, X. Xxxxxx, X. Xxxxxxxx, Designing covalently linked hetero- dimeric four-helix bundles. Methods Enzymol. 580, 471–499 (2016).
Xxxxx et al. De novo design of a non-natural fold for an iron-sulfur protein: Alpha- helical coiled-coil with a four-iron four-sulfur cluster binding site in its central core. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1797, 406–413 (2010). CHEMISTRY
Xxxxx et al partial settlement agreements; and (B) may include consideration of other relevant factors, such as the criteria described below.
Xxxxx et al. C. A. No. 10136-VCL, filed September 16, 2014; and Xxxxxxxx x. 1 All terms with initial capitalization not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in ¶ 1 herein. B. On October 6, 2014, the Court entered a stipulated Order Re Consolidation and Leadership, consolidating the foregoing actions into the Action and appointing Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxxxx LLP, Xxxxx & Xxxxxxxxxx P.A., and Xxxxxxx Topaz Xxxxxxx & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel (“Lead Counsel”). The Complaint filed in City of Lakeland Employees’ Pension Plan x. Xxxxx, et al., C.A. No. 10136-VCL, was deemed the operative complaint in the consolidated action (hereafter the “Verified Class Action Complaint”). C. On January 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplement to Verified Class Action Complaint, which proposed supplement included allegations that disclosures to GFI stockholders in the Proxy were misleading or omitted material information and allegations that the Management Defendants had further breached their fiduciary duties by threatening to modify certain employment agreements in order to make the possibility of a transaction with BGCP less attractive to BGCP. D. On January 28, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint, which included additional facts and allegations about events that had occurred since the filing of the Verified Class Action Complaint. E. On February 7, 2015, pursuant to the Court’s oral ruling on February 6, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the Third Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint, which included additional facts and allegations about events that had occurred since the filing of the Second Supplement. F. On February 27, 2015, BGCP announced that it completed its tender offer for GFI shares. G. On May 20, 2015, the Court entered the Third Scheduling Order, which provided that trial would commence on November 9, 2015. H. On July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the Amended Verified Class Action Complaint (together with the Verified Class Action Complaint and the Supplement, Second Supplement, and Third Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint, the “Pleadings”), superseding the Complaint filed on September 11, 2014 and the subsequent Supplements to the Complaint. I. On July 29, 2015, after arm’s length negotiations, including a one-day mediation on July 1, 2015, counsel to the Parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Action tha...
Xxxxx et al. (Medicaid HMOs only); and
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Xxxxx et al. 2018). In November 2016, Texas State University, under contract with CPA, began the development of a habitat suitability model (Hardy et al. 2018) and survey protocols for conservation planning of the CPA’s proposed CCAA. Texas State University used data of recent and historical occurrences of the DSL, remote sensing, Geographic Information Systems, image classification methods and ground-truthed data (where access could be obtained) to develop the model (Xxxxx et al. 2018). They generated a detailed base map of land covers and classified these covers into eight map units: developed, sand, mesquite, shinnery oak, other vegetation, cultivated, barren/gravel, and water. They then used these maps units to define the boundaries of suitable habitat.
Xxxxx et al. ; Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxx ) rather than on the frames of meaning or ‘taken-for-granted’ con- ceptualizations (Xx Xxxx et al. ) underlying these governance structures. With its comparative vantage point, this paper is intended to shed more light on the link between frames and actual policies and, thus, to contribute to both policy understanding and scholarly debate.
Xxxxx et al. No. 20-cv-4096 (X.X.Xx) (the Action), under the terms and conditions set forth in this Settlement Agreement (the Agreement).
Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!