(If any): Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
A two-word motif that, as much as any other, belies an [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]’s deep existential fear of his own language. It speaks of a nervousness that, should a dependent clause bite on something that isn’t there, somehow the whole linguistic edifice — even the mantle of the sky itself — will come crashing down; a mantle that can, yet miraculously be affixed to the firmament with the single wipe of an attorney’s {{tag|flannel}}.
A two-word motif that, as much as any other, belies an [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]’s deep existential fear of his own language. It speaks of a nervousness that, should a dependent clause bite on something that isn’t there, somehow the whole linguistic edifice will come crashing down; en edifice that can yet miraculously be affixed to the firmament with this single wipe of the [[mediocre lawyer|attorney]]’s {{tag|flannel}}.


{{plain|each {{csaprov|Other CSA}}, [[if any]],|''any'' {{csaprov|Other CSA}}}}
{{plain|each {{csaprov|Other CSA}}, [[if any]],|''any'' {{csaprov|Other CSA}}}}


Consider how it stymies the natural flow of a sentence, but remember: while you or I might think it resembles grinding gears, to our friend the [[Mediocre lawyer|happy counsel]] it is a percussive feature; a syncopated rim-shot in the great jungle beat of the law.  
Consider how it stymies the natural flow of a sentence, but remember: while you or [[I]] might think it resembles grinding gears, to the [[Mediocre lawyer|happy counsel]] it is a percussive feature; a syncopated rim-shot in the great jungle beat of the law.  


Rejoice in this recently-minted example from the brow of those excellent folk at ISDA:
Rejoice in this recently-minted example from the brow of those excellent folk at ISDA:

Revision as of 16:15, 6 November 2016

A two-word motif that, as much as any other, belies an attorney’s deep existential fear of his own language. It speaks of a nervousness that, should a dependent clause bite on something that isn’t there, somehow the whole linguistic edifice will come crashing down; en edifice that can yet miraculously be affixed to the firmament with this single wipe of the attorney’s flannel.

Why say “each Other CSA, if any,” when you meanany Other CSA”?

Consider how it stymies the natural flow of a sentence, but remember: while you or I might think it resembles grinding gears, to the happy counsel it is a percussive feature; a syncopated rim-shot in the great jungle beat of the law.

Rejoice in this recently-minted example from the brow of those excellent folk at ISDA:

1(b) Scope of this Annex and the Other CSA: The only Transactions which will be relevant for the purposes of determining “Exposure” under this Annex will be the Covered Transactions specified in Paragraph 11. Each Other CSA, if any, is hereby amended such that the Transactions that will be relevant for purposes of determining “Exposure” thereunder, if any, will exclude the Covered Transactions and the Transaction constituted by this Annex. Except as provided in Paragraph 9(h), nothing in this Annex will affect the rights and obligations, if any, of either party with respect to “independent amounts” or initial margin under each Other CSA, if any, with respect to Transactions that are Covered Transactions.