82,890
edits
Litigationey: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|g|}}{{dpn|/ˌlɪtɪˈɡeɪʃᵊni/ (Also [[suish]], [[squabblative]]|adj}}of a commercial issue, important, basically straightforward, but thanks to the intervention of professional advisors, rendered in language so opaque that no-one knows what is really going on. It often describes commercial endeavours that are predicated on [[plausible deniability]] — for example, that [[credit default swap]]s are not [[insurance contract]]s, or that [[equity swap]]s aren’t [stamp duty|stampable]] investments in [[shares]] — which fictions oblige practitioners to adopt silly walks, secret handshakes and elliptical ways of describing ordinary things, all in the service of not uttering inconvenient realities. | {{a|g|}}{{dpn|/ˌlɪtɪˈɡeɪʃᵊni/<br> (Also [[suish]], [[squabblative]]|adj}}of a commercial issue, important, basically straightforward, but thanks to the intervention of professional advisors, rendered in language so opaque that no-one knows what is really going on. It often describes commercial endeavours that are predicated on [[plausible deniability]] — for example, that [[credit default swap]]s are not [[insurance contract]]s, or that [[equity swap]]s aren’t [[stamp duty|stampable]] investments in [[shares]] — which fictions oblige practitioners to adopt silly walks, secret handshakes and elliptical ways of describing ordinary things, all in the service of not uttering inconvenient realities. | ||
They become squabblative because while the [[legal eagle|practitioners]] who propagate these arrangements are well drilled, fluent and strongly incentivised to maintain this theatre, their counterparts in the litigation department, at the bar and on the bench are not. | They become squabblative because while the [[legal eagle|practitioners]] who propagate these arrangements are well drilled, fluent and strongly incentivised to maintain this theatre, their counterparts in the litigation department, at the bar and on the bench are not. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
ISDAs come before the courts one at a time. They are exotic specimens, rather like those rare ghost orchids retrieved from the sweaty depths of a tropical swamp. It is usually obvious that no-one conducting the argument has much of a sense of what they are for or how they work, and those adjudicating certainly don’t. | ISDAs come before the courts one at a time. They are exotic specimens, rather like those rare ghost orchids retrieved from the sweaty depths of a tropical swamp. It is usually obvious that no-one conducting the argument has much of a sense of what they are for or how they work, and those adjudicating certainly don’t. | ||
And here {{icds}}’s vernacular plays into the hands of caprice and obstrepereity. That wanton left-handedness begs to be misunderstood. Just try asking a non-specialist to glom onto a [[flawed asset]] clause,<ref>{{ | And here {{icds}}’s vernacular plays into the hands of caprice and obstrepereity. That wanton left-handedness begs to be misunderstood. Just try asking a non-specialist to glom onto a [[flawed asset]] clause,<ref>{{casenote|Metavante|Lehman}}?</ref> a credit derivative {{cddprov|Event Determination Date}}, or even the {{isdaprov|Notices}} provisions of an {{isdama}}.<ref>{{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}}</ref> | ||
There are some cases where the confusion goes deeper: the JC’s contention is that [[credit default | There are some cases where the confusion goes deeper: the JC’s contention is that [[credit default swap]]s are an intrinsically left-handed way of solving a straightforward problem, and as such are bound to create fear and loathing. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Litigation department]] | *[[Litigation department]] | ||
*[[Writing for a judge]] | *[[Writing for a judge]] | ||
*[[Equity v credit derivatives showdown]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||