The Limits of Lawyering: Legal Opinions in Structured Finance

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Texas Law Review Pub Date : 2005-08-03 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.657521
S. Schwarcz
{"title":"The Limits of Lawyering: Legal Opinions in Structured Finance","authors":"S. Schwarcz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.657521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Significant controversy surrounds the issuance of legal opinions in structured finance transactions, particularly where accountants separately use these opinions, beyond their traditional primary use, for determining whether to characterize the transactions as debt. Reflecting at its core the unresolved boundaries between public and private in financial transactions, this controversy raises important issues of first impression: To what extent, for example, should lawyers be able to issue legal opinions that create negative externalities? Furthermore, what should differentiate the roles of lawyers and accountants in disclosing information to investors? Resolution of these issues not only helps to demystify the mystique, and untangle the morass, of legal-opinion giving but also affects the very viability of the securitization industry, which dominates American, and increasingly global, financing.","PeriodicalId":47670,"journal":{"name":"Texas Law Review","volume":"84 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.657521","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Significant controversy surrounds the issuance of legal opinions in structured finance transactions, particularly where accountants separately use these opinions, beyond their traditional primary use, for determining whether to characterize the transactions as debt. Reflecting at its core the unresolved boundaries between public and private in financial transactions, this controversy raises important issues of first impression: To what extent, for example, should lawyers be able to issue legal opinions that create negative externalities? Furthermore, what should differentiate the roles of lawyers and accountants in disclosing information to investors? Resolution of these issues not only helps to demystify the mystique, and untangle the morass, of legal-opinion giving but also affects the very viability of the securitization industry, which dominates American, and increasingly global, financing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
律师的局限:结构性融资中的法律意见
围绕在结构性融资交易中发布法律意见存在重大争议,特别是当会计师在决定是否将交易定性为债务时,在其传统主要用途之外,单独使用这些意见。这一争议的核心反映了金融交易中尚未解决的公共和私人之间的界限,并提出了第一印象的重要问题:例如,律师应该在多大程度上能够发表产生负面外部性的法律意见?此外,律师和会计师在向投资者披露信息时应如何区分其角色?这些问题的解决不仅有助于揭开法律意见书的神秘面纱,理清它的泥沼,而且还影响到证券化行业的生存能力,这个行业主导着美国乃至日益增长的全球金融。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Texas Law Review is a national and international leader in legal scholarship. Texas Law Review is an independent journal, edited and published entirely by students at the University of Texas School of Law. Our seven issues per year contain articles by professors, judges, and practitioners; reviews of important recent books from recognized experts, essays, commentaries; and student written notes. Texas Law Review is currently the ninth most cited legal periodical in federal and state cases in the United States and the thirteenth most cited by legal journals.
期刊最新文献
Guarantor of Last Resort Demystifying Nationwide Injunctions Feminism and the Tournament Tracing Equity: Realizing and Allocating Value in Chapter 11 State Public-Law Litigation in an Age of Polarization
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1