82,393
edits
Netting opinion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{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 | {{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 an insolvency administrator of an insolvent [[counterparty type|counterparty of that type]], in that jurisdiction, would be obliged to respect the [[close-out netting]] provisions under your [[master trading agreement]] with that [[counterparty]]. | ||
Because God — manifesting {{sex|Herself}} this time in the guise of the [[Basel Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices]] — has played 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 for ''each'' counterparty type, in each jurisdiction in which they do business, so that their firm's financial controllers can recognise balance sheet reductions as a result. | |||
[[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. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
And, make no mistake, there is a strain of [[continental lawyer]] who quietly resents the tidal-wave of [[Common law|Anglo Saxon jurisprudence]] that has deluged the continent for its cross-border business. For such a fellow, that the commercial affairs between a Belgian and an Italian should be adjudicated before the courts of England and Wales is a festering point. And he is just the sort to make his living — and extract his revenge on the [[Common law|common law tradition]] —writing [[netting opinion]]s. And be assured that ''resentiment'' runs ''deep''. For, when you think even this spiteful Herr must surely have had enough, as you leaf past page 93, hoping for light at the end of the tunnel represented by the first of, undoubtedly, 17 annexes, but and find only whole new section about the specific rules around protection of insurance claims under the ''Insurance Sector Act'' you will beat your fists on the ground and say WHY ARE YOU EXPOSTULATING ON THE TOPIC OF FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE I SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. But box on you must, and you know that ''Advocat á la Cour'', in his pork pie hat, will be enjoying a sweet pastry and schnapps with his Belgian Dentist friend, and they will be thinking of your toil and torment, and ''enjoying every minute of it''. | And, make no mistake, there is a strain of [[continental lawyer]] who quietly resents the tidal-wave of [[Common law|Anglo Saxon jurisprudence]] that has deluged the continent for its cross-border business. For such a fellow, that the commercial affairs between a Belgian and an Italian should be adjudicated before the courts of England and Wales is a festering point. And he is just the sort to make his living — and extract his revenge on the [[Common law|common law tradition]] —writing [[netting opinion]]s. And be assured that ''resentiment'' runs ''deep''. For, when you think even this spiteful Herr must surely have had enough, as you leaf past page 93, hoping for light at the end of the tunnel represented by the first of, undoubtedly, 17 annexes, but and find only whole new section about the specific rules around protection of insurance claims under the ''Insurance Sector Act'' you will beat your fists on the ground and say WHY ARE YOU EXPOSTULATING ON THE TOPIC OF FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE I SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. But box on you must, and you know that ''Advocat á la Cour'', in his pork pie hat, will be enjoying a sweet pastry and schnapps with his Belgian Dentist friend, and they will be thinking of your toil and torment, and ''enjoying every minute of it''. | ||
===[[Red Flag Act]]=== | ===[[Red Flag Act]]=== | ||