Income Payment Date - 2000 GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{gmsla2000anat|Income Payment Date}} | {{gmsla2000anat|Income Payment Date}} | ||
A clumsy [[Definitions|definition]] in that it muddies ''entitlement'' to be paid income from ''payment date'' of {{gmsla2000prov| | A clumsy [[Definitions|definition]] in that it muddies ''entitlement'' to be paid income from ''payment date'' of {{gmsla2000prov|Income}}, and when it comes to [[manufacturing]] dividends and income, it is the date of ''entitlement'' to payment that is important. Income Payment Date gets this right, after a fashion, for registered Securities, but even then there is a hanging and rather ambiguous “[[or]]”. | ||
===“[[Or]]” as an [[exclusive disjunction]]=== | |||
To make sense of it, this one needs this or to be an ''ex''clusive disjunction, whereas in the ordinary course, enthusiastic readers will know, the [[JC]]’s house view is that [[or]] is an ''in''clusive disjunction. Clearly, for [[Bearer security|bearer paper]] the only material time is the point where there noteholder rocks up with its note or [[coupon]] and presents it for payment. For a registered security, the right to payment accrues on an {{gmslaprov|Income Record Date}}, and it doesn't matter who holds the paper (or is registered as owner) on the payment date; the person who was registered on the record date gets the payment. | |||
Nonetheless, the drafting makes rather a bosh of a simple question which — as I dare say the [[JC]]'s own {{nutshell}} drafting demonstrates — can be articulated quite easily. | |||
:{{Nutshell GMSLA 2000 Income Payment Date}}<br> | |||
For this reason, the definition was rather improved by its successor in the [[2010 GMSLA]], “{{gmslaprov|Income Record Date}}” | For this reason, the definition was rather improved by its successor in the [[2010 GMSLA]], “{{gmslaprov|Income Record Date}}” | ||
And no, this is not a good example of where one should use “[[and/or]]”. There ''are'' no good examples of that. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Exclusive disjunction]] | |||
*[[Inclusive disjunction]] | |||
Latest revision as of 17:21, 24 June 2019
A clumsy definition in that it muddies entitlement to be paid income from payment date of Income, and when it comes to manufacturing dividends and income, it is the date of entitlement to payment that is important. Income Payment Date gets this right, after a fashion, for registered Securities, but even then there is a hanging and rather ambiguous “or”.
“Or” as an exclusive disjunction
To make sense of it, this one needs this or to be an exclusive disjunction, whereas in the ordinary course, enthusiastic readers will know, the JC’s house view is that or is an inclusive disjunction. Clearly, for bearer paper the only material time is the point where there noteholder rocks up with its note or coupon and presents it for payment. For a registered security, the right to payment accrues on an Income Record Date, and it doesn't matter who holds the paper (or is registered as owner) on the payment date; the person who was registered on the record date gets the payment.
Nonetheless, the drafting makes rather a bosh of a simple question which — as I dare say the JC's own Nutshell™ drafting demonstrates — can be articulated quite easily.
- Bearer securities: For bearer securities, their Income payment date;
- Registered securities: For registered securities, the date by reference to which which a registered holder would become entitled to be paid Income;
For this reason, the definition was rather improved by its successor in the 2010 GMSLA, “Income Record Date”
And no, this is not a good example of where one should use “and/or”. There are no good examples of that.