Template:Extinction vs no debt due: Difference between revisions

Template:Extinction vs no debt due (view source)

Revision as of 17:51, 19 October 2020

6 bytes removed , 19 October 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,883

edits

Revision as of 17:49, 19 October 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 17:51, 19 October 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	When pondering limited recourse language, more passionate students may be interested in an arid discussion practitioners once to had about whether it was better to say, upon exhaustion of all assets, that the [[SPV]]’s debt was “[[~~the debt shall be extinguished~~\|extinguished]]”, or “[[no debt\|not due]]” in the first place. This was weakly supported by coal-face lawyers at places like [[Linklaters]] (in the “[[no debt due]]” camp) and [[Clifford Chance]] (“[[extinction]]”), vociferously propelled by their partners, but left the rest of us with a hard-to-articulate but quite persistent sense that there really ought to be better things for masters of the universe of structured finance to worry about. Such as, “how on Earth is it that people who fixate about things as [[tedious]] as this get paid so much?”		When pondering [[limited recourse]] language, more passionate students may be interested to learn of an arid discussion practitioners once had about whether it was better to say, upon exhaustion of all assets, that the [[SPV]]’s debt was “[[extinction\|extinguished]]”, or “[[no debt due\|not due]]” in the first place. This was weakly supported by coal-face lawyers at places like [[Linklaters]] (in the “[[no debt due]]” camp) and [[Clifford Chance]] (“[[extinction]]”), vociferously propelled by their partners, but left the rest of us with a hard-to-articulate but quite persistent sense that there really ought to be better things for masters of the universe of structured finance to worry about. Such as, “how on Earth is it that people who fixate about things as [[tedious]] as this get paid so much?”

	As with all wanton acts of [[pedantry]], this one has an intellectual grounding, but it is so brittle it will make you angry: the concern about “extinction” is that it implies that, at that very instant that final settlement drop drained from the expiring [[espievie]]’s veins, the spectral [[debt]] was still there, in an amount which, [[Q.E.D.]], the company was, theoretically, at that frozen moment in the ineffable hereafter, unable to pay — until in the ''next'' infinitesimal subdivision of time, whereupon the debt finally vanished. The concern? That, for just that fleeting angel’s blink, and no more, ''the [[espievie]] was [[technical insolvency\|technically insolvent]]''.		As with all wanton acts of [[pedantry]], this one has an intellectual grounding, but it is so brittle it will make you angry: the concern about “extinction” is that it implies that, at that very instant that final settlement drop drained from the expiring [[espievie]]’s veins, the spectral [[debt]] was still there, in an amount which, [[Q.E.D.]], the company was, theoretically, at that frozen moment in the ineffable hereafter, unable to pay — until in the ''next'' infinitesimal subdivision of time, whereupon the debt finally vanished. The concern? That, for just that fleeting angel’s blink, and no more, ''the [[espievie]] was [[technical insolvency\|technically insolvent]]''.