Buildings Insurance Calculator | How do I use a rebuild cost calculator?
What would my property cost to rebuild?
Is the property is a house/bungalow, a purpose built flat or a converted flat?
Choose whether the property is detached, semi-detached or terraced.
Select the number of storeys in the building.
Enter the postcode and approximate year of build for the property.
Enter the external floor area in either m² or ft². Calculate this by taking the area measured to the external face of external walls. Duplicate this figure for each additional floor within the property.
Enter the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in the property. You then need to select the construction materials of both the walls and the roof.
Having followed these steps the calculator will then be able to provide you with an approximate cost of rebuilding your property, which you can then use for insurance purposes.
We have a direct link to the BCIS rebuild cost estimator in our quote system that automatically suggests an estimated rebuild cost for you to use in your insurance quote. Remember, this should be treated as a guide only, in order to avoid under-insurance.
Under-insurance is the terms used to describe the situation where the value or description fo the insured event/object is less than what it would actually cost to replace. In this example, the cost provided by you of rebuilding, replacing or repairing the buildings at the time of the loss or damage has been greatly underestimated.
The cost of the insurance quote will not accurately reflect the level of cover/risk you are asking the insurer to honour – either artificially low or high.
When it comes to making a claim the claims assessor will work out the rebuild cost independently. if this has then been misrepresented during the quote it can mean that when the claim is settled it will be reduced in proportion depending on the underinsured amount you are.
Calculating how much it would cost to replace all of your contents if they were lost or damaged is a relatively simple (if time-consuming) process. You simply need to visit each room in your house, noting down the items and their value, before calculating the total that you will need to cover your entire contents for.
You need to select a suitable rebuild cost to insure your home for since this will ensure you are fully protected. If your home was destroyed this is the amount that it would cost to completely rebuild. It is not the market value that it would be sold for (because market value takes into account the value of the land on which the building sits).


Do you like them? Give me your thoughts.
This entry was posted on Saturday, February 7th, 2009 at 2:01 pm and is filed under strug.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


text:
2009 Mid-Year Update on Corporate Deferred Prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreements
DPAs and NPAs, Too Much of A Good Thing?
Although virtually unheard of a decade ago, Deferred Prosecution Agreements ("DPAs") and Non-Prosecution Agreements ("NPAs") are a growing phenomenon in corporate prosecutions. Essentially, DPAs and NPAs are agreements whereby the government agrees not to prosecute a corporation so long as the corporation abides by the terms of the agreement. The key distinction between a DPA and an NPA is whether or not charges are filed against the corporation: with a DPA the government files criminal charges with the court, while with an NPA nothing is filed with the court so long as the corporation completes the terms of the agreement–the agreement is strictly between the government and the corporation.
Following the collapse of Arthur Andersen upon its indictment in 2003, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") began using DPAs and NPAs more frequently. The idea behind DPAs and NPAs is to reform corporate behavior, while limiting the collateral consequences to innocent third parties–such as loss of jobs and shareholder value–that can result from the indictment or conviction of a corporation. Despite the potential benefits of DPAs and NPAs, their increased use has led to some unintended consequences and complications for corporations.
Gibson Dunn participated in some of the earliest DPAs with the government and has represented numerous corporations in negotiating and obtaining these agreements. We have also written extensively regarding policy considerations related to DPAs and NPAs. This client update provides an overview of the corporate DPAs and NPAs entered into by the DOJ during the first six months of 2009, identifies key trends in these agreements, and discusses unintended consequences resulting from the increased use of DPAs and NPAs.[1]
Deferred Prosecution Agreements in 2009
There have been ten reported DPAs in the first half of 2009. This number is in line with the eighteen total agreements entered into during 2008, but it represents a decrease from the record thirty-seven agreements reported in 2007.[2] If the second half of 2009 is consistent with the first half, there will be only slightly more DPAs in 2009 than there were in 2008. Although 2007 may have been the high water mark for DPAs, the ten agreements entered into during the first six months of 2009 is almost as many as the eleven total DPAs entered into during 2000-2003 combined. The chart below summarizes the modern history of DPAs entered into by the DOJ.
The ten DPAs entered into so far this year comprise a small sample set. This limited data cautions against drawing many conclusions. However, when comparing the DPAs to-date in 2009 to the trends observed in prior years, there is some basis for preliminary analysis.
The DPAs entered into so far this year involve a variety of criminal offenses and violations. The most obvious change from recent years is a drop in DPAs for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"). In 2008 seven of the eighteen total DPAs–almost forty percent of the total–involved FCPA violations. By contrast, thus far in 2009 only two of the ten DPAs–twenty percent of the total–have involved FCPA violations. Of course, with over 120 active FCPA investigations by the DOJ, we expect to see more FCPA-related DPAs in the near future. This year has seen a resurgence in DPAs for tax fraud, with two DPAs already on the books in 2009. Although there were no DPAs for tax fraud in 2008, there were two tax fraud DPAs in 2007. Similarly, there have been three DPAs this year involving health care-related crimes–one for illegal kickbacks, one for violations of the False Claims Act, and one for Medicare fraud. The DOJ entered into only one health care-related DPA in 2008 but entered into multiple DPAs for health care fraud in 2007. In 2008, there were multiple DPAs involving money laundering violations, securities violations, and immigration fraud. None of those offenses, however, has led to DPAs thus far in 2009. There was also one DPA for internet gambling in 2008. This issue apparently remains on the DOJ's radar as there has been one DPA for the same violation so far this year. The first six months of 2009 also brought the first DPA related to mortgage fraud, which we expect will see increased criminal investigations and perhaps DPAs throughout the remainder of the year. Overall, the data from the first half of 2009 reinforces the conclusion in our 2008 update that the DOJ's use of DPAs is not tied to specific criminal violations, but rather, is in line with current prosecution trends.
Thus far in 2009, the proportion of DPAs entered into by U.S. Attorney's Offices and Main Justice appears to be in line with 2008. In 2008, approximately half of DPAs were entered into by a U.S. Attorney's Office, and half by a division of Main Justice. The first six months of 2009 have followed a similar pattern: three DPAs were entered into solely by a U.S. Attorney's Offices, four were entered into solely by Main Justice, and three were entered into by both a U.S. Attorney's office and Main Justice. Although the U.S. Attorney's Offices and Main Justice did not enter into any joint DPAs in 2008, in previous years these joint DPAs were not uncommon. For instance, in 2007 the DOJ entered into five DPAs in this manner.
Within Main Justice, the Fraud Section has long been the leader in DPAs. Although it entered into six DPAs in 2008, so far in 2009 it has only entered into two agreements. In contrast, the Tax Division, which accounted for no DPAs in 2008, has entered into two agreements already in 2009. The limited number of DPAs entered into by U.S. Attorney's Offices does not lend itself to identifying trends. It should be noted, however, that the historical leader in DPAs–the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York–has only entered into one DPA thus far this year, while the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida–which has never previously entered into a DPA–entered into its first DPA this year.
Interestingly, one DPA, the WellCare Health Plans DPA, was entered into by both the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and the Florida Attorney General's Office. Although State Attorneys General can, and often do, enter into DPAs, this is the first known instance in which both the DOJ and a State Attorney General entered into the same DPA.
Thus far in 2009, NPAs appear to be on the rise as compared to DPAs. In previous years reported DPAs have been much more prominent than NPAs, though the data may be skewed as a result of the fact that NPAs are not filed with a court, and therefore are not always publicly reported. In 2008 only four NPAs were reported during the entire year, while there were fourteen DPAs. In contrast, the DOJ has entered into four NPAs in just the first half of 2009: one each by the Fraud Section, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and the DOJ Civil Division. At first blush, the increase in NPAs may seem a significant victory for corporations, as they are able to successfully avoid prosecution. However, as discussed further below, because the terms and conditions in NPAs increasingly mirror the terms and conditions in DPAs, the advantages in securing an NPA instead of a DPA are diminishing.
The chart below summarizes the reported DPAs and NPAs thus far in 2009. A further explanation of these DPAs and NPAs is found in Appendix A.
2009 Deferred and Non Prosecution Agreements
Total Monetary Penalty *
Beazer Homes USA, Inc.
Mortgage and Accounting Fraud
$10 to 50 million
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co.
Yes **
~32 months
Halliburton Company
Lloyds TSB
International Emergency Economic Powers Act
NeuroMetrix, Inc.
Kickbacks (Medicare)
Wire Fraud and FCPA
PartyGaming PLC
Wire Fraud (Internet Gambling)
No set term
Unconfirmed
At least 18 months
WellCare Health Plans
* Only includes monetary penalties included in the DPA itself, not all monetary penalties arising out of the same facts that gave rise to the DPA. Information on all monetary penalties can be found in Appendix A.
** Although these DPAs do not explicitly provide for a "monitor," they do provide for some form of de facto monitorship (either through the DPA or through a simultaneous agreement entered into by the corporation). More information on these arrangements can be found in Appendix A.
GAO Report on DPAs
In June 2009 the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") published a report entitled Preliminary Observations on DOJ's Use and Oversight of Deferred Prosecution and Non-Prosecution Agreements. This Report examined the factors the DOJ considers when deciding whether to enter into a DPA or NPA and the how the DOJ determines what terms and conditions to include in these agreements. The Report also examined the DOJ's methods of monitoring compliance with DPAs, including the use of corporate monitors.
Consistent with what Gibson Dunn reported in its 2008 update and prior publications, the GAO Report concluded that the DOJ is not consistent in its use of DPAs. The Report noted that different U.S. Attorney's Offices and sections within Main Justice vary dramatically in their willingness to use DPAs and NPAs, and in the terms and conditions that are included in the agreements. In fact, some U.S. Attorney's Offices do not enter DPAs at all: Linda Dale Hoffa, the chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's office in Philadelphia, has stated that her office does not enter DPAs or NPAs because they "think it's better to make a clear bright line decision that we are prosecuting or not prosecuting."
Although it addressed many issues, the main focus of the GAO Report was the appointment of corporate monitors. The GAO Report noted that there are significant disparities within the DOJ regarding the reasons for including a corporate monitor in a DPA, and the process used to select the monitor. The Report recommended that the DOJ adopt internal procedures requiring prosecutors to document the reasons for requiring a monitor and the justification for the selection of a specific monitor.
Corporate Monitors
The debate surrounding corporate monitors in DPAs–discussed in detail in Gibson Dunn's 2008 year-end update–has continued in 2009. In June of this year, Congress held hearings on the role of monitors in DPAs and the need for additional legislation regulating monitors' conduct. Despite the continuing debate over corporate monitors, the DOJ continues to use them in conjunction with DPAs, though their use appears to be on the decline.
In 2008, six of the eighteen DPAs entered into required the appointment of a corporate monitor. Thus far in 2009, only one of the ten DPAs, the agreement with WellCare Health Plans, has explicitly provided for a monitor. The monitor for WellCare is tasked with reviewing and making recommendations regarding the efficacy of WellCare's policies and procedures for reporting and accounting for health care expenditures that are reimbursed by the federal or state government. Notably, the terms of the DPA state that the monitor is to have access to all non-privileged documents, and the monitor "will undertake to avoid the disruption of WellCare's ordinary operations or the imposition of unnecessary costs or expenses to WellCare." These terms may be a reaction to earlier scrutiny about the scope and expense of DOJ required monitorships.
Although only one DPA in 2009 has explicitly provided for a monitor, four other DPAs have established terms that closely resemble the requirements of a monitorship. As a part of its DPA, UBS agreed to exit, with some exceptions, the United States cross-border financial services business. UBS also agreed to hire an "independent accounting or other appropriate firm" to conduct testing and issue reports on UBS's exit from the cross-border business, and to implement internal controls related to cross-border business. Much like the process involving a corporate monitor, the reports of the independent firm are to be submitted to the DOJ and the Audit Committee of USB.
As a part of its DPA with the DOJ Tax Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of North Dakota, Fisher Sand & Gravel agreed to designate a specific individual within the corporation as the Compliance Officer. This individual will function much like a Compliance Officer in any corporation, evaluating and improving the effectiveness of the corporation's compliance and ethics program, save for the fact that the Compliance Officer is to report to the DOJ in addition to corporate management.
As in previous years, monitor-like terms were also established for health care violations. Rather than appoint an independent monitor that reports to the DOJ, however, NeuroMetrix's NPA requires the corporation to enter into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS-IGO"). The agreement with the HHS-IGO will require NeuroMetrix to undertake various compliance obligations, and the HHS-IGO will monitor compliance with the agreement and take action in response to any breaches. Quest Diagnostics also entered into a similar agreement with the HHS-IGO as a part of its NPA with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (and as a result of the guilty plea entered by its subsidiary, Nichols Institute Diagnostics). Corporate Integrity Agreements with the HHS-IGO are common in False Claims Act cases in the health care industry. However, a violation of the Corporate Integrity Agreements will not necessarily lead to a violation of the NPA–as is often the case with a violation in a traditional monitorship program.
Standardization in the Terms and Conditions of DPAs
As the GAO Report concluded, DOJ should demonstrate greater consistency in determining when a DPA or NPA is appropriate. However, the trend toward uniformity in the terms and conditions of DPAs–as first noted in our 2008 year-end update–has continued in many respects. Similar to 2008, almost every agreement in 2009 has included language specifying that: (1) the corporation must cooperate with ongoing government investigations; (2) the corporation must bind any successor in the event of a sale or merger; (3) the corporation must refrain from making any statements that contradict the facts set forth in the agreement; and (4) the DOJ has sole discretion to determine whether a breach of the agreement has occurred.
It is no surprise that, as the use of DPAs increases, the terms and conditions used by the DOJ become more standardized. Standardization of DPAs has occurred not only because of the DOJ's increased familiarity with DPAs, but also in reaction to internal DOJ guidelines and proposed legislation. Last year, the DOJ introduced guidance regarding the factors prosecutors should consider when entering into DPAs; the use of monitors; and prohibited specific practices such as extraordinary restitution (payments to parties not directly affected by the crime). This year, Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), a vocal critic of the DOJ's use of DPAs, and three other Congressmen, re-introduced the Accountability in Deferred Prosecution Act, which was also introduced in 2008. The Act would require the Attorney General to issue guidelines that describe when a DPA or NPA is appropriate; when the appointment of a corporate monitor is appropriate; what terms and conditions are appropriate to include in DPAs and NPAs; and the process that the DOJ must follow to determine whether a corporation has fully satisfied an agreement. The proposed legislation also specifies terms and conditions for monitors, creates a list of pre-approved corporate monitors, and requires judicial oversight of DPAs and NPAs. Although no legislative action has been taken, given this background, the DOJ's self-regulation and standardization of DPA terms and conditions is unsurprising.
Trends Toward Including DPA Terms and Conditions in NPAs
What is surprising, however, is the fact that the standard terms and conditions used in DPAs are increasingly appearing in NPAs. This trend has not gone unnoticed. James B. Comey, former DOJ Deputy Attorney General, recently stated at a conference that "the lines [between NPAs and DPAs] blur. Talking about DPAs separate from NPAs, . . . I'm not sure there is that meaningful [] a distinction."
In the past, the terms and conditions of an NPA–where the government agrees not to file charges against a corporation–have been much less demanding and cumbersome than the terms and conditions in a DPA. With increasing frequency, NPAs have appeared that contain terms and conditions that are as comprehensive and restrictive as terms typically reserved for DPAs. For example, both the PartyGaming and the NeuroMetrix NPAs contain terms (1) requiring continued cooperation on the part of the corporation; (2) regarding successor protection under the agreement; (3) waiving the statute of limitations for the stated violations; (4) waiving challenges to the admission of evidence related to the investigation and NPA; and (5) requiring the corporation to accept as true the statement of facts in the NPA. These are standard terms used in the DPAs of past years, as well as those entered into in 2009.
Given the increasing similarities between the terms and conditions of DPAs and NPAs, it is less surprising that even the DOJ occasionally fails to recognize the difference between DPAs and NPAs. For example, the recent agreement between NeuroMetrix and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts explicitly states that if NeuroMetrix violates the agreement, "the [U.S. Attorney's Office] may file the attached criminal information in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts charging NeuroMetrix with a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320-a-7b(b)(2)." (emphasis added). Because no criminal charges were filed, this agreement is clearly an NPA. The DOJ press release describes the NeuroMetrix agreement as a DPA, however. Additionally, the terms and conditions of the agreement are as detailed and restrictive as those typically found in a DPA. In fact, the recent GAO Report on DPAs and NPAs notes that since March 2008, DOJ has improperly classified at least three DPAs and NPAs.
Notable Terms and Conditions
Even though there may be a trend toward standardizing the terms and conditions of DPAs and NPAs, there are some notable variations in the DPAs that have been entered into in 2009. For instance, as a part of its DPA, WellCare Health Plans agreed to "prominently post on its website the Information, this DPA, and the Statement of Facts" for the duration of the agreement. The company also agreed not to sell or transfer the corporation prior to full payment of the $80 million fine. The DPA between Lloyds TSB Bank and the DOJ Money Laundering Section contains a term that deems a violation of a separate DPA that Lloyds entered into with the New York District Attorney to be a violation of the DOJ DPA, at the discretion of the DOJ. A term in UBS's DPA with the DOJ Tax Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida explicitly allows UBS to challenge a "John Doe" subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking records disclosing U.S. persons who maintain accounts with UBS in Switzerland. The DPA allows UBS to use any defense, objection, or argument to resist enforcement of the subpoena, and to exhaust its appellate remedies should the corporation lose in the lower courts. This is unusual as most DPAs require that the company not make any statement that contradicts the statement of facts in the DPA. UBS has since resisted enforcement of the subpoena on the grounds it would force the corporation to violate Swiss privacy law. The lawsuit between the DOJ and UBS is still pending. There is a similar, but more restrictive, provision in the Beazer Homes DPA that allows the corporation to dispute that the factual allegations in the criminal information or the DPA apply to a specific private civil litigant or class of litigants, but does not allow the company to dispute the factual allegations themselves. This is a fine line, and it remains to be seen how this provision will be construed in practice. Finally, there are terms in both the UBS and Beazer Homes DPAs that prohibit the corporation, with some exceptions, from re-entering the specific line of business that gave rise to the alleged violations.
A corporation's waiver of attorney-client privilege and privileged attorney work product has long been an area of concern with regard to DPAs and NPAs. In 2008, Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip issued guidance to DOJ prosecutors stating that "[e]ligibility for cooperation credit is not predicated upon the waiver of attorney-client privilege or work product protection," and prosecutors "should not ask for such waivers and are directed not to do so." This was a departure from prior practice, wherein many DPAs and NPAs explicitly allowed the DOJ to extend cooperation credit to a corporation based on a company's decision to produce attorney-client or attorney work-product information. Consistent with this new DOJ guidance, not one of the DPAs entered into thus far this year contains provisions conditioning credit on waiver of privileged information. In fact, three of the DPAs entered into–Fisher Sand & Gravel, Lloyds TSB Bank, and NeuroMetrix–contain provisions that explicitly state that nothing in the agreement shall require the corporation to waive attorney-client privilege or work product protection. The DPAs with WellCare and Beazer Homes state that the corporations are required to turn over all non-privileged information the government requests. The other DPAs and NPAs entered into in 2009 do not mention the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.
Even though the DOJ can no longer require a corporation to waive privilege in order to obtain cooperation credit, a corporation may still voluntarily decide to provide privileged information to the DOJ in particular situations. Any corporation that considers providing information to the DOJ should carefully consider the collateral consequences it might face before it produces privileged material. One potential consequence of producing privileged documents to the government pursuant to a DPA is that this information might be available to third-parties at a later date. This is true even when the corporation has entered into a non-waiver, or selective waiver, agreement with the government, wherein the government agrees that production of the documents does not constitute waiver of the privilege or protection as to third-parties.
DPAs and NPAs as Corporate Victories
DPAs and NPAs have generally been viewed as significant victories for corporations, allowing a company to avoid prosecution and leave the allegations behind. Given the harsh corporate consequences that result from an indictment, even when a company is later acquitted, companies are often predisposed to enter into these agreements. Although a DPA or NPA is almost certainly preferable to criminal prosecution, the increasing costs, obligations, and continuing oversight associated with DPAs and NPAs can significantly impact a company's bottom line. One concern related to the growth and expansion of DPAs and NPAs is that their use may cause the DOJ to seek agreements in matters that it previously chose not to prosecute. In the past, the DOJ often declined to prosecute cases in which the allegations involved low-level misconduct or there was a lack of sufficient evidence. However, the increased use of DPAs and NPAs raises a question of whether this new prosecutorial tool may be encouraging the government to seek agreements with corporations in instances that previously resulted in declinations. It is too soon to tell if there is any validity to this concern. However, if the DOJ begins to use DPAs and NPAs in order to impose costly and cumbersome terms and conditions on companies for conduct that previously went unpunished, companies' appetites for DPAs and NPAs may decrease. This is particularly true as NPAs increase in complexity and require companies to comply with many terms previously reserved for DPAs or even corporate guilty pleas.
Although the number of DPAs and NPAs entered into in 2009 is off the record pace set in 2007, the number of agreements entered into this year remains very high. The trend toward uniformity in the terms and conditions in DPAs is a welcome development, but the increasing cost and complexity of NPAs is troubling. It remains to be seen what, if anything, the Obama administration under Attorney General Holder will do to modify the DPA process. Assuredly, the DOJ will continue to use DPAs in some manner, which will require corporations to work closely with counsel to make appropriate decisions.
[1] Throughout the article, the term DPA will be used to refer to both DPAs and NPAs generally, unless specifically noted.
[2] We reported a total of seventeen agreements in our 2008 year-end update on corporate deferred and non-prosecution agreements–fourteen DPAs and three NPAs. Following publication, we became aware of a fourth NPA that was entered into during 2008, bringing the total number of agreements for that year to eighteen. Because NPAs are not filed with a court and are not always publicly reported, the number of NPAs entered into by the DOJ is difficult to determine with precision.
The White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice Group of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP successfully defends corporations, senior corporate executives, and public officials in a wide range of federal and state investigations and prosecutions, and conducts sensitive internal investigations for leading companies in almost every business sector. The Group has members in every domestic office of the Firm and draws on more than 75 attorneys with deep government experience, including numerous former federal and state prosecutors and officials, many of whom served at high levels within the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Joe Warin, a former federal prosecutor, currently serves as a monitor pursuant to a DOJ and SEC enforcement action, and currently serves as the U.S. counsel for the compliance monitor for Siemens. Debra Wong Yang is the former United States Attorney for the Central District of California, and recently completed her role as a monitor pursuant to a DOJ enforcement action.
John H. Sturc (202-955-8243, jsturc@gibsondunn.com)
Barry Goldsmith (202-955-8580, bgoldsmith@gibsondunn.com)
David P. Burns (202-887-3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
David Debold (202-955-8551, ddebold@gibsondunn.com)
Brian C. Baldrate (202-887-3717, bbaldrate@gibsondunn.com)
Jim Walden (212-351-2300, jwalden@gibsondunn.com)
Lee G. Dunst (212-351-3824, ldunst@gibsondunn.com)
Mark A. Kirsch (212-351-2662, mkirsch@gibsondunn.com)
Joel M. Cohen (212-351-2664, jcohen@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher M. Joralemon (212-351-2668, cjoralemon@gibsondunn.com)
Randy M. Mastro (213-351-3825, rmastro@gibsondunn.com)
Marc K. Schonfeld (212-351-2433, mschonfeld@gibsondunn.com)
Orin Snyder (212-351-2400, osnyder@gibsondunn.com)
Alexander H. Southwell (212-351-3981, asouthwell@gibsondunn.com)
Nicola T. Hanna (949-451-4270, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
Marcellus McRae (213-229-7675, mmcrae@gibsondunn.com)
Michael M. Farhang (213-229-7005, mfarhang@gibsondunn.com)
Douglas Fuchs (213-229-7605, dfuchs@gibsondunn.com)
Appendix A: DPAs and NPAs Entered Into During the
First Six Months of 2009
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. – July 1, 2009
DOJ Office
United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina
Beazer conspired to commit mortgage fraud by using fraudulent practices to originate loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration.
These fraudulent practices included charging illegal fees, making improper gifts to purchasers to cover down payments, secretly raising home prices to offset expenses, conspiring to hide its default rates from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and deliberately making loans to unqualified buyers.
Beazer also conspired to commit accounting fraud by practicing "cookie jar accounting."
Length of DPA
5 years or earlier if all of the following conditions are met: at least 3 years have passed (or a change of control of the company), payment of $50 million has been made to the restitution fund, and with the consent of the DOJ (which will "not be unreasonably withheld").
Restitution — $10 million to $50 million (creation of a restitution fund with an immediate contribution of $10 million, and contingent payments into the fund based on a specific formula, but with a cap of $50 million).
Revised Compliance Program
Beazer had previously exited the mortgage origination business, but agreed not to attempt to reenter the business.
There is a "Claims Administer" who will administer the restitution fund. The administrator will be selected by Beazer in consultation with the DOJ, be subject to approval by the DOJ, and be subject to the approval of the court where the DPA is being filed.
A simultaneous settlement agreement was reached with the DOJ Criminal Division on False Claims Act allegations, for which Beazer paid the United States $5 million and agreed to contingent restitution payments of up to $48 million.
A settlement agreement was reached with the SEC in September of 2008. The settlement did not include any monetary penalties.
The DPA is binding on all 93 U.S. Attorney's Offices and the Criminal Division of Main Justice. This provision most likely received the approval of the Criminal Division (since an individual U.S. Attorney's Office is otherwise not permitted to bind those other entities), although the DPA does not state such explicitly.
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. – May 1, 2009
United States Attorney's Office for the District of North Dakota
Department of Justice, Tax Division
FSG allowed the personal expenses of its owner (and his family members) to be paid by FSG as business expenses. This caused FSG's income to be artificially understated on its income tax returns.
FSG also falsified payment entries in their business records, concealed these payments from their outside accountants, and filed false tax forms with the IRS.
Approximately 32 months (until December 31, 2011)
Restitution — $668,141 to the IRS (including interest)
Criminal Fine – $500,000
Implement a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct that prohibits the payment of personal expenses by FSG for any employee and prohibits false, misleading, and artificial entries on the books and records of FSG.
The Code of Business Ethics and Conduct should be designed to monitor, detect, and prevent the payment of personal expenses and the deduction of those expenses from FSG's federal income tax returns.
Use reasonable efforts not to include within the substantial authority of the personnel of FSG anyone who FSG knows, or should know, has engaged in illegal activities or conduct that is inconsistent with an effective ethics and compliance program.
No "monitor," but there is a "Compliance Officer" with similar responsibilities who reports to the DOJ.
Within thirty (30) days, the Company will choose a Compliance Officer and provide the officer's name to the government.
The Compliance Officer will be responsible for implementing the provisions of the Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.
The Compliance Officer will take steps to detect any criminal conduct related to any aspect of the accounting function of FSG; to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the ethics and compliance program; and to establish a system by which individuals can report possible criminal conduct without fear of retaliation.
In order to carry out these responsibilities, the Compliance Officer will have adequate resources, appropriate authority, and direct access to high level personnel and the FSG Board of Directors.
The Compliance Officer will report quarterly to high-level personnel and the FSG Board of Directors on the effectiveness of the compliance and ethics program. During the term of the DPA, the Compliance Officer will also provide a quarterly report to the government that details the same.
The owner of FSG and two other officers of FSG pleaded guilty to individual charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Halliburton Company – February 10, 2009
Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section
Halliburton, through a former subsidiary, allegedly violated the FCPA by making improper and corrupt payments to Nigerian government officials in order to obtain contracts in connection with a natural gas liquefaction project in Nigeria.
Length of NPA
None specifically in the NPA, but Halliburton will pay $382 million in criminal fines and $177 million in disgorgement of profits as part of the former subsidiary's guilty plea.
None reported in the NPA
No monitor
Lloyds TSB – January 9, 2009
Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section
Lloyds violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and United States economic sanctions by stripping information from outgoing U.S. dollar wire transfer payment messages that would have revealed that the transactions involved countries, banks, or persons that were considered sanctioned parties under Iranian, Sudanese, and Libyan sanctions (the exportation of such services from the United States to those nations was prohibited by the sanctions).
These actions also caused New York financial institutions to falsify records.
Civil Forfeiture — $175 million
The Company will demonstrate future good conduct and compliance with international Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Financing of Terrorism best practices and the Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking.
Within 270 days and with the assistance of an outside consultant of Lloyd's selection, the Company will conduct a historical transaction review of all available incoming and outgoing SWIFT MT 100 and MT 200 series USD payment messages from April 2002 through December 2007 that were processed through its UK processing centers and Dubai branch. (Although this is part of the "cooperation" section of the DPA, some may consider it a penalty given the substantial costs involved with the review.)
No monitor.
Lloyds also entered into a contemporaneous DPA with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which included forfeiture of $175 million. The DOJ DPA also requires adherence with the DPA of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.
NeuroMetrix, Inc. – February 9, 2009
United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts
NeuroMetrix paid illegal remunerations to physicians in order to induce them to recommend to their colleagues the purchase of a NeuroMetrix medical system.
These illegal remunerations were reimbursed in whole or in part by Medicare, in violation of the Medicare Anti-Kickback Act.
Criminal Fine — $1.2 million
NeuroMetrix will sign a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Corporate Integrity Agreement will include various compliance obligations, as well as information regarding a de factor monitorship arrangement with the Inspector General's Office that is meant to ensure NeuroMetrix's adherence to those compliance obligations.
A violation of the Corporate Integrity Agreement will not lead to a breach of the DPA.
NeuroMetrix also entered into a settlement agreement with the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Health and Human Services, which included a payment of $2,498,337 and adherence to a Corporate Integrity Agreement.
The Corporate Integrity Agreement contains many compliance-related requirements, including training obligations that require all NeuroMetrix employees to receive annual training on the proper methods of selling, marketing, and promoting medical devices, including information on relevant anti-kickback laws and regulations.
Enforcement of the Corporate Integrity Agreement is the responsibility of the Inspector General's Office, who will serve as de facto monitor of NeuroMetrix's compliance with the Corporate Integrity Agreement. The Inspector General's Office also will have the authority to penalize NeuroMetrix for violations of the Corporate Integrity Agreement (despite the fact that the violations of provisions in the Corporate Integrity Agreement may not lead to a breach of either the DPA or the Settlement Agreement).
Novo Nordisk A/S – May 6, 2009
Through the Oil For Food Program, the Company conspired to violate the FCPA by paying approximately $1.4 million in kickbacks to the Iraqi government in order to obtain contracts to provide them with insulin and other medicines. Novo also inaccurately recorded the kickback payments as "commissions" in its books and records in violation of FCPA provisions.
The Company conspired to commit wire fraud by inflating the price of the contracts by ten percent (10%) prior to submitting them for United Nations approval, concealing the fact that the price contained a kickback to the Iraqi government and drawing on a U.N. line of credit, issued via international wire, in order to fulfill payment.
Criminal Fine — $9 million
Implement a compliance and ethics program designed to detect and prevent violations of the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws throughout its operations.
Conduct a review and periodic testing of policies and procedures regarding compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws.
Maintain a system of internal accounting controls designed to ensure fair and accurate books, records, and accounts.
Institute an anti-corruption compliance code that is applicable to all directors, officers, employees, and, when appropriate, outside parties acting on the company's behalf.
Assign a senior official to oversee compliance with the FCPA and anti-corruption laws.
Institute periodic training and annual certification on compliance for all directors, officers, employees, and, where appropriate, agents and business partners.
Institute a system for reporting criminal conduct and appropriately disciplining non-compliant employees.
Insert standard provisions into contracts and agreements that are reasonably calculated in order to ensure that business partners and agents are complying with the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws.
Novo also reached a settlement with the SEC in connection with these facts, for which Novo paid $3,025,066 in civil penalties and $6,000,079 (including interest) in disgorgement of profits.
PartyGaming PLC – April 6, 2009
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
Conducted an illegal gambling business (for-money online games).
Committed wire fraud and bank fraud by misrepresenting illegal gambling transactions on credit card statements.
None reported
A founder and former officer of PartyGaming pleaded guilty to using wire transfers to transmit bets and wagering information in interstate commerce. He also admitted to forfeiture allegations, which required him to forfeit $300 million to the United States.
Quest Diagnostics – April 15, 2009
Department of Justice, Civil Division
United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York
Violated the False Claims Act by allowing a subsidiary to fraudulently sell inaccurate and unreliable test kits.
Not confirmed, but appears to be no set term
None in the NPA but as a part of a civil settlement Quest and its subsidiary will pay $262 million. The subsidiary will also pay a criminal fine of $40 million.
Quest entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Health and Human Services (see below for more information on this agreement).
Quest entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Corporate Integrity Agreement contains many compliance-related requirements, including the establishment of a compliance program run by a Compliance Officer.
Enforcement of the Corporate Integrity Agreement is the responsibility of the Inspector General's Office, who will serve as de facto monitor of Quest's compliance with the Corporate Integrity Agreement. The Inspector General's Office also will have the authority to penalize Quest for violations of the Corporate Integrity Agreement (despite the fact that the violations of provisions in the Corporate Integrity Agreement may not lead to a breach of either the DPA or the Settlement Agreement).
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida
UBS participated in a scheme to defraud the United States by assisting a number of United States taxpayers to establish accounts with UBS in a manner designed to conceal the taxpayers' interest in the accounts, which allowed the taxpayers to evade IRS reporting requirements, conceal assets from the IRS, and engage in financial transactions in which UBS did not withhold U.S. income taxes as required by law.
False or misleading IRS forms were accepted and filed by UBS in order to conceal the identity of the owners of the above-referenced accounts. These forms were required by law as a result of a Qualified Intermediary Agreement UBS voluntarily signed with the IRS.
UBS bankers, managers and executives continued this cross-border business, despite the fact that they knew or should have known that their clients were evading U.S. taxes.
The longer of 18 months, the completion of UBS's Exit Program (as described below), or the resolution of a "John Doe" summons enforcement action (which is an attempt to gain Swiss records of United States persons who maintained accounts with UBS).
Civil Disgorgement — $380 million ($200 million of which is directly to the SEC)
Restitution — $400 million (including restitution, interest, penalties and federal back-up withholding taxes that should have been withheld)
Engage in an "Exit Program," under which UBS will cease to operate in the United States cross-border business and provide banking or securities services only to United States private citizens residing in the United States through subsidiaries or affiliates registered to do business in the United States with the SEC.
Provide the government with periodic reports on the progress of the Exit Program.
Implement a revised governance structure under which Group General Counsel will have functional management responsibility and authority over the legal and compliance functions of all business divisions, as well as final authority over compensation and the promotion of division-level legal and compliance personnel.
Appoint personnel with direct oversight authority of UBS's performance under the Qualified Intermediary Agreement.
Develop policies and procedures that are in compliance with the Qualified Intermediary Agreement (including the training of employees and an investigation into allegations of failure to comply).
No "monitor," but there is an "external auditor" designated to monitor UBS's Exit Program and particular internal controls.
Hire an external auditor, subject to the consent of the government, who will report on the Company's progress within the Exit Program and implementation of internal controls with respect to the Qualified Intermediary Agreement.
UBS will adopt any reasonable recommendations of the external auditor that will further comply with the Qualified Intermediary Agreement.
In addition to general cooperation, UBS shall disclose the identities and account information of certain United States clients and shall comply with the John Doe summons enforcement action if all objections to the action are denied (i.e., UBS would still retain all rights to defend itself against the summons; this provision only applies if those defenses are denied).
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. – May 5, 2009
United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida
Two wholly-owned subsidiaries conspired to commit health fraud by fraudulently inflating medical expenditure information, all in an effort to reduce the amount of money they would be contractually obligated to pay back to two Florida health care benefit programs.
Restitution — $40 million plus interest
Civil Forfeiture — $40 million plus interest
Within sixty (60) days of the agreement, the Company will implement updated policies and procedures that are designed to ensure complete and accurate reporting of all federal and state health care program information.
Develop and operate adequate internal controls to prevent any of the improper and/or illegal activities that gave rise to the DPA.
Evaluate and revise internal bid procedures in order to ensure fair and accurate submission of all data and information in response to any government bids and/or any government requests for proposals.
A Monitor will be selected by the U.S. Attorney's Office in accordance with DOJ guidelines and after consultation with WellCare.
The monitorship will last for 18 months.
Monitor will have access to all non-privileged documents, information, officers, employees, and agents of WellCare that he/she reasonably believes are necessary in the execution of his/her duties.
The Monitor will immediately report to the DOJ any misconduct that: (a) poses a significant risk to public health and safety; (b) involves senior management of WellCare; (c) involves obstruction of justice; (d) involves a violation of any federal or state criminal statute, or otherwise involves criminal activity; and (e) otherwise poses a significant risk of harm to any person, state or federal entity, or government program. The DOJ may choose to divulge this information to WellCare.
The Monitor will review, evaluate, and make recommendations regarding policies which relate to: (a) the accounting and reporting of all revenues, expenditures, and costs incurred in providing any services to health care program beneficiaries; (b) the documentation of medical records pertinent to any health care services provided to health care program beneficiaries; (c) the submission of claims for payment to health care programs; (d) the preparation, certification, and submission of bids to health care programs; and (e) the training of WellCare employees in order to ensure that any information provided to health care programs is true, accurate, complete, and transparent.
WellCare will adopt all recommendations submitted by the Monitor. If WellCare objects to a recommendation made by the Monitor, the DOJ will issue a non-appealable decision resolving the dispute.
The Monitor will review WellCare's compliance with the DPA and all applicable federal and state health care laws, regulations, and programs.
The Monitor will submit three written reports to the DOJ, WellCare senior management, and WellCare's Board of Directors. The reports will address: (a) WellCare's compliance with the DPA and all applicable federal and state health care laws, regulations, and programs; (b) a summary of the Monitor's recommendations to WellCare and WellCare's responses to those recommendations; and (c) any other relevant information.
WellCare will not employ or be affiliated with the Monitor for at least one year after the monitorship is terminated.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Malou, can you pass the rice please? And also please have a glass of coke filled with ice cubes. Definitely reminds me of those lunches with family in the Philippines.
Oh Ice cold coke and the sweltering heat... makes the perfect scenario to have family lunch back home. Wow your comment took me back too haha.
If it melts in your mouth then it must be goooohd! Yummy looking!
This is an easy dish to prepare but will definitely bring smiles on dinner table. Surely will try this.
It will take you around 15 minutes to prep it up, then aonther 10 minutes to cook it... easy peasy!
This is beautiful and worthy of a "welcome home" dinner. I remember those days - now the kids live in the Twin Cities and I see them more than the college years. Savor and dish up another helping.
Im happy to know that your kids are around the area. I will have to wait a few more years before my kids will come live near us too. I told them that we should live within 10 miles haha... which I don't think will never come to fruition haha.
I have to make a mental note to myself Charlie not to get upset with the mess and spills... as well as spend less online haha.
Tuna here is expensive so this would be a luxury to me if I made one, but for now I will just droll over it.
oh no... I hope you will be able to fix that craving haha. Happy to hear from you Raymund!
My dear friend Malou-I soooo enjoy your posts, your enthusiasms your funny comments you always leave on my blog, and I adore your specialty Asian dishes. Since I'm quite sure our Asian market does not sell tuna belly, I will either make it with a nice seared tuna steak, and have the sauce on the side...also, I was thinking to make it with squid!
I think they sell milk fish belly Elisabeth. it's not as fleshy though but I just thought the "belly" part is what I'm trying to emphasize here. LOL> but honestly tuna steak will come close. Go make it work! I hope you will love it!
Wow, and here I had a beautiful tuna steak and just didn't feel like looking up a recipe. Nice.
Oh my, this is MY kind of meal! I love the flavors you put into this dish. I must try your recipe. Can I use any other fish belly like bangus? Or will it turn out differently? Thanks for sharing, Malou. And thanks for the sweet greetings on my FB page ~ I wanted to comment back but FB's timeline doesn't allow me after a day has lapsed. And that's another post for another day :-) So glad to be enjoying your delish recipes! Enjoy your kids' being home, I share in your joy!
'Fish belly' - hehe. that's weird concept to me for some reason. This looks really good - like a dish you would order at a restaurant!
This looks simply fantastic. I've actually never had a chance to eat/cook with tuna belly simply because I haven't been able to find any. I'll have to hunt some down. Those big slices of green onions are the perfect counterpoint to the fish.
I made this today for a friend's birthday dinner and it was a big hit. I used some bluefin tuna belly that I caught off of the Baja coast a couple of weeks ago.
Thank you for the recipe. I am now a big fan, and I told anyone who asked where I got the recipe.
Hello there. Thank you for your comment. It really made my day. I hope to see you around!


text:
The a Priori Value and Feeling in Max Scheler and Wang Yangming
Yinghua Lu
Asian Philosophy 24 (3):197-211 (2014)
The Transformation of the Wang Yangming Scholarship in the West, Ca. 1960–1980: A Historical Essay.George L. Israel - 2018 - Asian Philosophy 28 (2):135-156.details
ABSTRACTStudents of Ming philosophy and the thought of Wang Yangming likely know that the 1960s–1970s was a period during which many scholarships in this field of study were produced in the English language. Indeed, it has been almost half a century since a group of scholars came together at the University of Hawaii to present papers on Wang Yangming in commemoration of the fifth centenary of his birth. That group included, for example, Wing-tsit Chan, David Nivison, and Du Weiming. These (...) scholars, along with two others not present—Julia Ching and Carsun Chang—played a transformative role in introducing Wang Yangming to an English-reading audience. But, the history behind their achievement, as well as how they interpreted him for that audience, has yet to be written. This paper provides a synopsis of that history, explaining why the scholars chose to write about him and what they said about his life and ideas. (shrink)
Pure Knowing as Moral Feeling and Moral Cognition: Wang Yangming's Phenomenology of Approval and Disapproval.Yinghua Lu - 2017 - Asian Philosophy 27 (4):309-323.details
The main goals of this paper are two. First, it articulates what kinds of knowing pure knowing is in its narrow sense pure knowing as the capacity of moral judgment; pure knowing as moral knowledge and standard. Besides, it analyses pure knowing's different features through a phenomenological description. All these aspects of pure knowing are tied by moral feeling. Second, this paper addresses two sets of theoretical problems that have been raised in Confucian discourse with respect to pure knowing and (...) Heavenly principle, primarily those that render Wang's notion of pure knowing to be static recognition toward particular moral issues, or immediate response, which reading cannot really admit the possibilities of extension, reflection, moral cultivation, and reform of institution; and those that understand pure knowing to be merely abstract without concrete content, such as merely being a metaphysical substance. When properly understood, that is, from the perspective of moral emotions, Wang Yangming's account of pure knowing provides for the possibilities of enhancement and cultivation, while insisting that the content of pure knowing is always accessible to us. (shrink)
The Phenomenology of Respect: With Special Attention to Kant, Scheler, and Confucianism.Yinghua Lu - 2017 - Asian Philosophy 27 (2):112-126.details
In this paper, I focus on analyzing the manifestation and significance of respect. I first illustrate the two meanings of jing 敬 and their connection in Confucian classical texts, which is helpful to understand the Confucian phenomenology of respect. The two meanings are seriousness as a mind-state and respect as an intentional feeling. After clarifying this point, I undertake a phenomenological analysis of respect, in order to show that respect helps one to achieve moral pursuit. This analysis takes the Kantian (...) notion of respect as a starting point but further is accomplished by the phenomenology of value and feeling. The respect for duties and affairs, the respect for personhood and dignity, and the respect for the worthy with merit motivate one to take moral actions. For example, respect contributes in taking one's duties seriously, appreciating human beings' spiritual values and good tendencies even when they have not been actualized, supporting the worthy to play a role, and emulating the worthy to make a contribution and serve others. In Subsequently, I clarify how respect helps one to achieve religious pursuit in one form of Christianity, in light of Max Scheler's discussion on humility and reverence. Through revering God one respects others; through serving God and participating in God's humble spirit one serves others. I elucidate the Confucian classics' discussions on religious experience, in order to show how respect helps one to achieve religious pursuit in one form of Confucianism, and how it is similar and different from Max Scheler's clarification. The concrete relation between respect and li 禮 in the Confucian tradition will be treated in another work. (shrink)
Nerve/Nurses of the Cosmic Doctor: Wang Yang-Ming on Self-Awareness as World-Awareness.Joshua M. Hall - 2016 - Asian Philosophy 26 (2):149-165.details
ABSTRACTIn Philip J. Ivanhoe's introduction to his Readings from the Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism, he argues convincingly that the Ming-era Neo-Confucian philosopher Wang Yang-ming was much more influenced by Buddhism than has generally been recognized. In light of this influence, and the centrality of questions of selfhood in Buddhism, in this article I will explore the theme of selfhood in Wang's Neo-Confucianism. Put as a mantra, for Wang "self-awareness is world-awareness." My central image for this mantra is the entire cosmos (...) anthropomorphized as a doctor engaged in constant self-diagnosis, in which effort s/he is assisted by an entire staff of the nerves/nurses—individual humans enlightened as Wangian sages. In short, I will argue that the world for Wang could be meaningfully understood as a mindful, self-healing body within which humans are the sensitive nerves, using our mindful awareness to direct attention to the affected areas when injury or d... (shrink)
Chinese Neo-Confucianism in Asian Philosophy


text:
Home Community Greater Inclusion Of LGBTI Called For In Anglican Church
Greater Inclusion Of LGBTI Called For In Anglican Church
Matt Fistonich
A letter drafted by a number of Anglican clergy is calling for greater inclusion of the LGBTI community by the Church of England.
Sent to the UK's Sunday Times, the letter identifies what the authors call a new "diversity of theology," and highlight the need for the church to do more to accept LGBTI people.
"Many in our parishes have already made that move and it is time to respect that a diversity of theology within the Church now exists and that there is more than one understanding of what a faithful Christian may believe on these issues."
The clergy add, "As you meet to discuss, we seek from you a clear lead that offers a way forward to greater inclusion that will enable those parishes that wish to do so to celebrate the love that we have found in our wives and husbands."
"We hope for an outcome that will enable those who wish to do so to publicly celebrate were we see God at work in the lives of our congregations without fear and openness."
Despite the Church of England currently not allowing same-sex marriage, many clergy already unofficially bless same-sex couples, support the movement to adopt marriage equality within the church.
The letter from the clergy comes only days after Bishop Nicholas Chamberlain was forced to speak publicly about his sexuality after a local newspaper threatened to out him to the public with out his consent.
Last Updated on Sep 6, 2016
Anglican Church
Bishop Nicholas Chamberlain
Previous articleFirst Openly Gay Man to Moderate Presidential Debate
Next articleJaybird Gives You Freedom to Exercise in Style and Comfort
Follow Matt on Instagram matt_fistonich
Progress Pride Flag Sticker $4.49 $4.49
Gay Nation Bold Unisex Hoodie $51.75 – $54.05
Love Pride Backpack $51.18 $51.18


"We always aim to be the predictable in a world of uncertainty and change"
CHQ is an independent specialist security technology and resilience consultancy practice.
We work with high profile clients within the Defence, Justice, Police, Critical National Infrastructure and Commercial sectors.
Our ethos is to always produce the highest standard of service for our clients maintaining unparalleled levels of communication. We respect the environment in everything we do and manage our resources in a sustainable and responsible way. We always aim to be the predictable in a world of uncertainty and change.
Loss prevention and asset protection are key to the retail industry. A robust security plan is essential to manage all areas of vulnerability.
DR and BC goes a long way to ensuring that a commercial organisation is protected but being proactive with security management will protect an organisation before DR is needed.
Process control and business continuity are two key aspects of security relating to manufacturing. A PSIM approach may be necessary to provide critical information.


Extending the boundaries of musculoskeletal care.
Welcome to our Orthopedics & Sports Medicine Unit and our world-renowned services for the care of musculoskeletal conditions in adults and children.
Our outstanding orthopedic surgeons are leaders in their respective specialties. On the cutting edge of the most significant advances in orthopedic surgery, they help change lives for our patients who rely on them for the best that the field of orthopedic surgery offers.
At Zia Medical Center, we are dedicated to providing personal care because we consider it an invaluable component for successful outcomes. All our patients receive personalized attention combined with compassion, respect, and a thorough communication about the diagnosis and treatment options.
We want you and your family to be as informed as possible about your care-from your first appointment with one of our outstanding orthopedic specialists through all stages of your treatment. We look forward to serving your needs.
The orthopedic surgeons are well equipped and experienced to deal with all aspects of orthopedic. The major procedures such as hip and knee replacements, shoulder and knee arthroscopies, limb deformity correction and limb length with external fixates, spinal surgery and pediatric orthopedics are being successfully done. The orthopedic unit provides trauma services 24/7.
The rooms of our orthopedic ward in Dubai are well maintained and monitored with meticulous attention to avoidance of infection. The ward is staffed with orthopedic doctors; orthopedic surgeons who are the best in their fields due to years of experience, even the nurses are specially trained in orthopedics. An orthopedic physiotherapist with special training is dedicated for postoperative rehabilitation of patients.
Our orthopedic surgeons pay great attention to aseptic conditions. The orthopedic theatre has laminar air flow of international standard to minimize the risk of infection in orthopedic surgical cases such as implant surgery and joint replacement. Hence, it is designed as per the highest international standards.
At our Dubai center for orthopedic, we use equipments which meets highest standards. Our state of the art equipment includes an operating table to take X-rays during the surgery. All the instruments used in orthopedic surgery are renewed after every short span of time. Disposable surgical gowns and drapes are used during surgeries to further minimize the risk of infection. The Image Intensifier which is a specialized X-ray machine used to observe the position of bones and implants during operation.


text:
Process and Empathy are Critical for Success in Political (and other) Negotiations
Holding On or Letting Go?
Legal league tables: recognition of achievement or a cavalcade of clever marketing?
Time to regain momentum on the benefits of mediation
Scotland Covid inquiry has its own questions to answer
Reflecting on the Cardinal Virtues and the Liberal Arts
"In negotiations of all kinds, the greater your capacity for empathy – the more carefully you try to understand all of the other side's motivations, interests and constraints – the more options you tend to have for potentially resolving the dispute or deadlock." These are wise words from negotiation guru, Deepak Malhotra of Harvard Business School. He goes on to conclude that "a lack of empathy usually guarantees failure."
If these observations were merely academic, we might nod sagely and agree. But they are not. We are hearing more these days about a lack of empathy at senior political levels. Sadly, Malhotra's words may provide at least a partial diagnosis of what has gone wrong with the UK's Brexit negotiations.
In his book, Negotiating the Impossible, Malhotra describes three central components of effective negotiation: framing, process and empathy. Another notable writer in this field, Kenneth Cloke, in his latest book 'Politics, Dialogue and the Evolution of Democracy', emphasises the criticality of these components, which he describes slightly differently as content, process and relationships.
Cloke points out that nearly all of our focus in solving political problems is on content while comparatively little time is spent on process and relationships. This may be fatal to solving seemingly intractable issues – like Brexit. Ironically, working hard to build trust and goodwill, being careful with language and showing respect for contrary viewpoints, enhances rather than diminishes the prospects of success. Obvious perhaps. But, to an observer, this doesn't appear to be the experience in Brexit negotiations and we in the UK may suffer the consequences.
As Cloke says: "when we act unilaterally, in our own exclusive self-interest, in matters that directly and significantly impact others, they feel disrespected and more inclined to resist." He suggests that if we added up the costs we incur as a consequence, the results would be "staggering" and would vastly outweigh the cost of learning how to talk and act together. Think of the costs already incurred in the UK economy because of the uncertainty arising from Brexit. £600 million per week according to one report. Staggering?
Where does this lead us? Any new negotiating approach to Brexit must, it seems, address these issues of process and empathy. The associated field of neuroscience now reveals much about how we act and react in difficult situations*. Surely we need to apply this understanding in the political world? Adversarial, binary approaches which stimulate the fight or flight response (and yes/no; in/out; right/wrong; right/left) may no longer be fit for purpose. We must find ways to deal with complexity, volatility, uncertainty, and ambiguity. We need leaders who understand and can work with these ideas.
This leads to the question of political leadership. The UK's political leaders may have years ahead of difficult negotiations about our future relationship with Europe. Who, of the possible candidates for Prime Minister, has the intellectual and emotional range to handle these negotiations in a way which will ensure constructive political, economic and social relationships?
(*I am re-reading Oregon mediator, Tim Hicks' ground-breaking book, Embodied Conflict, at the moment. It really is excellent. Tim is speaking in Edinburgh, Dublin, London, Berlin and Salzburg in early June – catch him if you can!).


text:
Home | | Embedded Systems | Scheduling Policies
Chapter: Embedded Systems
Scheduling Policies
There are two major ways to assign priorities: static priorities that do not change during execution and dynamic priorities that do change.
PRIORITY-BASEDSCHEDULING
Now that we have a priority as context switching mechanism, we have to determine an algorithm by which to assign n priorities to processes. After assigning priorities, the OS takes care of the rest by choosing the highest-priority ready process. There are two major ways to assign priorities: static priorities that do not change during execution and dynamic priorities that do change. We will look at examples of each in this section.
1 Rate-Monotonic Scheduling
Rate-monotonic scheduling(RMS), introduced by Liu and Lay land[Liu73], was one of the first
scheduling policies developed for real-time systems and is still very widely used. RMS is a static
scheduling policy. It turns out that these fixed priorities are sufficient to efficiently schedule the processes in many situations.
The theory underlying RMS is known as rate-monotonic analysis(RMA). This theory, as summarized below, uses a relatively simple model of the system.
■All processes run periodically on a single CPU.
■Context switching time is ignored.
■There are no data dependencies between processes.
■The execution time for a process is constant.
■All deadlines are at the ends of their periods.
■The highest-priority ready process is always selected for execution.
The major result of RMAs that a relatively simple scheduling policy is optimal under certain conditions. Priorities are assigned by rank order of period, with the process with the shortest period being assigned the highest priority. This fixed-priority scheduling policy is the optimum assignment of static priorities to processes, in that it provides the highest CPU utilization while ensuring that all processes meet their deadlines. Example6.3 illustrates RMS.
If, on the other hand, we give higher priority to P2, the n critical-instant analysis tells us that we must execute all of P2 and all of P1 in one of P1's periods in the worst case:
T1 T2 1.
There are cases where the first relationship can be satisfied and the second cannot, but there are no cases where the second relationship can be satisfied and the first cannot. We can inductively show that the process with the shorter period should always be given higher priority for process sets of arbitrary size. It is also possible to prove that RMS always provides a feasible schedule if such a schedule exists.
The bad news is that, although RMS is the optimal static-priority schedule, it does not always allow the system to use 100% of the available CPU cycles. In the RMS frame work, the total CPU utilization for a set of n tasks is the fraction Ti/ I is the fraction of time that the CPU spends executing task i.
It is possible to show that for a set of two tasks under RMS scheduling, the CPU utilization U
will be no greater than 2(21/2 1)∼ 0.83. In other words, the CPU will be idle at least 17% of
the time. This idle time is due to the fact that priorities are assigned statically; we see in the next section that more aggressive scheduling.
2 Earliest-Deadline-First Scheduling
Earliest deadline first(EDF) is another well-known scheduling policy that was also studied by Liu and Lay land[Liu73]. It is a dynamic priority scheme—it changes process priorities during execution based on initiation times. As a result, it can achieve higher CPU utilizations than RMS. The EDF policy is also very simple: It assigns priorities in order of deadline. The highest-priority process is the one whose deadline is nearest in time, and the lowest- priority process is the one whose deadline is farthest away. Clearly, priorities must be recalculated at every completion of a process. However, the final step of the OS during the scheduling procedure is the same as for
RMS— the highest-priority ready process is chosen for execution.
Example6.4 illustrates EDF scheduling in practice. In some applications, it may be acceptable for some processes to occasionally miss deadlines. For example, a set-top box for video decoding is not a safety-critical application, and the occasional display artifacts caused by missing deadlines may be acceptable in some markets. What if your set of processes is un schedulable and you need to guarantee that they complete their deadlines? There are several possible ways to solve this problem:
■Get a faster CPU. That will reduce execution times with out changing the periods, giving you lower utilization. This will require you to redesign the hardware, but this is often feasible because you are rarely using the fastest CPU available.
■ Redesign the processes to take less execution time. This requires knowledge of the code and may or may not be possible.
■ Rewrite the specification to change the deadlines. This is un likely to be feasible, but may be in a few cases where some of the deadlines were initially made tighter than necessary.
Embedded Systems : Scheduling Policies |
Anna University EEE - All Subjects
Electrical Engineering - All Subjects
What is an embedded system?
Inside the embedded system
8 bit accumulator processors
Example 8 bit architectures: Z80, Z80 programming model, MC6800
Microcontrollers: MC68HC05, MC68HC11 - Architecture
Data processors: Complex instructions, microcode and nanocode
INTEL 80286
INTEL 80386DX
Motorola MC68000 and its hardware
Motorola MC68020
The MC68040
Integrated processors
RISC processors
The Berkeley RISC model
Sun SPARC RISC processor
The Stanford RISC model
The MPC603 block diagram
The ARM RISC architecture
DSP basic architecture
Choosing a processor


BillAvenue welcomes you to join its online bill payment platform as a Bill Collection Agent and collect bill payments for Greater Chennai Corporation to earn a regular income. As an agent of the BBPS system, you can connect to multiple utility companies who are available to provide you with access to bill collection services. Millions of customers who are consuming utility services such as Direct-To-Home, broadband, mobile postpaid, gas, water, electricity, etc. on a daily basis can now become your clients from whom you can collect bill payments and earn high income as commission.
The Chennai Municipal Corporation, officially known as the Greater Chennai Corporation is the local governing body of the city of Chennai in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Chennai, formerly Madras, encompasses an area of 426 sq. km and has an estimated population of nearly 6.5 million. The corporation is in charge of road maintenance, streetlights, and flyovers in Chennai and also the city's sanitation and cleanliness. Formed in 1688, the corporation is the oldest municipal body of the Commonwealth of Nations outside the United Kingdom. The corporation was set up by a Royal Charter issued in 1687 by King James II as per the advice of the chairman of the East India Company. Greater Chennai based water consumers have to make monthly bill payments for water supply services. BillAvenue makes it possible for customers to make their water bill payment through the GCC Water Bill BBPS system. Thousands of customers can pay water bill online or even simply walk up to the nearest agent's service center or store and make instant bill payment. Aggregrate businesses or entrepreneurs who wish to operate as a BBPOU can collaborate with BillAvenue and serve these customers as an Agent Insitution. For providing bill collection services these agents become entitled to receive commission on each transaction.
The Greater Chennai Corporation offers water supply services for which customers make monthly bill payments through various channels. At BillAvenue, customers can connect to their biller through Pay GCC water bill online BBPS agents who offer bill collection services directly from their service centers. Each Collection Agent earns high income from bill collections done through the BBPS system.
Integration with BillAvenue is an easy process. After joining the platform, you become part of a bill payment process which is seamless and efficient. Customers can now quickly connect with the billers and make payment which is transferred directly to the destined party without any hassles. The earlier process was lengthy and involved the possibilities of errors and delays. The new process reduces the turnaround time of payment thereby increasing the cash flow to the biller. BillAvenue is certified by National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) to provide standardized bill payment services through the aid of Water bill online payment GCC BBPS system. Your contribution as a BBPS Collection Agent is highly valued and also worthy of appreciation. On each bill payment collection, a BBPS agent gets to take away an impressive amount of service charge.


text:
Меэлис Линдмаа (; 14 октября 1970, Таллин) — эстонский футболист, левый защитник и полузащитник. Выступал за национальную сборную Эстонии.

Биография

Клубная карьера
Воспитанник таллинской футбольной секции «Лывид», тренеры — Тынис Теэсалу, Роман Убакиви. На взрослом уровне начал выступать за старшую команду своего клуба в 1987 году в первенстве Эстонской ССР.

В 1989 году перешёл в таллинский «Спорт», в его составе провёл 29 матчей и забил один гол во второй лиге СССР. В 1990 году в составе «Спорта» выступал в чемпионате Прибалтики, затем вернулся во «Флору».

С 1992 года выступал за «Флору» в независимом чемпионате Эстонии, стал неоднократным чемпионом и призёром чемпионата страны. Сыграл несколько матчей на правах аренды за «Тулевик» и «Лелле».

С 1997 года выступал за границей — в шведских клубах низших дивизионов «Виммербю» и «Нючёпинг», финском клубе «Финстрёмс Камратерна» с Аландских островов. В 1999 году играл в высшем дивизионе Финляндии за «КТП» (Котка) и «ТПВ» (Тампере). В 2000 году ненадолго вернулся в Эстонию, где выступал за «Курессааре», затем несколько лет до конца карьеры играл в низших лигах Финляндии за «Салон Паллолият».

Карьера в сборной
Дебютировал в национальной сборной Эстонии 3 июня 1992 года, в первом официальном матче после восстановления независимости, против команды Словении. Последний матч провёл 5 октября 1996 года против сборной Белоруссии. Всего сыграл 28 матчей за сборную, голов не забивал.

Достижения
 Чемпион Эстонии (2): 1993/94, 1994/95
 Обладатель Кубка Эстонии (1): 1995

Примечания

Ссылки

 Профиль на сайте footballdatabase.eu
 Эстонский спортивный биографический лексикон

Футболисты СССР
Футболисты Эстонии
Игроки сборной Эстонии по футболу
Игроки ФК «Спорт» Таллин
Игроки ФК «Флора»
Игроки ФК «Вильянди»
Игроки ФК «Лелле»
Игроки ФК «Нючёпинг»
Игроки ФК «Коткан ТП»
Игроки ФК ТПВ
Игроки ФК «Курессааре»

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia