Bright-line test: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
===Usage=== | ===Usage=== | ||
“There is no [[bright line test]] in the rules, and consequently there is always a potential risk that regulators might be [[inclined]] to take the view that your good faith practice on which your firm designed its implementation was not | “There is no [[bright line test]] in the rules, and consequently there is always a potential risk that regulators might be [[inclined]] to take the view that your good faith practice on which your firm designed its implementation was not compl ...” zzzzz zzzz zzzz HEY! WAKE UP! | ||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||
*[[Chicken licken]] | |||
{{dramatis personae}} | {{dramatis personae}} | ||
Revision as of 18:08, 4 October 2018
always uttered in the negative — i.e., “sadly, there’s no bright line test” — a bright line test is a metaphysical concept that does not exist as a matter of US law. It is a US attorney’s means of evading any responsibility for anything she says or does, instantly rendering any legal opinion she may have written to you totally worthless.
Usage
“There is no bright line test in the rules, and consequently there is always a potential risk that regulators might be inclined to take the view that your good faith practice on which your firm designed its implementation was not compl ...” zzzzz zzzz zzzz HEY! WAKE UP!
See also
Dramatis personae: CEO | CFO | Client | Employees: Divers · Excuse pre-loaders · Survivors · Contractors · The Muppet Show | Middle management: COO · Consultant · MBA | Controllers: Financial reporting | Risk | Credit | Operations | IT | Legal: GC · Inhouse counsel · Docs unit · Litigator · Tax lawyer · US attorney Lawyer | Front office: Trading | Structuring | Sales |