Netting opinion: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}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.
{{g}}God bless the [[Netting opinion]]: no other spirit with spring left in its mortal coil will. It is, but is 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 opinion]]s 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.  
[[Netting opinion]]s 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.  

Navigation menu