82,891
edits
Income Payment Date - 2000 GMSLA Provision: Difference between revisions
Income Payment Date - 2000 GMSLA Provision (view source)
Revision as of 17:21, 24 June 2019
, 24 June 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{gmsla2000anat|Income Payment Date}}") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{gmsla2000anat|Income Payment Date}} | {{gmsla2000anat|Income Payment Date}} | ||
A clumsy [[Definitions|definition]] in that it muddies ''entitlement'' to be paid income from ''payment date'' of {{gmsla2000prov|Income}}, and when it comes to [[manufacturing]] dividends and income, it is the date of ''entitlement'' to payment that is important. Income Payment Date gets this right, after a fashion, for registered Securities, but even then there is a hanging and rather ambiguous “[[or]]”. | |||
===“[[Or]]” as an [[exclusive disjunction]]=== | |||
To make sense of it, this one needs this or to be an ''ex''clusive disjunction, whereas in the ordinary course, enthusiastic readers will know, the [[JC]]’s house view is that [[or]] is an ''in''clusive disjunction. Clearly, for [[Bearer security|bearer paper]] the only material time is the point where there noteholder rocks up with its note or [[coupon]] and presents it for payment. For a registered security, the right to payment accrues on an {{gmslaprov|Income Record Date}}, and it doesn't matter who holds the paper (or is registered as owner) on the payment date; the person who was registered on the record date gets the payment. | |||
Nonetheless, the drafting makes rather a bosh of a simple question which — as I dare say the [[JC]]'s own {{nutshell}} drafting demonstrates — can be articulated quite easily. | |||
:{{Nutshell GMSLA 2000 Income Payment Date}}<br> | |||
For this reason, the definition was rather improved by its successor in the [[2010 GMSLA]], “{{gmslaprov|Income Record Date}}” | |||
And no, this is not a good example of where one should use “[[and/or]]”. There ''are'' no good examples of that. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Exclusive disjunction]] | |||
*[[Inclusive disjunction]] | |||