Let’s go straight to docs: Difference between revisions

Let’s go straight to docs (view source)

Revision as of 12:13, 10 June 2021

241 bytes added , 10 June 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,882

edits

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 This will disappoint most [[legal eagle]]s — like all performance artists, they like to be the main event — but still it ''must'' be the most effective critical path.
-Starting, instead, with “docs” cannot be as quick. To be sure, the first cut of a [[Indenture|trust indenture]] ''may'' have all those key commercial elements built into it, but may not, and if it does will have them dispersed randomly and cryptically throughout its 90-page heft, . And should there be even a whiff of indemnity — however ill-judged, or insignificant, or uncalled-for — a foraging eagle will be drawn to it, like a moth to a lamp and she will have to ''address'' it. To hell with the main commercial terms: this existential risk must be addressed, and addressed now.
+Starting, instead, with “docs” cannot be as quick. To be sure, the first cut of a [[Indenture|trust indenture]] ''may'' have all those key commercial elements built into it, but may not, and if it does will have them dispersed randomly and cryptically throughout its 90-page heft.
-Whereupon, strap yourselves in for six months of torture as this performance grinds on: counsel will get waylaid with every typo, representation, and scheduled form of drawdown request notice — they may never make it to the gritty commercial terms. They may never even ''find'' them. Most likely, they will never even know what they ''are''.
+And the modern ''[[rechtsadler]]'' knows but one way to review a trust indenture: you start at the beginning and work your way through to the end. Should you encounter even a ''whiff'' of [[indemnity]], [[Limitation of recourse|recourse limitation]] or exclusivity  — however ill-judged, or insignificant, or uncalled-for — a [[Legal eagle|foraging ''aigle juridique'']] will be drawn to it as a moth is to a lamp. She will have to ''address'' it. To hell with the main commercial terms: this existential risk must be addressed, and now.
+Whereupon, strap yourselves in for six months of torture as this performance grinds on: counsel will get waylaid with every typo, representation and scheduled form of drawdown request notice such that they may never make it to the gritty commercial terms. They may never even ''find'' them. Most likely, they will never even know what they ''are''.
 A good [[termsheet]] is a discipline: a [[cocktail napkin]]; the contextualised essence of whatever the turgid entropic mass of final [[verbiage]] will, in its perverse and circuitous manner, eventually reflect.