83,240
edits
Definisn’t: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
We are left with the rather unsettling conclusion that anything else in the universe is, or could be, or it is not beyond that question that it could in suitable circumstances be considered as, or [[deemed]] to be, a [[security-based swap]]. A Cornish pasty; an echidna; a map of Tasmania; a motorised rick-shaw: all are, or at any rate could be, “security-based swaps” for whatever purposes might hove into view should you be a regulator empowered by the [[Securities Exchange Act]]. | We are left with the rather unsettling conclusion that anything else in the universe is, or could be, or it is not beyond that question that it could in suitable circumstances be considered as, or [[deemed]] to be, a [[security-based swap]]. A Cornish pasty; an echidna; a map of Tasmania; a motorised rick-shaw: all are, or at any rate could be, “security-based swaps” for whatever purposes might hove into view should you be a regulator empowered by the [[Securities Exchange Act]]. | ||
Then there is the definisn’t of “companies” in [[Clifford Chance]]’s [[Luxembourg]] [[GMRA]] [[netting opinion]], which goes beyond the lawyers run-of-the-mill perversities — you know: pegging off the rest of the universe, [[Rumsfeld’s taxonomy|known and unknown]], instead of focusing on the matter at hand — and moves over to a form of cruel and unusual torture of the English language (and [[In-house lawyer|those poor souls]] consigned forever to read [[netting opinion]]s), for which we refer you to our article on [[extraordinary rendition]]. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Extraordinary rendition]] | |||
*[[US Person]] | *[[US Person]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||