83,056
edits
Extraordinary rendition: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
It is a form of waterboarding just to read it: | It is a form of waterboarding just to read it: | ||
{{quote| | {{quote|“For the purpose of this opinion, the word “'''[[Company|companies]]'''” shall neither refer to economic interest groups (''groupements d’interêts économiques'') nor European economic interest groups (''groupements d’interêts économiques européens''). It shall furthermore not encompass any entities listed hereafter or any entities which are subject to a specific legislative framework or any specific licensing requirements, such as, [[without limitation]], reinsurance undertakings, [[pension fund]]s, [[SICAR|investment companies in risk capital]], [[securitisation]] vehicles, [[Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive|alternative investment fund managers]] subject to the Luxembourg law of 12 July 2013 on [[investment fund]] managers (as amended) (the “'''AIFM Law'''”), [[alternative investment fund]]s subject to the AIFM law other than UCI or reserved alternative investment funds (fonds d’investissement alternatives reserves (“'''RAIF'''”) which are additionally subject to the Luxembourg law of 2016 on RAIF (as amended) (except the extent such entities are specifically covered in Appendix 2 part 1).”<ref>Curious, and rather fun, note for posterity: there ''is'' no Appendix 2.</ref>}} | ||
Yet, as the pain and grogginess wear off, we find ourselves feeling ''curious''. | Yet, as the pain and grogginess wear off, we find ourselves feeling ''curious''. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Just so. But still, let us draw nearer, for there is “helpful” and there is “torturing the sinews of logic for no good reason”. To do that we must leave pure, [[tedious]], black-letter law and get our hands dirty with ''set theory''. Buried in that dense list of ''almost-but-for-present-purposes-not-quite'' companies, is another negative: “alternative investment funds subject to the AIFM law ''other than UCI''”. The author has already told us that UCIs — even those that are, in fact, companies — for the purpose of this opinion are not “companies”. But around these non-companies, there is a penumbra of similar, but different entities: things that are ''like'' UCIs, but are ''not'' UCIs. These fringe entities — even though they, too, might actually ''be'' companies, are not “companies” either. We are left with a logical structure which stretches the Euclidean idea of [[Space-tedium|space tedium]] so profoundly I have struggled to render it in plain English: | Just so. But still, let us draw nearer, for there is “helpful” and there is “torturing the sinews of logic for no good reason”. To do that we must leave pure, [[tedious]], black-letter law and get our hands dirty with ''set theory''. Buried in that dense list of ''almost-but-for-present-purposes-not-quite'' companies, is another negative: “alternative investment funds subject to the AIFM law ''other than UCI''”. The author has already told us that UCIs — even those that are, in fact, companies — for the purpose of this opinion are not “companies”. But around these non-companies, there is a penumbra of similar, but different entities: things that are ''like'' UCIs, but are ''not'' UCIs. These fringe entities — even though they, too, might actually ''be'' companies, are not “companies” either. We are left with a logical structure which stretches the Euclidean idea of [[Space-tedium|space tedium]] so profoundly I have struggled to render it in plain English: | ||
{{Quote|Investment funds which are not non-companies by dint of being investment funds, and might otherwise be companies, do not count as companies after all, and therefore should be treated as non-companies anyway.}} | {{Quote|''Investment funds which are not non-companies by dint of being investment funds, and might otherwise be companies, do not count as companies after all, and therefore should be treated as non-companies anyway.''}} | ||
Now, it is all very well to pick holes, but at the Jolly Contrarian we are bigger than that. We can propose solutions. And here our solution would be this: | Now, it is all very well to pick holes, but at the Jolly Contrarian we are bigger than that. We can propose solutions. And here our solution would be this: | ||
{{Quote|“'''[[company|Companies]]'''” means normal companies in the corporate sector. It does not include:<br> | {{Quote|''“'''[[company|Companies]]'''” means normal companies in the corporate sector. It does not include:<br> | ||
(a) Regulated insurance or reinsurance undertakings; <br> | (a) Regulated insurance or reinsurance undertakings; <br> | ||
(b) Pension or other regulated investment funds; <br> | (b) Pension or other regulated investment funds; <br> | ||
(c) Flora; <br> | (c) Flora; <br> | ||
(d) Fauna; or <br> | (d) Fauna; or <br> | ||
(e) Puddings.}} | (e) Puddings.''}} | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||