Template:Erisa netting: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
Seriously. That’s it.
Seriously. That’s it.


It is a frankly fantastical fear: Not only is it impossible to be certain, at this remove, exactly what the US [[Bankruptcy Code]] said in 1971, much less how it might have been interpreted in those days, but many of the institutions and concepts it relies onmay since have been abolished or materially changed. Who knows? perhaps some old hippyish [[safe harbor]]s from the 1960s that might apply to swaps. But then again, it’s not that likely — and it is just as harsh to blame US legislators for not enacting [[Safe harbor|safe harbors]] for swaps before the 1980s, since ''there [[Swap history|''weren’t'' any swaps before 1983]]''.
It is a frankly fantastical fear: Not only is it impossible to be certain, at this remove, exactly what the US [[Bankruptcy Code]] said in 1971, much less how it might have been interpreted in those days, but many of the institutions and concepts it relies onmay since have been abolished or materially changed. Who knows? perhaps some old hippyish [[safe harbor]]s from the 1960s that might apply to swaps. But then again, it’s not that likely — and it is just as harsh to blame US legislators for not enacting [[Safe harbor|safe harbors]] for swaps before the 1980s, since ''there [[Swap history|''weren’t'' any swaps before 1981]]''.

Revision as of 13:50, 26 November 2019

====ERISA netting==== Famously, ERISA plans tend to be set not to net, and for the unholiest of reasons, courtesy of the phantasmagorical imagination of the opinions committee of a U.S. law firm which prudence counsels it would be wiser not to name[1], upon whom the whole market relies.

This opinion is predicated on the risk that a court would interpret the ERISA act as requiring the US Bankruptcy Code as it stood in 1971 to be applied to the insolvency of an ERISA plan, rather than as it stands at the time of insolvency. The reason that’s a problem is that the “safe harbors” for closing out swaps were only put into the Bankruptcy Code in the 1980s.[2]

Let me break that down:

Seriously. That’s it.

It is a frankly fantastical fear: Not only is it impossible to be certain, at this remove, exactly what the US Bankruptcy Code said in 1971, much less how it might have been interpreted in those days, but many of the institutions and concepts it relies onmay since have been abolished or materially changed. Who knows? perhaps some old hippyish safe harbors from the 1960s that might apply to swaps. But then again, it’s not that likely — and it is just as harsh to blame US legislators for not enacting safe harbors for swaps before the 1980s, since there weren’t any swaps before 1981.

  1. Definitely not Cadwalader, obviously.
  2. Being WHEN SWAPS WERE INVENTED. See swap history.