ed Micro Devices Inc. American Bar Association Apple Inc. Arctic Cat Inc. Banco Santander SA Bank of America Corp. Barclays PLC Celgene Corp. Center for Biological Diversity Chevron Corp. China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Citigroup Inc. EFTA00025393 --- PAGE BREAK --- misrepresentation

ciation B.C. Strategy Ltd. Bipartisan Policy Center Boston Heart Diagnostics Corp. Boy Scouts of America Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc. CTIA Center for Biological Diversity Cisco Systems Inc. Conference of State Bank Supervisors Court Square Capital Partners LP DISH Network LLC Defenders of Wildlife Deutsche Telek

oup Inc. Association on American Indian Affairs BB&T Corporation BC Partners BNP Paribas Bank of America Corporation Barclays Investment Bank Center for Biological Diversity Citigroup Inc. Conference of State Bank Supervisors Credit Agricole SA Deer Consumer Products Inc. Defenders of Wildlife Deutsche Bank AG Exp

. Ancestry.com LLC Apple Inc. Arch Coal Inc. BNP Paribas SA Backcountry.com BancWest Corp. Bank of America Corp. Barclays PLC Celgene Corp. Center for Biological Diversity Center for Justice Charming Shoppes, Inc. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. Citigroup Inc. Clean Air Task Force Commonwealth Edison Co. Communicatio

tims' all agree. Given entirely reasonable. Indeed, any other course would have been foolhardy. 4 The Government's concession readily distinguishes Center for Biological Diversity. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006), which is clearly not an "ancillary criminal proceeding," but rather a civil enforcement action of the En

98 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 290 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2015 Page 6 of 14 limitations, no period of limitations applies, is refuted by Center for Biological Diversity.' That case dealt with the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, and in particular, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). 453 F.3d at 1334. The Eleven

F.2d at 55. Also, petitioners' contention that, because the CVRA contains no statute of limitations, no period of limitations applies, is refuted by Center for Biological Diversity. That case dealt with the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, and in particular, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). 453 F.3d at 1334. The Elevent

tims' all agree. Given entirely reasonable. Indeed, any other course would have been foolhardy. 4 The Government's concession readily distinguishes Center for Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006), which is clearly not an "ancillary criminal proceeding," but rather a civil enforcement action of the