From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[11(j) - IM CSD Provision|Specially]] for anoraks, completists and those fans of interpretation and construction clauses who just didn’t feel quite ''satisfied'' with the original {{imcsdprov|Interpretation}} clause in the {{imcsd}} — look, it came early on in the piece, and was over quite quickly, even though it has fully four sub-clauses in it — those cheeky little rascals in {{icds}} threw in this little number like a late, late encore — you know, just when your hands are getting sore from all the slow clapping, the emergent enthusiasm is petering out of the stadium as it seems the show is over and, goddamn it you just want to go home now anyway, and you’re turning to collect your coat because you know they’re about to bring up the house lights and shoo everyone out of the building and BAM!!! THERE IT IS!!! MORE INTERPRETATION!!!
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Statutes as amended from time to time. Like, you don’t say...===
| |
| It seems fussy, peculiar and bloody-minded, I know — and what a thing to suddenly remember, and crowbar into the dog days of the ''eleventh'' paragraph! — but for those earnestly wondering what sort of paranoid ''freak'' would even ''entertain'' the fantastical idea that “laws” might not be taken to refer to those laws ''as they presently exist'', or ''as they have been replaced'' from time to time — there is a straightforward answer: the sort of freak who the industry turns to to issue [[ERISA netting opinion|netting opinions about ERISA funds]]. That’s who. To this day ERISA plans are treated as non-nettable ''precisely'' because he isn’t quite sure that reference tot he Bankruptcy Code doesn’t mean the [[Bankruptcy Code]] as it was in 1972 ''before they had invented derivatives'', and at which time the derivatives netting safe harbor hadn’t been implemented.
| |
|
| |
| All too horribly true.
| |
Latest revision as of 09:52, 27 June 2024