Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2007; Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxx 2010; Xxxxxx et al. 2018; Xxxxxx et al. 2019). The location and distribution of known DSL populations appear to be related to proximity of existing DSL populations and to certain characteristics habitat, specifically the contiguity, complexity, size of blowouts in shinnery oak dunes, the absence of mesquite (Prosopis species) encroachment, and absence of land development (Xxxxxxxxxx et al. 1997; Xxxxxxx xx. al. 2016;
Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2007; Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxx 2010; Xxxxxx et al. 2018; Xxxxxx et al. 2019). Estimates of population size and trends are lacking for most of the Covered Species’ range. In Texas, it is estimated that 99 percent of the Covered Species’ range is on private land with access restrictions to conduct population surveys, compared to New Mexico, where it is estimated that 76 percent of the Covered Species’ range is on Federal or State owned or leased lands (Xxxxxxxxxx et al. 2011; Xxxxx et al. 2018; Xxxxxxx et al. 2016). Based on the current available scientific and commercial information on the correlation between the Covered Species’ occupancy, population parameters, and suitable habitat (Xxxxxx et al. 2013, 2015; Xxxxx et al. 1997;
Xxxxxxxxx et al., a pilot study utilizing Image Pro-Plus®, found that “…the methodology, alignment apparatus and computer software used enabled accurate and reproducible repeat images of dentate skulls to be acquired in a simulated clinical environment, and also on patients” (Xxxxxxxxx et al. 2005). The study further went on to indicate that the software was very accurate with regards to consistent measurements on repeat images.
Xxxxxxxxx et al., No. 18329 (NC) (Del. Ch.) (the "Xxxxxx Action"), is a purported derivative action filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware on or about September 19, 2000. The Complaint names as defendants those current and former members of Cendant's Board of Directors (the "Director Defendants") who were both named as defendants in, and approved the settlement of, the Securities Action (the "Settlement"). The Complaint alleges that the decision of the Director Defendants to approve the Settlement constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith, and seeks a monetary judgment in an unspecified amount in favor of nominal defendant Cendant. On or about November 16, 2000, Cendant moved to dismiss the Xxxxxx Action on the grounds that any challenge to the Director Defendants' decision to approve the Settlement is not ripe because Cendant has not yet incurred any liability under the Settlement, and may never do so if the District Court's approval of the Settlement is not affirmed on appeal. Also on or about November 16, 2000, the Director Defendants moved to stay the Xxxxxx Action pending resolution of the Deutch Action. The plaintiff in the Xxxxxx Action has not yet responded to either of these motions. The SEC and the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey conducted investigations relating to accounting irregularities. As a result of the findings from our internal investigations, we made all adjustments considered necessary which are reflected in previously filed financial statements. The investigation of the SEC as to Cendant concluded on June 14, 2000 when Cendant consented to an entry of an Order Instituting Public Administration Proceedings in which the SEC found that Cendant had violated certain record-keeping provisions of the federal securities laws, Sections 13(a) and 13(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 00x-00, 00x-0, 00x-00, 00x0-0, and ordered Cendant to cease and desist from committing or causing any violation and any future violation of those provisions.
