Litigationey: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{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.
{{a|g|}}{{dpn|/ˌlɪtɪˈɡeɪʃᵊni/<br> (Also [[suish]], [[squabblative]]|adj}}Of a commercial issue, important, basically straightforward, but thanks to the intervention of [[professional advisers]], rendered in language so opaque that no-one outside an [[Clavam Hominum Senum Pallidorum|inner cabal]] 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 13: Line 15:
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.  
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}}
*[[Plausible deniability]]
*[[Litigation department]]
*[[Litigation department]]
*[[Writing for a judge]]
*[[Writing for a judge]]
*[[Equity v credit derivatives showdown]]
*[[Equity v credit derivatives showdown]]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}