US attorney: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|people|}}Readers may detect some animus — a peculiar aversion — on the [[Jolly Contrarian]]’s part to [[US attorney|attorneys of a North American disposition]], but really he is quite fond of them, one on one. Individually, [[US attorney]]s are uncommonly good, decent people, and as long as you don’t get them onto the subject of | {{a|people|}}Readers may detect some animus — a peculiar aversion — on the [[Jolly Contrarian]]’s part to [[US attorney|attorneys of a North American disposition]], but really he is quite fond of them, one on one. Individually, [[US attorney]]s are uncommonly good, decent people, and as long as you don’t get them onto the subject of [[US Securities Regulation]] or market practice, perfectly agreeable company, especially as the evening draws on. Only when taken as a collective does the prospect pall. | ||
For they — and the institutions that have shaped them and which they comprise — have come up with some of the most confounded gouts of articulated of nonsense ever to don a pair of stilts. | For they — and the institutions that have shaped them and which they comprise — have come up with some of the most confounded gouts of articulated of [[Nonsense on stilts|nonsense ever to don a pair of stilts]]. | ||
Things like: | Things like: | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*The impossibility of [[Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act#Netting|netting]] [[ERISA]] funds. | *The impossibility of [[Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act#Netting|netting]] [[ERISA]] funds. | ||
*[[Gross negligence]] | *[[Gross negligence]] | ||
*[[Equitable indemnity]] | |||
*Civil actions by regulators for criminal actions | |||
===Cultural imperialism=== | ===Cultural imperialism=== | ||
Now we Brits are hardly ones to throw stones — even we from the former colonies of the antipodes — but [[US attorney]]s tend to suppose everyone knows about their jurisdiction, cares about it, is in awe of it, and will have no objection to submitting to it. Every now and then you come across a [[counterparty]] in some far-flung backwater (continental | Now we Brits are hardly ones to throw stones — even we from the former colonies of the antipodes — but [[US attorney]]s tend to suppose everyone knows about their jurisdiction, cares about it, is in awe of it, and will have no objection to submitting to it. Every now and then you come across a [[counterparty]] in some far-flung backwater (continental [[Europe]], for example) who expresses bafflement or even affrontery at the thought of subjugating itself to the law of the [[:Category:US Securities Regulation|Americans]]. That this might happen takes some [[U.S. Attorney|Americans]] by surprise. Then again, the fact it takes some [[U.S. Attorney|Americans]] by surprise, takes everyone ''else'' by surprise. It is a fruitless task trying to get the bottom of who is most justifiably surprised but, for the record, it’s us. | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Bright line test]] | *[[Bright line test]] | ||
*[[Mediocre lawyer]] | *[[Mediocre lawyer]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024
|
People Anatomy™
A spotter’s guide to the men and women of finance.
|
Readers may detect some animus — a peculiar aversion — on the Jolly Contrarian’s part to attorneys of a North American disposition, but really he is quite fond of them, one on one. Individually, US attorneys are uncommonly good, decent people, and as long as you don’t get them onto the subject of US Securities Regulation or market practice, perfectly agreeable company, especially as the evening draws on. Only when taken as a collective does the prospect pall.
For they — and the institutions that have shaped them and which they comprise — have come up with some of the most confounded gouts of articulated of nonsense ever to don a pair of stilts.
Things like:
- Rehypothecation: The art of giving away something you do not have;
- The impossibility of netting ERISA funds.
- Gross negligence
- Equitable indemnity
- Civil actions by regulators for criminal actions
Cultural imperialism
Now we Brits are hardly ones to throw stones — even we from the former colonies of the antipodes — but US attorneys tend to suppose everyone knows about their jurisdiction, cares about it, is in awe of it, and will have no objection to submitting to it. Every now and then you come across a counterparty in some far-flung backwater (continental Europe, for example) who expresses bafflement or even affrontery at the thought of subjugating itself to the law of the Americans. That this might happen takes some Americans by surprise. Then again, the fact it takes some Americans by surprise, takes everyone else by surprise. It is a fruitless task trying to get the bottom of who is most justifiably surprised but, for the record, it’s us.