Litigationey: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|g|{{image|leagle beagle|jpg|Now, what is this “[[Aïessdiyé]]” of which you speak?}} }}{{dpn|/ˌlɪtɪˈɡeɪʃᵊni/<br> (Also [[suish]], [[squabblative]]|adj}}Of a commercial issue, important, basically straightforward but, thanks to the sedimentary interventions of generations of [[professional advisers]] over the ages, rendered in language so opaque that no-one outside an [[Clavam Hominum Senum Pallidorum|inner cabal of specialists]] knows what is really going on. And that inner cabal sure ain’t talking.  
{{a|g|{{image|leagle beagle|jpg|Now, what is this “[[Aïessdiyé]]” of which you speak?}} }}{{dpn|/ˌlɪtɪˈɡeɪʃᵊni/<br> (Also [[suish]], [[squabblative]]|adj}}Of a commercial issue, important, basically straightforward but, thanks to the sedimentary interventions of generations of [[professional advisers]], rendered in language so opaque that no-one outside an [[Clavam Hominum Senum Pallidorum|inner cabal of specialists]] knows what is really going on. And that inner cabal sure ain’t talking.  


“Litigationey” often describes commercial undertakings predicated on some kind of “[[plausible deniability]]” contractual arrangements which rather wish they were, or looked like, ''something else''.  
“Litigationey” often describes commercial undertakings predicated on some kind of “[[plausible deniability]]”: contractual arrangements which rather wish they were, or looked like, ''something else''.  


For example, it is important to those who sell [[credit default swap]]s that they should not be mistaken for [[insurance contract]]s. Dealers in [[equity swap]]s wish them to be not considered [[stamp duty|stampable]] investments in [[shares]]. Those who truck in collateral like to take it subject to [[pledge]] but, at the same time, be free to [[rehypothecation|give it away]].  
For example, it is important to those who sell [[credit default swap]]s that they should not be mistaken for [[insurance contract]]s. Dealers in [[equity swap]]s wish them to be not considered [[stamp duty|stampable]] investments in [[shares]]. Those who truck in collateral like to take it subject to [[pledge]] but, at the same time, be free to [[rehypothecation|give it away]].  
Line 11: Line 11:
Thus, over time workaday documents become [[squabblative]] because, while the [[legal eagle|practitioners]] who propagate them are well-drilled, fluent in these language games and strongly incentivised to maintain the theatre, those who come to them cold — who often hail from the foreign climes of [[Litigation|litigation department]], [[King’s Counsel|bar]] or [[King’s Bench Division|bench]] — are not.
Thus, over time workaday documents become [[squabblative]] because, while the [[legal eagle|practitioners]] who propagate them are well-drilled, fluent in these language games and strongly incentivised to maintain the theatre, those who come to them cold — who often hail from the foreign climes of [[Litigation|litigation department]], [[King’s Counsel|bar]] or [[King’s Bench Division|bench]] — are not.


We have remarked before about the differing [[purpose|functions]] a [[contract]] has during its life. [[Sales]], [[operations]], [[legal]] and [[trading]] — each has its own priorities and private agenda. When a commercial accord reaches cataclysm, these newly inducted agents from the disputes tribunals find a different [[purpose]] again: to wreak havoc. If given the chance, they deny utterly the tacit accommodations their commercial cousins made to each other in fair times, when the goal of reaching compliant, tax efficient consensus was mutual. A “litigationey” contract gives just such a chance.  
We have remarked before about the differing [[purpose|functions]] a [[contract]] has during its life. [[Sales]], [[operations]], [[legal]] and [[trading]] — each has its own priorities and private agendas. In peacetime all is well, each has her nibble on the biscuit, passes it on, and eventually the contract winds up signed, filed in a database somewhere and gratefully disregarded. No-one will need to look at it again, short of disaster.  


Herewith the great bane of hindsight: how we are goaded to forget. But litigation advisers don’t need goading: they never knew in the first place. Why we should ever commend our commercial souls to the hands of those who sit upon the King’s Bench is a question best not pondered.  
When such a disaster arrives — heaven forfend — the document is exhumed, dusted off and passed to a new constituency who have never seen it before and have little grasp of the etiquette which is meant to accompany its construction: litigators. These agents have yet another [[purpose]] and agenda: ''to wreak havoc''. If given half a chance, they will deny utterly the tacit accommodations their commercial cousins made to each other short days ago when the aim of compliant, tax efficient consensus was mutual.
 
Why anyone would commend her commercial soul to the hands of those who sit upon, or stand before, the King’s Bench is a question best not pondered.  


ISDAs come before the courts one at a time. They are exotic specimens, rather like those ghost orchids: retrieved at personal cost from the depths of a sweaty tropical swamp and prone to cause hallucinations among people not ready for them. Such as High Court judges.  
ISDAs come before the courts one at a time. They are exotic specimens, rather like those ghost orchids: retrieved at personal cost from the depths of a sweaty tropical swamp and prone to cause hallucinations among people not ready for them. Such as High Court judges.