Extraordinary rendition: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(21 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|plainenglish|}}Legal drafting that is so convoluted as to violate the ''UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of an Innocent and Much-Loved Language''.
{{a|plainenglish|{{image|Moules|png|Not a [[company]], yesterday.}}
}}{{d|Extraordinary rendition|/ɪksˈtrɔːdnri/ /rɛnˈdɪʃən/|n}}<br>


The first identified violation was Clifford Chance’s non-definition of Companies in its 2021 [[GMRA]] [[netting opinion]] (where else) where our learned colleagues, having devoted some 700 words to the question of what companies are, then throws another 150 explaining, in excruciating detail, what they are ''not''.
Legal drafting that is so convoluted as to violate the UN convention against the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of language.


{{quote|For the purpose of this opinion, the word “'''[[Company|companies]]'''” shall neither refer to economic interest groups (''groupements d’interêts économiques'') nor European economic interest groups (''groupements d’interêts économiques européens''). It shall furthermore not encompass any entities listed hereafter or any entities which are subject to a specific legislative framework or any specific licensing requirements, such as, [[without limitation]], reinsurance undertakings, pension funds, investment companies in risk capital, securitisation vehicles, [[Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive|alternative investment fund managers]] subject to the Luxembourg law of 12 July 2013 on investment fund managers (as amended) (the “'''AIFM Law'''”), alternative investment funds subject to the AIFM law other than UCI or reserved alternative investment funds (fonds d’investissement alternatrives reserves (“'''RAIF'''”) which are additionally subject to the Luxembourg law of 2016 on RAIF (as amended) (except the extent such entities are specifically covered in Appendix 2 part 1).}}
{{icds}} are past masters, of course — the {{imcsd}} is a high watermark — but an interesting recent case was [[Clifford Chance]] [[Luxembourg lawyer|Luxembourg]]’s ''non''-definition — what we like to call a “[[definisn’t]]” — of “[[Company|companies]]” in its 2021 [[GMRA]] [[netting opinion]] (where else?).
 
Here our learned colleagues, having devoted hundreds of words to what Luxembourg companies ''are'', then embarked on hundreds more musing, in excruciating detail, on what they are ''not''.
 
{{sa}}
*[[Definisn’t]]
*[[Netting opinion]]
*[[Luxembourg lawyer]]
 
{{ref}}

Latest revision as of 13:44, 27 February 2023

Towards more picturesque speech™
Not a company, yesterday.
SEC guidance on plain EnglishIndex: Click ᐅ to expand:
Plain English
Drafting
Metaphor
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Extraordinary rendition
/ɪksˈtrɔːdnri/ /rɛnˈdɪʃən/ (n.)

Legal drafting that is so convoluted as to violate the UN convention against the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of language.

ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ are past masters, of course — the 2018 English law IM CSD is a high watermark — but an interesting recent case was Clifford Chance Luxembourg’s non-definition — what we like to call a “definisn’t” — of “companies” in its 2021 GMRA netting opinion (where else?).

Here our learned colleagues, having devoted hundreds of words to what Luxembourg companies are, then embarked on hundreds more musing, in excruciating detail, on what they are not.

See also

References

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Extraordinary_rendition&oldid=72054"