82,387
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Not just a [[legal opinion]] — at the best of times a dreary, charmless and pointless affair — but one addressing one of the most soul-obliterating questions a grown adult could pose: whether the effectiveness of [[close-out netting]] under a master trading agreement would be respected by an insolvency administrator in the jurisdiction of an insolvent counterparty to that agreement. | |||
[[Netting opinions]] tend to be long, academic, laden with hypotheticals, appealing to [[Latin]]ate principles of civil law and demanding of unusually skilled powers of comprehension and patience — they are required by regulation to be, in fact — but when it comes down to it, they all say the same thing: that close-out {{tag|netting}} is, ultimately, enforceable: because a [[netting opinion]] would have no reason to exist if it said anything else. | |||
But God — manifesting {{sex|Herself}} in the shape of the [[Basel Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices]], plays a cruel cosmic joke on all [[inhouse lawyer]]s. By ''diktat'' of the latest [[Basel Accord]]) they must diligently read and draw reasoned conclusions from these God-forsaken tomes, so that their firm's financial controllers can recognize balance sheet reductions as a result. | |||
===[[Red Flag Act]]=== | ===[[Red Flag Act]]=== |