82,853
edits
Subjunctive: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
{{quote|“The Issuer represents that its status under EMIR is as a [[non-financial counterparty]] and its ''subjunctive'' status under UK EMIR is as a [[non-financial counterparty]].”}} | {{quote|“The Issuer represents that its status under EMIR is as a [[non-financial counterparty]] and its ''subjunctive'' status under UK EMIR is as a [[non-financial counterparty]].”}} | ||
Look: it probably won’t catch on. But at least we won’t die wondering. | Look: it probably won’t catch on. But at least we won’t die wondering. | ||
====LIBOR==== | |||
Perhaps a marginal note, but [[UK Finance|BBA]]’s guidance to LIBOR submitting banks came in the form of “Instructions to BBA LIBOR Contributor Banks”. The critical part of these ran as follows: | |||
{{Quote|“An individual BBA LIBOR Contributor Panel Bank will contribute the rate at which it could borrow funds, ''were'' it to do so by asking for and then accepting inter-bank offers in reasonable market size just prior to 1100.”}} | |||
In our [[Hayes and Palombo v R|casenote on the Tom Hayes appeal]], we advance the argument that perhaps the court did not put enough weight on the subjunctive mood in which the LIBOR instruction was expressed. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Passive aggressive]] | *[[Passive aggressive]] | ||