83,240
edits
Template:GMSLA compensation for mismanagement: Difference between revisions
Template:GMSLA compensation for mismanagement (view source)
Revision as of 16:22, 11 June 2019
, 11 June 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "===Retrospective compensation for corporate mismanagement=== An interesting question arises as to whether settlements or judgments reflecting corporate malfeasance by issuers...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Such disputes can take years — decades even — to iron out, can take any number of different forms and, if viewed as {{gmslaprov|Income}}, represent a significant tail risk in a {{gmslaprov|Borrower}}’s trading book. | Such disputes can take years — decades even — to iron out, can take any number of different forms and, if viewed as {{gmslaprov|Income}}, represent a significant tail risk in a {{gmslaprov|Borrower}}’s trading book. | ||
On one hand, the definition of {{gmslaprov|Income}} is very wide: | |||
{{Template:GMSLA 2010 Income}} | |||
On the other hand — and it pains me somewhat to lay some {{t|Latin}} on you, but I will — the [[ejusdem generis]] rule of interpretation says where general words (here, “distribution of [[Any type, kind or nature|any kind whatsoever]]”) follow specific words (“[[Dividend - Equity Derivatives Provision|dividends]], [[interest]]”), the general words are cover only objects similar in nature to those specific words. So the distribution should be of the same nature as interest or dividends. | |||
So, is a court-mandated compensation for historical corporate malfeasance “of the same nature” as an issuer’s voluntarily declared dividend intended to reflect its good performance? The JC would argue that it is not. | |||