ERISA netting opinion: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
m (Amwelladmin moved page ERISA netting to ERISA netting opinion)
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|security|}}There are many kinds of [[netting opinion]], all of them wretched, but one you will not see is the [[ERISA netting|ERISA netting opinion]].
{{a|security|}}There are many kinds of [[netting opinion]], all of them wretched, but one you will not see is the [[ERISA netting opinion]]. You know, a reasoned opinion that close-out netting would be effective in the administration of a defaulted [[ERISA]] plan.<ref>An [[ERISA|ERISA plan]] is a US [[Pension fund|pension plan]] falling under the jurisdiction of the [[Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974]] — a fearsome piece of legislation. That means most pension schemes in America, excluding those for state or federal employees.</ref>


This is not because conceptually, reading (let alone writing) such a thing would exceed a single human’s capacity for prolixity, confusion and ennui — though surely it would — but because such a thing is a logical paradox that cannot exist in Euclid’s flawed [[space-time geometry]].<ref>Euclid as a partner of a [[U.S. law firm]]. Now there’s a thought.</ref>
This is not because conceptually, reading (let alone writing) such a thing would exceed a single human’s capacity for prolixity, confusion and ennui — though surely it would — but because such a thing is a logical paradox that cannot exist in Euclid’s flawed [[space-time geometry]].<ref>Euclid as a partner of a [[U.S. law firm]]. Now there’s a thought.</ref>

Navigation menu