Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Bolares]

Ha ha! Civil law.

haha, having a clearer definition of how the law works in the whole country, and not having to hunt for the perfect precedence in an obuscure court case

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

haha, having a clearer difinition of how the law works in the whole country, and not having to hunt for the perfect precedence in an obuscure court case

But where's the fun in that?????

 

[Bolares]

But where's the fun in that?????

Going home before 8 pm?

 

[Greg Benage]

Going home before 8 pm?

I've never gotten the impression that @Snarf Zagyg is really pressed for time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Going home before 8 pm?

And you call yourself a LAWYER!

 

[bmcdaniel]

I ... well, look. First you have the issue of state and federal courts. If you're talking federal courts ... I can't possibly agree. But even state courts, for the most part, have their formalistic hangups (not to mention the state appellate courts).

While I no longer practice in that manner (ahem), I used to work closely with the teams that were in (inter alia) London and Mannheim. In terms of litigation, purely procedural arguments always had a much better shot in the US.

Can you given a litigation example you're thinking of?

I'm not sure what kind of example you are asking for, at least in part because (as mentioned in my post) I agree that US litigation tends to be more procedural than non-US litigation, so I think we are in agreement there.

Where I would differ is spreading that generalization about litigation to "the law" generally. In my own practice of investment management, the US has many, many rules that give discretion to regulators to take action on a "know it when I see it basis."

For example, Section 48 of the Investment Company Act states "It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to cause to be done any act or thing through or by means of any other person which it would be unlawful for such person to do under the provisions of this title or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder." In other words, you cannot comply with the Act merely by technical, formal compliance; you must actually comply with the intent of the Act. I don't believe there is any similar rule (and certainly practitioners don't act like there is any such rule) in the regulation of investment vehicles in the UK and elsewhere.

A second example: Delaware partnership law includes an unwaiveable obligation for the partners to act in "good faith" to each other, i.e. to comply with the spirit of the agreement, not merely its technical expression. No such obligatory requirement exists in the partnership law of England and Wales.

A third example: Foreign investment in the United States is controlled by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, aka CFIUS. CFIUS is granted very broad discretionary powers to deny foreign investments, or require foreign investors to dis-invest. This is markedly different from rules governing foreign investments in other jurisdictions (UK, Japan, Australia, Taiwan) which give investors rules to follow, and if an investor follows the rules, then their foreign investment is safe.

 

[Bolares]

I've never gotten the impression that @Snarf Zagyg is really pressed for time.

I've never implied Snarf was WORKING until 8 pm...

 

[Cadence]

RE: Lawyering in different countries...

I am really trying to avoid thinking about how to model different aspects of it in relation to historical/present court room wig use.

 

[Bolares]

RE: Lawyering in different countries...

I am really trying to avoid thinking about how to model different aspects of it in relation to historical/present court room wig use.

We are doing online hearings nowadays.... you're lucky if I'm wearing pants, forget the wigs!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not sure what kind of example you are asking for, at least in part because (as mentioned in my post) I agree that US litigation tends to be more procedural than non-US litigation, so I think we are in agreement there.

So ... you have to remember that I'm always discussing litigation, hence my complete bafflement at your statement.

Even so, I am somewhat surprised. While I would defer to you on this, it was always my understanding that a difference between Europe and America was that Europe tended to embrace standards while America embraced rules. See, e.g., GAAP and IFRS.