Difference between revisions of "Template:Erisa netting"

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
===={{tag|ERISA netting}}====
 
===={{tag|ERISA netting}}====
Famously, ERISA plans tend to be set '''not''' to [[Netting|net]], and for the unholiest of reasons, courtesy of the phantasmagorical imagination of some wise [[mediocre lawyer|counsel]] at Cadwalader, upon whom the whole market relies.
+
Famously, ERISA plans tend to be set '''not''' to [[Netting|net]], and for the unholiest of reasons, courtesy of the phantasmagorical imagination of some wise [[mediocre lawyer|counsel]] at a [[U.S. law firm]] which prudence counsels it would be wiser not to name<ref>Definitely not Cadwalader, obviously.</ref>, upon whom the whole market relies.
  
 
This gentleman’s opinion is predicated on the risk that a court would interpret the {{tag|ERISA}} act as requiring the US [[Bankruptcy Code]] ''as it stood in 1971'' to be applied to the insolvency of an {{tag|ERISA}} plan, rather than as it stands at the time of insolvency. The reason that’s a problem is that the “[[safe harbor]]s” for closing out swaps in the [[Bankruptcy Code]] were only enacted in the 1980s.
 
This gentleman’s opinion is predicated on the risk that a court would interpret the {{tag|ERISA}} act as requiring the US [[Bankruptcy Code]] ''as it stood in 1971'' to be applied to the insolvency of an {{tag|ERISA}} plan, rather than as it stands at the time of insolvency. The reason that’s a problem is that the “[[safe harbor]]s” for closing out swaps in the [[Bankruptcy Code]] were only enacted in the 1980s.

Latest revision as of 15:03, 9 October 2019

ERISA netting

Famously, ERISA plans tend to be set not to net, and for the unholiest of reasons, courtesy of the phantasmagorical imagination of some wise counsel at a U.S. law firm which prudence counsels it would be wiser not to name[1], upon whom the whole market relies.

This gentleman’s opinion is predicated on the risk that a court would interpret the ERISA act as requiring the US Bankruptcy Code as it stood in 1971 to be applied to the insolvency of an ERISA plan, rather than as it stands at the time of insolvency. The reason that’s a problem is that the “safe harbors” for closing out swaps in the Bankruptcy Code were only enacted in the 1980s.

Let me say that again:

Seriously. That’s it.

It is a frankly fantastical fear: Not only is it impossible to be certain, at this remove, exactly how the US Bankruptcy Code stood in 1971 much less how it might have been interpreted in those days, but many of the institutions and concepts it relies on — including per chance, some old hippyish safe harbors from the 1960s — will have since been abolished or materially changed.

Utterly, totally, stupid.

  1. Definitely not Cadwalader, obviously.