Template:Absence of litigation: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "===Absence of litigation generally=== An absence of litigation representation seeks to address litigation carrying two particular risks: *'''Enforceability''': Litigat..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
====Existentially apocalyptic {{tag|litigation}}==== | ====Existentially apocalyptic {{tag|litigation}}==== | ||
Look, if your [[counterparty]] is banged up in court proceedings so awful to behold that an adverse finding might bankrupt it altogether, and your credit sanctioning team hasn’t got wind of it independently then, friend, you have way, way bigger problems than whether you have this feeble covenant. And, if you are only catching it at all thanks to a carelessly given [[absence of litigation]] rep, by the time said {{tag|litigation}} makes itself known to you<ref>Judgment day, in other words.</ | Look, if your [[counterparty]] is banged up in court proceedings so awful to behold that an adverse finding might bankrupt it altogether, and your credit sanctioning team hasn’t got wind of it independently then, friend, you have way, way bigger problems than whether you have this feeble covenant. And, if you are only catching it at all thanks to a carelessly given [[absence of litigation]] rep, by the time said {{tag|litigation}} makes itself known to you<ref>Judgment day, in other words.</ref>''won’t it be a bit late''? | ||
====Pick your battles==== | ====Pick your battles==== | ||
All that said, and probably for all of the above reasons, parties tend not to care less about this representation too vehemently, so your practical course is most likely to leave it where you find it. | All that said, and probably for all of the above reasons, parties tend not to care less about this representation too vehemently, so your practical course is most likely to leave it where you find it. | ||
Revision as of 14:58, 10 May 2019
Absence of litigation generally
An absence of litigation representation seeks to address litigation carrying two particular risks:
- Enforceability: Litigation that could somehow undermine or prejudice the very enforceability of life was we know it (a.k.a the agreement you are presently negotiating);
- Credit deterioration: Litigation that is so monstrous in scope that it threatens to wipe your counterparty from the face of the earth altogether, while it still owes you under the agreement you’re negotiating.
====Enforceability-threatening litigation==== Firstly, Earth to Planet ISDA: what kind of litigation or regulatory action — we presume about something unrelated to this agreement since, by your theory, it doesn’t damn well exist yet — could adversely impact in the enforceability of this future private legal contract between one of the litigants and an unrelated, and ignorant, third party?
Search me. But still, I rest assured there will an ISDA boxwallah out there somewhere who could think of something.
====Existentially apocalyptic litigation==== Look, if your counterparty is banged up in court proceedings so awful to behold that an adverse finding might bankrupt it altogether, and your credit sanctioning team hasn’t got wind of it independently then, friend, you have way, way bigger problems than whether you have this feeble covenant. And, if you are only catching it at all thanks to a carelessly given absence of litigation rep, by the time said litigation makes itself known to you[1]won’t it be a bit late?
Pick your battles
All that said, and probably for all of the above reasons, parties tend not to care less about this representation too vehemently, so your practical course is most likely to leave it where you find it.
- ↑ Judgment day, in other words.