Template:M summ 2018 CSD 11(j)

Specially for anoraks, completists and those fans of interpretation and construction clauses who just didn’t feel quite satisfied with the original Interpretation clause in the 2018 English law IM CSD — look, it came early on in the piece, and was over quite quickly, even though it has fully four sub-clauses in it — those cheeky little rascals in ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ threw in this little number like a late, late encore — you know, just when your hands are getting sore from all the slow clapping, the emergent enthusiasm is petering out of the stadium as it seems the show is over and, goddamn it you just want to go home now anyway, and you’re turning to collect your coat because you know they’re about to bring up the house lights and shoo everyone out of the building and BAM!!! THERE IT IS!!! MORE INTERPRETATION!!!

Statutes as amended from time to time. Like, you don’t say...

It seems fussy, peculiar and bloody-minded, I know — and what a thing to suddenly remember, and crowbar into the dog days of the eleventh paragraph! — but for those earnestly wondering what sort of paranoid freak would even entertain the fantastical idea that “laws” might not be taken to refer to those laws as they presently exist, or as they have been replaced from time to time; that is why anyone even needs to say what the 2018 English law IM CSD says in Paragraph 11(j) — there is a straightforward answer: the sort of freak who the industry turns to to issue netting opinions about ERISA funds. That’s who.

To this day ERISA plans are treated as non-nettable precisely because soe ERISA genius at Cadwallader can’t quite get himself comfortable that references in ERISA legislation to “the Bankruptcy Code” doesn’t mean the Bankruptcy Code as it was in 1972 before they had invented derivatives, and at which time the safe harbor for derivatives netting arrangements hadn’t been implemented.

All too horribly true.