 his trip, spokesman Scott Holste said.
“Some solid progress has been made in Afghanistan as we ramp down the number of soldiers out there.” he said. One example? “We’re seeing improvements in the number of kids going to school,” with 40 percent of them being female, he said, a major shift since the era of Taliban control.
Nixon said while in Kabul, he had dinner with soldiers from Missouri. This weekend’s trip marked his fourth visit to the country. Holste said the governor would return to Missouri on Monday.
Piers Morgan sacked from Good Morning Britain job?
GOOD Morning Britain bosses have launched a poll to see whether Piers Morgan should keep his presenting spot.
The 52-year-old telly host faces losing his job as viewers called for him to be sacked.
Piers's TV wife Susanna Reid launched a poll on Twitter at the start of this morning's show to see whether audiences think he should keep his Good Morning Britain presenting spot.
And just two hours after the survey went live, Piers's future at ITV suddenly didn't look so bright.
Piers announced: "We've done a poll to see whether or not I should be sacked before Christmas."
He then checked Twitter to see the latest stats – only to see that 47% had said no.
Shocked by the outcome, he continued: "Wow. Ok, it's dipped. So now the majority… were heading into Brexit territory.
"Like the remainers, Should it go the other way, I'll simply just demand another vote."
Susanna added: "More than half of the British public voting think you should ether be sacked or they don't have an opinion on it."
The poll has been set for 24 hours and so far has received over 9,000 votes.
Crazed GMB fans took to Twitter to share just how they voted in the nail-biting poll.
One person tweeted: "Monday's through to Wednesday's are the best with Susanna and Piers, they should do all week!
"There's never a dull moment, and I love the way Piers sometimes says things others wouldn't and definitely doesn't sugar coat anything. Piers to stay for a long time."
But a third slammed: "Oh please let the producers do the right thing - let him go."
Could Piers Morgan be out of his Good Morning Britain presenting spot before Christmas?
What is the acrobat amtlib dll? Mention the fixes require for the amtlib.dll error.
Re-install the application that requires amtlib.dll.
Clean the registry and optimize the computer.
Update the problematic application.
Download and install the amtlib.dll to fix missing or corrupted DLL errors. It is developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and the size of the application 3.5MB.
The second half of the 20th century saw a major increase in the expansion and sophistication of insurance products covering the exposures of businesses to loss and liability. By the dawn of this century, insurers were marketing an astonishing number of novel insurance policies covering previously uninsured risks. Among these was After-the-Event (ATE) insurance, which has since become a familiar tool in the corporate risk management toolbox. ATE coverage is regularly brought to bear in managing companies’ exposures to litigation risk—especially in “loser pays” cost-shifting jurisdictions that hold unsuccessful litigants responsible for their adversary’s, as well as their own, legal fees and disbursements.
This article notes the differing approaches to cost shifting among jurisdictions. It then discusses the essential and optional features of ATE insurance, and how the coverage can be applied by both plaintiffs and defendants to facilitate access to the courts, manage legal risk, gain settlement leverage, and complement other legal finance solutions.
At the outset, understanding ATE insurance and its widely varying popularity among jurisdictions requires an appreciation of a concept that most lawyers may hear about in one classroom hour in law school, if that: the fact that ultimate liability for a party’s own, and its adversary’s, “costs” of engaging in litigation is not assigned the same way around the world.
In the United States, under the so-called “American Rule,” the prevailing party is generally able to recover from its adversary a wide range of its out-of-pocket litigation “costs” (court filing charges, expert witness fees, litigation support vendors, photocopying costs, etc.) incurred in contesting the case (in the absence of specific state or federal fee-shifting statutes, which generally address non-commercial disputes)—but these “costs” do not include the major component of litigation expense: attorney’s fees.
Absent a contractual fee-shifting agreement, parties to US litigation bear their own attorney’s fees. Although recoverable “costs” can be substantial in a large commercial case, they are rarely so significant (relative to the sums in dispute and the attorney’s fees incurred) that they play a major role in the parties’ case valuation and settlement strategy. In the U.S. (where “settling for costs” rivals “nuisance settlement” as shorthand for a negotiated resolution involving corporate pocket change), businesses and their lawyers may thus find the concept of insuring against an “adverse cost award” somewhat precious—a canine flea collar fitted to a bull elephant, to no particular effect upon the overall litigation environment.
Quite a different calculus obtains in jurisdictions—courts and arbitration fora—where the adverse party’s recoverable “costs” are permitted to include not just its out-of-pocket expenses but also the full quantum of its reasonable attorney’s fees—which in complex commercial cases run easily into seven and eight figures. That “loser pays” attorney’s fee rule (also known as the “English Rule”) followed in fee-shifting jurisdictions makes exposure to the adverse party’s fees and disbursements incurred in conducting the case a potentially very material consideration in determining whether and for how long to prosecute or defend an action.
In theory, insuring one’s liability for an adversary’s legal spend is a sensible concept regardless of the scope of the “costs” awardable. To date, however, the relatively low magnitude of that exposure under the American Rule, coupled with the fact that the great majority of litigated disputes are ultimately resolved by settlements that wrap the recovering party’s recoverable costs into the final lump-sum settlement figure, has made ATE insurance a subject of far greater interest in fee-shifting jurisdictions.
Currently, ATE insurance can insure against several risks of loss, all flowing from an adverse litigation outcome suffered by the insured party, that more familiar forms of commercial (and personal) insurance do not cover. ATE insurance’s principal feature lies in shifting the risk that an unsuccessful litigant will, in addition to its loss on the merits, have to bear its adversary’s and/or its own legal fees and expenses in contesting the matter. It thus reduces the level of economic risk the litigant faces and permits commercial litigants to move that portion of their litigation risk off their balance sheets.
the insured party’s obligations to its own professionalsin the event of an adverse litigation outcome (“own side coverage”)—some such policies covering only “disbursements” (out-of pocket payments to expert witnesses, litigation support vendors and the like), others extending coverage to a portion of counsel’s professional fees as well.
Importantly, ATE insurance may be accepted by courts or arbitral tribunals as sufficient security for costs that they may require be posted prior to judgment or award. Where the ATE insurance itself is not accepted as security for costs, the ATE insurer may, for an additional premium, endorse the policy with a “non-avoidance” provision that guarantees payment to the adverse party regardless of any defenses the insurer might otherwise have under the policy.
ATE coverage is a contract that shifts a specified amount of risk from the insured to the insurer, in exchange for a premium, on stated terms and subject to stated conditions and exclusions, subject to the usual rules of contract law and those specific to ATE insurance. ATE insurance is thus no more an unqualified license to litigate than a general liability policy is a license to inflict personal injury or property damage on a third party. Insurers have on occasion successfully resisted payment in whole or in part under ATE coverage on various grounds—some common to all insurance policies, some specific to the ATE product.
defenses premised on the insured’s failure to satisfy conditions to the insurer’s performance (e.g., timely notice of loss, communication of material developments in the litigation, obtaining insurer consent to settlement).
exclusion of coverage for loss caused by the insured’s or its counsel’s failure to comply with applicable court rule and orders.
As with other litigation risk management products, ATE insurance is underwritten at every level, ranging from small tort claims through massive commercial disputes. In England and Wales, solicitors are obliged to ensure that clients are advised as to how their matter will be priced and its likely overall cost, which in practice likely includes a discussion about ATE insurance. This applies even in the case of minor personal injury claims (and indeed, insurers dealing with smaller claims sometimes delegate their underwriting authority to counsel, who can bind coverage for their clients on the spot). At the upper end of the market, where adverse cost awards can run into many millions, ATE policies are written on a bespoke basis, with underwriters delving into the merits of the claims and defenses at some depth.
ATE policies may be purchased at any time, from before proceedings are commenced and forward, although underwriters may exclude coverage for adverse costs incurred prior to policy inception or increase the premium