Conditional Waiver And Release Upon - Lucas Companies: Fill & Download for Free

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Starting in early human civilizations there have been records of unusual causes of death. While the actual cause of death never takes away from the fact that a life ended, it is interesting to learn about some of the more unusual ways people were put to death. Some of the most unusual causes of death include being beaten by your own wooden leg, death by carrot juice, and being drowned in molasses.15)Death by a Severed HeadIn the Orkneyinga Saga, a historical narrative, Earl Sigurd the Mighty was an earl of Orkney who experienced a very unusual cause of death. In the beginning of this historical account, Sigurd was a forecastle man who helped to conquer the Orkney and Shetland forces. Sigurd eventually was given the title of Earl by his brother, Rognvald. Sigurd became known as a powerful and wise ruler. During his reign as Earl of Orkney, Sigurd developed a feud with the local Scottish magnate, Maelbrigte. The two eventually agreed that the feud needed to be addressed and they needed to settle their differences. According to their arrangement each man was to go to a specific spot, with no more than 40 men.Sigurd had no trust in those of Scottish origin. He believed that Maelbrigte would bring more men than the agreed upon 40. This belief led to Sigurd making the decision to act dishonorably and bring 80 men with him. In an attempt to cover up the extra forty men, Sigurd assigned two riders to each of the forty horses. When Maelbrigte realized what Sigurd had done, he was furious and ordered each of his men to kill two of Sigurd’s men. Maelbrigte’s fury and indignation were not enough to win the battle though. Sigurd walked away the victor, and Maelbrigte was killed. In a show of triumph, Sigurd severed the heads of each enemy and strapped then to his saddles. Sigurd secured Maelbrigte’s head to his own saddle and began to head north. Yet even in death, Maelbrigte had his revenge. As Earl Sigurd spurred his forces, his leg was scratched by Maelbrigte’s tooth. This scratch became severely infected, and Earl Sigurd died soon after from the blood infection took hold.14)Drowned in WineThe first Duke of Clarence, George Plantagenet, was executed in a very unique manner. The Duke of Clarence was brother to King Edward IV and King Richard III. They often had trouble with his loyalty to them throughout their years. In George’s early years, he actively supported Edwards’s accession to the throne after his father’s death. Edward’s succession to the throne was openly opposed by King Henry VI, so siding with Edward had been a brave move. George’s loyalty, however, soon began to waiver. Historians are not sure why. When George’s father in law, the Earl of Warwick, abandoned King Edward and allied with Margaret of Anjou, George abandoned his support for his brother. King Henry VI, who challenged King Edwards' rights to the throne, promised George that he would make him next in line to the throne. Over time, the promise made by King Henry VI proved to be fruitless. Eventually, George realized that his commitment to the Earl of Warwick was misplaced, and his support for his brother was reinstated. This was not without its consequences though as his own brother struggled to trust him.Some years later, after the unexpected death of his wife and new born son, George began to lose his grip on sanity. He became severely paranoid, and even executed a lady in waiting because he irrationally believed she had something to do with his wife’s death. His loss of sanity eventually led to him planning a rebellion against his brother, King Edward. George actively slandered, plotted, and planned for a new rebellion against King Edward. This only confirmed the fears and concerns over his loyalty. The King quickly realized that George would stop at nothing to take control of the crown. For his treason against the crown, George was imprisoned and put on trial. After George was convicted and sentenced to death, the Duke of Clarence was dipped into a vat of wine and drowned.13)Beat to Death by a Wooden LegSir Arthur Aston, who lived from 1590 to 1649, was a professional soldier for most of his life. He is remembered for supporting King Charles I and the other royalists, but he is best remember for his brutal death. Throughout his career, Aston had served as leader of the dragoons, major-general to Prince Rupert, governor of Oxford, and finally governor of Drogheda. He was known as a severe and imperious leader, but was also respected for his loyalty to the royalists regardless of the time or the winds of politics.While the war raged on in 1648, Sir Aston was appointed governor of Drogheda. Drogheda was a strategic point that would have to stand firm to fend off Oliver Cromwell and his forces. Drogheda was eventually stormed during one of the most vicious battles of the war. When the Parliament soldiers invaded Drogheda, they viciously massacred many civilians. After a parlay with Cromwell, Aston agreed to surrender Drogheda. He did so under the impression that those who were still alive would be allowed to live. The Parliament soldiers, however, were ordered by Cromwell to kill all of the surviving inhabitants of the town. Cromwell refused to let anyone survive from the already bloodied battle. The Parliament soldiers followed their orders and beat Aston's head in with his own wooden leg after they ripped it off. It was a gruesome act that is still abhorred by many today.via Wikimedia Commons12)Death by Over-eatingAdolf Frederick was the first King from the House of Holstein- Group. His reign was considered weak, and it was considered largely a ceremonial position. This was a position that he was elected to because the previous king had no surviving heir. Throughout his reign as king, Frederick was known for his love of food and family. He was also known to be kind to all of his servants, and would often make snuff boxes for them as a hobby. He often filled the snuff boxes himself to make sure they had enough. His love for excesses led to the deterioration of the kingdom's finances. This deterioration lasted until 1766 when the the government was overtaken and the conquerors implemented measures that would reform the state of the economy.Even with the reform, Frederick retained his passion for all gluttonous things. His gluttonous tendencies are what eventually led to his death. In 1771, Frederick consumed a meal that was fit for a small army. The meal that he consumed in one setting included caviar, lobster, kippers, sauerkraut, and 14 servings of semla with a bowl of warm milk. After his meal was finished, he quickly developed problems with his intestines. Those intestinal problems lasted throughout the rest of the day, and resulted in his death by day's end. From that day onward, Frederick was mostly known for being the king that ate himself to death. While there are several theories as to what it was that killed him precisely, medical experts still disagree on the actual causes even today.11)Beer FloodIn 1814 the Meux and Company Brewery stood in central London. The brewery housed several vats that were around 20 feet high. In each vat there were around 3,500 barrels of ale, and about 29 metal hoops wrapped around these barrels. On October 16, one of the hoops snapped. This created a chain reaction of snapping hoops, until the vat finally exploded.Once the vat exploded, the beer exploded out of the vat and broke open the other vats. Pressure caused the beer to pour out of the vats and what must have been a wave of beer broke through the 25 foot wall surrounding the brewery. The beer poured out into the streets, which was surrounded by a crowded slum area. The sea of beer smashed into the houses nearby, flooding basements, and destroying two homes. A barmaid in the local Tavistock Arms pub was buried for almost three hours before she was able to escape. In another location, a mother and her small son were drowned when the sea of beer came crashing into their home. In total, nine people were killed by the vat explosion, and many more were injured.Though most of the other locals fought to escape bodily harm, others swarmed the streets to collect the free beer. Many people would wade in the knee-deep sea of beer and use pots to transport the beer. Others would simply use their hands to scoop up the beer. It was several weeks before the ale was completely pumped out of the streets, and several months before the smell was gone.10)Death by ObituaryMarcus Garvey was an inspiration to many African Americans in the United States. Garvey was responsible for the creation of the Back to Africa Movement that took place in the United States. In 1919, Garvey became the founder of the Black Star Line, which would be used to transport African Americans from the U.S. to Africa. The attempts to get the Back to Africa Movement going was a failure, along with several of Garvey’s other ideas. In 1922, Garvey was arrested for mail fraud.Garvey was then sentenced to prison and transported to Jamaica. Once he had served his time in jail, Garvey made his way to London, where he lived out the rest of his life. Towards the end of May in 1940, Garvey had sat down to go through the daily paper. As he flipped through the pages, Garvey found himself reading the obituaries. Instead of reading about the deaths of local neighbors or strangers that he knew nothing about, Garvey found himself reading an obituary for himself. The obituary for his own death shocked him so greatly that he had a stroke. Two days after the stroke, Garvey was dead, and a real obituary was released.9)A Hoarder's DeathThe Collyer brothers, Homer and Langley, were two Americans who were known for their compulsive hoarding techniques. The brothers lived in Manhattan and were rarely seen, let alone spoken to. Their strange hoarding tendencies and odd behavior was greeted with curiosity, which often led to their neighbors to trying to gain access to their home. Both brothers continuously added to their collection of furniture, books, musical instruments, and other items. They were both obsessed with their collections, and constantly depended on one another. Langley had an aptitude for creating booby traps within the home, but would often forget where he put them. Homer, on the other hand, was less active in his later years. He became completely dependent on his brother because he had become paralyzed.In April of 1947, a workman for the brothers found their bodies amongst all of the rubble that the brothers cherished. The first body that the worker found belonged to Langley. According to the coroner, Langley had become trapped, and was killed as a result of running into one of his misplaced booby traps. It was determined that Homer died of starvation because he was not physically able to help himself after his brother died. Because the brothers’ lived in such a cluttered environment, Homer was unable to get around without his brothers assistance. The second body that the workman found was Homer’s. Though the coroner was unable to tell how long the brothers had been dead, the rats were already trying to eat the flesh of the carcasses by the time the workman had found them.via Wikimedia Commons8)The Deadly Distracting BirdAlan Stacey was a British race car driver who was famous for developing and racing Lotus vehicles. His association with Lotus began when he built an MkVI kit that was offered by the company. He raced the MkVI during a few races, but eventually built and drove an Eleven. Throughout his career Stacey helped to improve the Lotus brand, and provided the company with exposure, as he raced seven formula One World championship Grand Prix’s. In 1958, Stacey had his debut, but he scored no championship points.In 1960, while racing in the Belgian Grand Prix, tragedy struck. As Stacey was racing at speeds of 120 mph, he was hit in the face by a bird in the 25th lap. The rouge bird caused Stacey to go off the road towards the inside. His vehicle then climbed an embankment that was waist-high. His car penetrated hedges that were about ten feet thick, and he ultimately plunged into a field. Within minutes of the crash, Alan Stacey was dead.via Wikimedia Commons7)Carrot JuiceOne of the more bizarre causes of death would be carrot juice. Generally, you think of carrot juice and think of the health benefits that come along with drinking it. Like with most things in life, however, moderation is key. The concept of moderation with carrot juice was first brought to life in response to the death of Bazil Brown.Bazil Brown was a self described health nut who was obsessed with having a healthy lifestyle. Brown often tried to push the boundaries with his practices in everyday healthy living, and would misguidedly do things that were quite unhealthy. His practices often included over-exercising, trying new life style changes, and creating new diet plans. In 1974, however, that all came to an end. During this time, Brown created a plan to drink 10 gallons of carrot juice in just 10 days. This would provide Brown with 10,000 times the recommended amount of vitamin A. He followed the plan flawlessly, only to discover that an excess amount of carrot is dangerous to one’s health. This large quantity of carrot juice ultimately led to severe liver damage. The damage to Browns liver was so severe that it ended up being the cause of his death.6)Selective LightningWhen the Dominican Republic hosted a soccer game, there were no concerns over weather conditions as the audience filled the stands and the players took their places. There were certainly no concerns over whether the audience or team would get struck by lightning. The lack of this concern, however, proved to be fatal.During this particular game, the weather was overcast, but there was nothing unusual that would give cause for concern. Without any warning at all, the sky lit up with lightning. The lightning struck, and the entire opposing team was dead in moments. This bizarre lightning attack killed 11 players, and over 30 audience members had to be checked for additional injuries. Not one player or supporter from the Dominican team was harmed.One of the first responses to this unusual occurrence was to blame it on witchcraft. For many people, it seemed to be one of the only explanations for such a thing. Accusations were made, and a few cases were heard, but, ultimately, nothing came from them. It was hard for people to believe that there was such a basic, scientific explanation for such a tragedy.5)Excessive Sauna SessionFrom 1999 until 2010, the World Sauna Championships were held every year in Heinola, Finland. The contest originated for sauna-sitting contests that were unofficially held, and later banned from swimming halls in Heinola. The first official championship was held in 1999, and it eventually grew to include contestants from over 20 countries. Participants who wished to compete, were required to sign waivers for health risks. These waivers stated that any health risks were undertaken by the participants on a voluntary basis. The contestants would ultimately compete to see who could withstand temperatures of 230 degrees the longest.The severity of these health risks became apparent in 2010. During the contest in 2010, Vladimir Ladyzhensky and Timo Kaukonen were the last two finalists of the competition. During the last moments of the competition, both contestants collapsed. Both contestants were rushed to the hospital, and Ladyzhensky was later pronounced dead. The official competition has since been canceled, and investigations against the organizers were launched. No official determination has been made yet.via Wikimedia Commons4)Drowned by MolassesIn January of 1919, in Boston, Massachusetts, the Great Molasses Tragedy occurred. The disaster all began at the Purity Drilling Company. When the temperatures of the molasses vat rose to above 40 degrees, the tank holding the molasses exploded. The tanks holding the molasses measured to about 15 feet and could hold up to two million gallons. The wave of molasses damaged the Boston Elevated railway system, and dozens of buildings were removed from their foundation.The molasses was said to be waist deep in certain areas of the city, which made navigating through the city virtually impossible. Rescue workers and residents alike had to sit and watch as their neighbors and loved ones were injured or killed. Once the destruction was contained, it was stated that around 150 Boston citizens were injured, while 21 were killed.3)Torpedoing Your Own ShipThe HMS Trinidad was a navy cruiser that launched in March of 1940. The main objective of the HMS Trinidad was to be an escort for a Russian convoy, which had been attacked by a U-boat. In March of 1942, the HMS Trinidad was providing coverage for an Arctic Convoy. The Trinidad eventually met up with the convoy, but it was not without consequence. Out of 19 ships in the convoy, only 14 arrived safely.In March of 1942, the convoy got involved in combat against German destroyers. The HMS Trinidad launched a full on torpedo attack. It was during this attack that the crew of the HMS Trinidad received a deadly, unpleasant surprise. While the ship was firing off torpedoes at German destroyers, a torpedo containing a faulty gyro mechanism was launched. This faulty torpedo formed a circular arch, which made the torpedo circle back to the HMS Trinidad. The torpedo that was meant for German enemies, instead hit the HMS Trinidad. During this attack of sorts, 32 men were killed. After the self-inflicted attack, the HMS Trinidad was escorted by the HMS Foresight, HMS Forester, the HMS Somali, and the HMS Matchless. As the HMS Trinidad was being escorted, the speeds were lowered to about 20 knots. During this time, the HMS Trinidad was attacked by more than 20 bombers. Each attack by the bombers missed, except for one, which struck at the same place that the faulty torpedo had struck.2)Getting Hit By a Cannonball that Was meant as a SaluteJohn Kendrick was known as an American Sea captain who contributed heroically to the French and Indian War, the Boston Tea Party, and the American Revolutionary War. Kendrick began his military career in 1773, when he joined the French and Indian War under Captain Jabez Snow’s command. Kendrick went on to command Fanny. Fanny was the first ship of the Navy during the American Revolution. Under Kendrick’s command, Fanny had about 100 crew members, and around 18 guns. During his time as commander of Fanny, Kendrick was taken hostage by MS Brutus, and HMS Little Brutus, where he was eventually traded in a prisoner exchange. In 1783, the war ended and Kendrick was released, he returned to whaling and coastal shipping. During this time, he became the first commander of an American ship.In December of 1794, Kendrick arrived in Honolulu, and met up with Captain William Brown and Captain Gordon. During this time, Kaeokulani, the chief of Kauai invaded Oahu. Captain Brown and Kendrick sent some men to help Oahu forces. The men ended up pushing Kauai forces back, and left Oahu as the victor. The next morning, Kendrick fired a salute to which Captain Brown responded. Unbeknownst to Brown, one of the cannons was loaded with live grapeshot. When the return salute was fired, a grapeshot smashed into the side of Kendrick’s ship and killed Kendrick and several of his men. This unexpected accident shook his entire crew, as well as the crew of Captain Brown. The two crews took Kendrick’s and the other men's bodies to the shore and performed a proper burial service.1)Mistaking the Chimney for the BalconySirkka Sari was a famous up and coming Finnish actress in the 1930’s. In 1939, Sirkka Sari was at hotel Aulanko celebrating the premiere of her newest film. As the celebration was going strong, Sirkka decided to leave in search of a outdoor patio area. As Sirkka explored the top level of the hotel, she came upon what she thought was a scenery balcony area. Mistaking the area for a scenery deck, Sirkka climbed up the ladder and stepped towards what she thought was a small platform. The ladder, however, did not lead to a scenery balcony. The ladder, instead, led to the opening of a chimney. Instead of finding an area where she could be take in a beautiful view, Sirkka stepped out on the opening of the chimney. The opening led straight to the furnace, where she instantly died. A party that was meant to celebrate her recent achievements ended up being a festivity that ultimately claimed her life. She was only 19 years old when she met her tragic demise.

This is question that a financial lawyer is most qualified to answer. However, the following two articles might help you decipher the SEC rules.INVESTOPEDIAThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has set rules to ensure that employees are not at a disadvantage during a blackout period. The SEC prohibits any director or executive officer of an issuer of any equity security from, purchasing, selling or otherwise acquiring or transferring securities during a pension plan blackout period. In addition, the SEC has established rules requiring the issuer to notify the director or executive officer when imposing a blackout period.The purpose of these rules is to prevent insider trading that could otherwise occur during the period when changes are being made. However, the financial security of employees who are unable to make changes during a blackout period may be jeopardized. Therefore, SEC regulations stipulate that employees must receive advance warning about the occurrence of blackout periods.Read more: What is a blackout period? | Investopedia What is a blackout period? | InvestopediaDAY JONESNew SEC Rule Facilitates Insider Trades During Blackout PeriodsOctober 2000On August 15, 2000, the SEC adopted a new Rule 10b5-1 that provides specific affirmative defenses against liability for insider trading. Under the new rule, which became effective on October 23, 2000, a purchase or sale is not "on the basis of" material, nonpublic information if it is implemented pursuant to one of three types of nondiscretionary or automatic trading programs. The trading programs described in the rule are designed to define situations in which the information possessed was not a factor in the investment decision. The practical significance of the rule is to permit corporate insiders to trade shares during "blackout" periods that surround quarterly earnings and other important corporate announcements when insiders typically cannot buy or sell shares. The creation of a safe harbor from insider trading clarifies existing law and offers corporate executives and directors the opportunity to diversify their portfolios. These techniques will be especially useful for holders of large blocks of company stock, such as founders of technology companies, but will also be beneficial to insiders holding smaller blocks.Rule 10b5-1's RequirementsProgram Types.Under the new rule, a purchase or sale of stock by an insider would not be "on the basis of" material, nonpublic information if the insider demonstrates that, before becoming aware of the information, he or she:Entered into a binding contract to trade the security;Instructed another person to trade the security for the instructuring person's account; orAdopted a written plan for trading securities.Trade Terms.In order to qualify for Rule 10b5-1's exemption, a contract, plan, or instruction for a purchase or sale of securities must be either sufficiently specific or prohibit the insider from directing the trades. In particular, the contract, instruction, or plan must either:Specify (a) the amount of securities to be traded, (b) the price at which the securities are to be traded, and (c) the date on which the securities are to be traded;Include a written formula or algorithm, or computer program, for determining the trade terms described in (a)-(c) above; orProhibit the insider from exercising any influence over how, when, or whether to effect purchases or sales. Under this type of program, the person authorized to exercise such influence must not be aware of material, nonpublic information when doing so.Under the rule, "amount" means either a specified number or dollar value of shares or other securities. For example, an insider can plan a sale of either 1,000 shares or $10,000 worth of stock. An insider could not, however, plan a trade within a range—for example, a sale of between 1,000 and 2,000 shares."Price" means the market price on a particular date, a limit price, or a particular dollar price. Therefore, an insider has the flexibility to commit to trading at either a specified price per share or at the market price on the date of trade. Although the rule as originally proposed was not available for limit orders, in response to comments, the SEC eliminated this restriction. Accordingly, the inclusion of a price floor or ceiling in a trade order would not disqualify the trade under the rule."Date" means, in the case of a market order, the specific day on which the order is to be executed (or as soon thereafter as is practicable under ordinary principles of best execution). In the case of a limit order, "date" means a day on which the limit order is in force.Loss of Affirmative DefenseStructuring a trade along the lines described above is not sufficient to satisfy all conditions of the new rule. The rule also requires that the purchase or sale that does occur be "pursuant to the contract, instruction or plan" and that the contract, plan, or instruction specifying the trade be made in good faith. If an insider alters or deviates from the contract, plan, or instruction to trade (whether by changing the amount, price, or timing of the trade), the affirmative defense will not be available. For example, if an insider enters into a contract or plan to sell 1,000 shares of company stock without being aware of material, nonpublic information, then learns of negative material, nonpublic information and doubles the planned sale to 2,000 shares, the insider will lose the defense for the entire sale of 2,000 shares. Similarly, if the insider accelerates the timing of a planned sale in order to complete it before the release of negative corporate news that the insider has recently learned, the insider will have no defense for the transaction.The rule also vitiates any defense for a trade if the insider alters or enters into a "corresponding or hedging transaction or position" with respect to the planned securities trade. This requirement is designed to prevent persons from devising schemes to exploit inside information by setting up preexisting hedged trading programs and then canceling execution of the unfavorable side of the hedge, while permitting execution of the favorable transaction. By altering the corresponding position, the insider would lose any defense for the transaction that the insider permitted to be executed.The SEC has stated that some opportunity for modifying a preexisting trading plan does exist under the new rule. A person acting in good faith may modify a prior contract, instruction, or plan if, at the time the modification is made, the insider is not aware of material, nonpublic information (i.e., during the period when insiders may otherwise effect open market trades in the company's securities). In that case, a purchase or sale that complies with the modified contract, instruction, or plan will be considered made pursuant to a new contract, instruction, or plan.Recordkeeping IssuesThe new rule does not expressly require any particular documentation or recordkeeping by insiders. However, the SEC has indicated that the rule "would, in some cases, require a person to document a particular plan, contract, or instruction for trading if he or she wished to establish an affirmative defense that his or her trading was not ‘on the basis of' material, nonpublic information." In addition, given the potential impact on a public company of trading by its executives during restricted periods, insider trading policies that are tailored to permit Rule 10b5-1 compliant trades should (1) provide the company with preapproval and oversight rights for these types of programs, and (2) require that a 10b5-1 "record" be maintained not only by the insider but by the company and in solid detail. We recommend, therefore, that a record be kept supporting the availability of any Rule 10b5-1 defense that an insider intends to assert in connection with trades.Relationship to Other Legal Requirements and Planning IssuesOther SEC Compliance Procedures.Insiders looking to design a prearranged or nondiscretionary trading program will need to take care to comply with other legal requirements applicable to insider stock sales, including the following:Rule 144 may require compliance with manner of sale, volume, and notice requirements.Because a Rule 10b5-1 plan will involve periodic sale or purchase transactions, insiders will need to confirm that no Section 16(b) matching, non-exempt purchases or sales have occurred, or are anticipated to occur, within six months of any of the scheduled sales or purchases (as the case may be).Insiders must obtain timely information on trades to permit them to satisfy Form 4 filing requirements on a monthly basis.Issuers who have completed acquisitions accounted for as poolings may need to restrict sales by insiders.Existing insider trading policies may require modification to permit trades under Rule 10b5-1 or to remove or change preclearance processes, especially where the contract or program has been approved by the company's board of directors and/or reviewed and cleared in advance by issuer's counsel.Each company should evaluate whether prearranged trading programs are likely to be considered material and should be announced in a press release or disclosed in a Form 8-K.Impact of Intervening Equity Offerings.Registered equity offerings by issuers are always a possibility. Since these offerings normally require insiders to execute lock-up agreements, issuers with insiders engaging in long-term, automatic sales programs should gauge the view of underwriters to a carve out under these lock-ups for sales pursuant to pre-established programs. Registration rights agreements between a company and its venture capital investors may also contain prospective lock-up agreements prohibiting executive investors from publicly selling equity securities a certain number of days prior to and following the effective date of a registration statement. The inclusion of a stop-gap clause in an automatic sales program triggered upon the effectiveness of a registration statement could be problematic to the extent the timing of any filing of a registration statement would be, in part, under an insider's control. As such, the SEC could view the invocation of such a stop-gap measure as an impermissible modification to a previous contract, plan, or instruction. Accordingly, since the impact of such a stop-gap provision on the availability of a Rule 10b5-1 defense is not clear at this time, insiders who desire to put in place a pre-established sales plan should obtain a waiver of the application of any holdback restrictions to sales under such a plan.Issuer Repurchase Programs.Rule 10b5-1 has important implications for issuer repurchase programs that can be structured to comply with the conditions of the rule. For example, an issuer operating a repurchase program would not need to specify with precision the amounts, prices, and dates on which it will repurchase its securities. Rather, an issuer could adopt a written plan, when it is not aware of material, nonpublic information, that uses a written formula to derive amounts, prices, and dates. Alternatively, the plan could delegate all discretion to determine amounts, prices, and dates to another person who is not aware of the information, provided that the plan did not permit the issuer to (and in fact the issuer did not) exercise any subsequent influence over the purchases or sales.Employee Stock Plans.The new rule would also facilitate increases or decreases of insider holdings under issuer stock plans. For example, an employee looking to exercise stock options and sell the underlying shares could, while not aware of material, nonpublic information, adopt a written plan specifying the amount of the employee's vested options to be exercised and/or sold at or above a specific price. The plan would provide that the employee will exercise options and sell the shares on specified dates and in specified amounts. Alternatively, such a plan could include a formula linked to, for example, periodic cash outlays (such as mortgage or tuition payments) required to be made by the insider.Acquisitions under the new rule could also be made through payroll deductions under an employee stock purchase plan or a 401 (k) plan. The employee could provide elections as to his or her plan participation at a time when the employee would otherwise be able to effect open market trades. The transaction price could be computed as a percentage of market price, and the transaction amount could be based on a percentage of salary to be deducted under the plan. The date of a plan transaction could be set by the plan. Alternatively, the date of a plan transaction could be controlled by the plan's administrator, assuming that he or she is not aware of material, nonpublic information at the time of executing the transaction, and the employee does not exercise influence over the timing of the transaction.Portfolio Diversification.Automatic, periodic divestiture programs have been of particular interest to corporate insiders, especially founding shareholders in emerging growth companies, who have significant wealth concentrated in issuer stock. For insiders seeking liquidity and diversification, Rule 10b5-1 provides legal certainty that long-term, periodic open market sales made in the midst of blackout periods will not subject the sellers to insider trading liability. And while these programs have become common even prior to the promulgation of Rule 10b5-1, the rule's bright lines for structuring these programs provides greater comfort to counsel advising insiders on such programs. But while the SEC's new rule provides a legal mechanism for insiders to precommit to trades, as with any trading program, automatic programs carry certain financial risks, especially if the program contractually locks in trades for large numbers of shares over extended periods. In deciding how and whether such a program should be instituted, executives need to test their willingness to continue to sell into a falling market or buy when market exuberance has overtaken trading, especially when their knowledge of developments affecting the company suggests that market price changes will be forthcoming in future periods. To mitigate these risks, executives should honestly assess their risk tolerances and include appropriate limit orders when their programs are structured.Lawyer ContactsFor further information, please contact your principal Firm representative or one of the lawyers listed below. General e-mail messages may be sent using our "Contact Us" form, which can be found at Jones Day | Home.Elizabeth Clough [email protected] Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our "Contact Us" form, which can be found on our web site at Jones Day | Home. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.

My strategy revolves around revolve around (a) containing Trump (I am a Brexit supporter [in the loosest of definitions]) and (b) Minimizing the transitional economic hit taken by the UK (which is an economic hit agreed upon by most sane Brexit supporting Economics). The bold bits are bits that either imply the UK will give up a power, or just point stuff out.Give a speech along the lines of “In 2016, we voted against the EU in it’s current form thus, for the continuation of UK Membership of the EU, the EU must change. We are not threatening the EU, but it must merely recognise that the UK can not stomach EU Membership in its current form, and we will split as good neighbours, and most importantly, good friends. There are some in the UK who accuse the EU of being unreasonable or unfair, but this is a negotiation, and the EU’s job is not to be ‘fair’ to the UK. It is recognised that the EU seems to be negotiating with the expectation of punishing the UK by forcing territorial/sovereignty changes (the EU officially stated “Gibraltar is not a part of the UK”), thus we will suspend our hopes of a deal to come into effect upon exit 2 months away.”We will go through the strategy for the EU first.Forming Negotiating PolicyA study group will be set up to explore various Trade Deals to form the UK's negotiating policy (It's hard to know what powers I need to repatriate from the EU if I don't know [realistically] which ones I need). The following will be looked at specifically,The "Closer Economic Relations" agreement between New Zealand and AustraliaThe US States (+ its territories, technically)The new NAFTA agreement (I know it’s not called NAFTA anymore)Meet with prominent Brexiteers/Businesses to see what kind of terms they would accept. Use various polls to form the UK Renegotiation position. An idea I’ve got is to go through the Women’s Institute of the UK, because it seems like (a) they’re the only ones in the country to not go into a meltdown over Brexit and (b) their steadfast “partisan neutrality” that was displayed this year is the perfect forum for Brexiteers to put out their viewpoint as well as teach everyone to calm the fuck down, especially when Brexit opinion is almost completely separate from their political alignment.What I expect from the above, or what I want to negotiate for in addition to the conclusions about the aboveFrom my perspective so far, the main issues with the EU are: Immigration, Regulatory burdens and Trade Policy.Citizens Rights and Issuesright to deny benefits to EU Migrants for 5 years (so basically D. Camerons negotiating guidelines). This one isn't that important, there are plenty of loopholes available.Going into a more direct form of democracy (like Switzerland and Ireland) and paying people to votePaying people to renew their Passports. My original thought was that since the UK can’t charge more for a PR Card than a Passport, the UK would need to get the agreement to allow the UK to give out PR Cards for free (fixed fee). However, I was incorrect in this assumption, as Directive 2004/38/EC.V.25.2 saysAll documents mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be issued free of charge or for a charge not exceeding that imposed on nationals for the issuing of similar documents.The Swiss Compromise between the EU and Switzerland could be copied, where Swiss Companies have to hire from locals (Citizens and Residents) before being able to extend it towards non-residents.The principle behind freedom of movement seems to be relatively non controversial in actual fact (see source), but less so than if it is tied with other "negative" parts of EU Membership. [1]right to deny EU Rights from EU Citizens that have committed a serious crime. I believe that this is already in the EU law (I may be confusing it with Trans Tasman as I've been reading up on it recently). However, trespassing as a Refugee should be added.The right to deny EU Citizens who have gotten their Citizenship as a result of Investment [Malta, Romania]. The UK has it's own Investment pathway to Residency (and later Citizenship).One more easy method of excluding EU Citizenship Rights is to replace the ↑ and ↑↑ with an exclusion of all EU Citizens not by birth unless they are accompanying/accompanied by [depending on how you look at it] an EU Citizen by birth as a spouse/parent.The UK will exercise its right under Directive 2004/38/EC Chapter V, Article 24 to change the loan terms for EU Citizens to one that ensures it gets repaid regardless of where they reside after. (Large numbers move back home and thus never pay back their Student Loans [they should, but it is hard to enforce]The UK will instead give excluded EU Citizens the following;A Holiday visa waiver on stays up to 6 Months (no work allowed, unless the UK allows them to). There is no income requirement (proof of self sufficiency)A Work visa waiver on periods of work of up to 12 months. The employer must give evidence that the employee will receive a wage that is similar to that of Residents in the same job.A visa waiver for studying in the UK for the duration of their studies. If studying, they will no longer be considered an excluded EU Citizen.An advantage in a Points based immigration system that I will probably put in place, or a specially made one for the reassurance of the EU. This may even be agreed upon with the EU to reassure them that the UK does not wish to deny their rights “forever”.No Deal Preparations: As is the Government’s plan as of yet, EU Citizens who have already moved to the UK will be allowed to stay. However, EU Citizens who would have been “excluded” (Got Citizenship by Investment or got a passport just to get them out of their respective country - by that I mean there are some countries who gave Asylum Seekers passports, so that they would be EU Citizens and could move to where they wanted)The Government would release an explanatory notes explaining the exclusion principle for Settled Status (in case of No Deal). Citizens by Naturalisation that became citizens between 2014 and Leave date will be required to show proof of self sufficiency in non-UK EU Countries for 5 years (they may move between EU Countries).After “Brexit day”, all entrants from the EU will provide their biometric data to Immigration Control at airports. These biometrics will be stored until they leave the country; if they leave the country within 6 months, they will be asked if they were just Tourists [the UK always allows 6 months for non-work purposes]. If so, their fingerprints are removed (no need for them, after all. If not, they will be given an “Explanatory Notes to Settled Status” so they can apply if needed. Visa policy of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia]. This does not exclude them from getting Settled Status if they already have met the requirements, especially since we don’t want to punish those who had left the country for an emergency (family) or a holiday (well, it’s March [unless extended], so unlikely, but still…)The UK will not deport any EU Citizen that have entered before Brexit day (as well as people with Settled Status) until after 2021. People with Pre-Settled Status and Settled Status won’t be deported after either.Sovereignty, Trade and Regulatory BurdenThe EU would repatriate all non-Single Market powers to the UK; especially those to do with Defence, Taxation, non-EU Migration (so the UK can join Migration blocs if it so chooses and/or give special visas to citizens of countries we have trade deals with).The UK may choose to operate under the EFTA Court pillar of the EU.The EU CU will no longer apply to the UK.The EU will be required to ensure that all of its trade deals include the UK within 3 years (this is partly to ensure that ↓ works without incident and also to just allow the EU to update the Trade Deals). If the UK agrees, the EU may allow for the Trade Deal to only partially cover the UK (Services provisions are ignored, since it is not required for a trade agreement). Although, I highly doubt that the UK would want to do this, considering the UK’s more free-trade stance and the size of the UK Service Sector.The final agreement will include a "Customs Facilitation Agreement" allowing the UK to collect tariffs on behalf of the EU should those goods be going to the mainland/Ireland. The agreement will have an body set up to explore the viability of the Agreement.If the body rules that the scheme does not work, then the Customs facilitation part of the agreement will no longer apply. The UK's opt out of the Customs Union still applies. The UK may choose to not have any trade deals with non-EU countries (ignoring EU Trade Deals) and thus opt back in to the EU CU (with the option of opting back out).The UK will have 3 years to set up the Infrastructure (physical and digital) ↑↑ since before then, the UK would not be able to work with the EU Customs Facilitation. This also means that the UK would be fully out or fully in the Customs Union (although the UK could spend the first year in, then opt out for the other 2 years).The UK may sign Trade Agreements with other countries.If the EU later introduces a regulation that unfairly impacts the UK (eg, puts it at a disadvantage against the UK trading partner), the UK gains a veto over that regulation applying in the UK; the EU may decide whether or not to apply the regulation in the rEU after this; since there are regulatory and Rules of Origin checks of UK Goods, the regulatory differences do not matter as long as EU Goods would be compliant with UK rules.If the EU later introduces a regulation that would not be compatible with a trade agreement made by the UK, the EU must agree with both the UK and the trading partner in order for the regulation to come into force in the UK.This is the main time constraint, drawing up this Agreement in a short period of time. Although, the fact that the Customs Facilitation Agreement can be forced to be ditched will make it possible for the EU to be more relaxed about this.Nothing bad would really happen to my plans, but it does divert a bit of investment away from the UK; too bad… [By this I mean, the UK usually keeps 25% of the tariffs as Admin costs, so if this deal fell through, we would lose this amount; not a big deal])Goods destined for the UK market pay UK tariffs, while others pay EU tariffs. This is basically the MaxFac suggested by the UK earlier. The importer has the option of paying the EU tariffs if they don’t want the hassle of two customs procedures or they don’t know the final destination at the time.As the EU originally got funds from tariffs (called own resources), the UK would give a % of the UK national income every year like Norway (separate from the existing contributions) since the EU would be short handed.This is similar to the “max fac” that the EU rejected. But that was when we didn’t suggest following the SM.Allows the UK to go back through the regulations made between Referendum and Now and change its vote (if the result changes on Qualified Majority Voting or Veto voting, the regulation gets denied). This is in recognition that the EU manipulated some UK votes.The UK is not required to put Foreign Aid funding through the EU system (can’t remember name), but may choose to do so if it wishes.Since a treaty change is required (ie, all EU countries have to say yes), the hardest countries to convince are:France; Food Imports are subject to high tariffs. The UK leaving the Customs Union means the UK can reduce tariffs.Germany; Customs Union is important for supply chains for cars. The Customs Facilitation Agreement may not convince them.Germany, Denmark, Italy, Greece and Sweden: Wants more Money and hardest hit by Refugees.Compromises the UK can make and Advantages the UK hasEurozone seems to be collapsing by the second. [2] [3]The Business Cycle is at its peak.The UK could temporarily remove its Rebate.The UK can offer to take in many refugees or pay x amount every year per migrant.The reason being is that the UK can undertake Military Action to try to make their homes safe again.The refugees are let in on the assumption that they will return to their home countries.The UK could provide interest free loans to struggling economies, and or write off debts held by some EU countries.Donald Trump- I know, it sounds surprising. If Trump gives the UK a good deal (which they probably would do if the UK wouldn’t leave the EU otherwise (in actuality the UK will never leave, if all goes to plan))We don’t really have a German-specific reassurance for the customs related frictions.Now we will go through what the UK will do outside of the EU(maybe with Japan as well, but that’s just me liking Japan and because Japan has a lot to gain by joining in)The leading coalition in New Zealand has put “extending the provisions of Trans Tasman and Closer Economic Relations [both agreements between AU and NZ] to the UK, Canada and other similar economies in the Commonwealth” [South Africa is given as an example, but it is likely they will have a transition period for the Trans Tasman agreement first due to their large differences in Economies]. [3; Ctrl+F and type "Closer Commonwealth Economic Relations"]Explanation: the EU SM worked fine before due to the fact that the economies all had very similar characteristics and Freedom of Movement was only really for “culture exchanges”. Afterwards, Single of Movement resulted in a brain drain from some countries and more pressure on others (less than Brexiteers say, but there is definitely a presence of such pressure, despite what the more …radical of the Remainers say) [4]Proposes a ”Closer Economic Relation” with Canada (separately from NZ and AU, so no need to get them on board; there is no Customs Union after all). The opposition in Canada (Conservatives, ironically enough) voted 99% to 1% to adopt CANZUK as an official manifesto commitment at their Conference. (note: if the three countries want to have CER agreements between themselves, they can go right ahead, we can try to combine it into one multilateral agreement)doesn't having Freedom of Movement with CANZUK countries kind of defeat the objectiveTo put it bluntly, not really.2.5 Million (excluding Irish Citizens) EU Citizens live in the UK.Of the 1.3 Million UK Citizens in Europe [5], 0.3 million live in Ireland [7] and are protected regardless of Brexit:0.3 Million are retired [5]. EU Rules mean the Triple Lock applies to their pensions as well; not smart, considering how generous it is and any outflows of money is considered an import in services. (thus, the Deficit recorded by the UK to the EU is actually underestimated, considering these rules). These citizens have also probably been living in the EU for a relatively long period of time, and will probably be applicable for any Settled Statuses given out.If they stay, great; they won’t get the Triple lock while living abroad.If this becomes an untruth [due to them deporting old retirees despite them being eligible for Permanent Residence under EU Rules before we’ve left], we hope that those who return will start spending their Triple Lock pensions on the British economy; this is good as the UK is experiencing a debt crisis.Let it be clear I do not want this to happen, even economically speaking. Colder climates are more deadly and less healthy for the old. This would probably increase NHS costs. As soon as any evidence of this occurring, negotiations will be accelerated with Australia and New Zealand to ensure a warm climate.In addition, suggests there are 1 million non-retired expats [5]. We hope in a no Deal, they will give British Citizens similar terms to what we give to theirs, as the EC has suggested. It is estimated that 900,000 are "long term residents" and thus unlikely to be deported) [6]So why am I telling you this? Well, that's simple, Freedom of Movement is of little benefit* to UK Citizens since that 1 million in Europe (excluding Ireland) pales inconsiderably to the 2.3 million UK Citizens that live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa (3m including USA) [7]. Keep in mind that this is despite:The fact that for over 40 years, Brits have continued emigrating (despite the fact you need to get visas and stuff done) to get to CANZUK countries shows how attractive these countries are to brits.There are some who may have not gone through the expense of the bureaucracy, they have to have left the UK for these lands before 1947. IN other words, a relatively small number. Their grandchildren would most likely not have British Citizenship by default due to how the rules work.*assuming [tourist] visa free status, which the EC [which manages the Schengen Areas visa rules] said they will give to UK Citizens.Operation Save the West (jokes)The US has an arrogant prick in charge. this is actually a good thing because flattery is extremely effective**...**... Secretly, CANZUK (+Japan) come to an agreement on how to deal with D. Trump; his haphazard diplomacy skills are endangering the alliances of the West (I do believe he is right about some things by the way, but I still think he is an arrogant prick). The plan is: get the US to pass an amendment (I know you need 75% of Senators to agree, one moment) to allow for the Commonwealth Realms to join the USA despite the fact they are not Republics. Because amendments can override other amendments, the Amendment can basically say that the US Constitution does not apply to the new states; in exchange for the commonwealth realms not being allowed to vote on Constitutional Amendments (the courts would probably rule on that anyway, since I’m sure Common Law would think it’s unfair for someone who doesn’t get affected by the rules to be able to vote for the rules).The Amendment will also ensure that the US is obliged to give UK/AU/NZ/JP access to the US Market (on the same terms as any other state; except Customs) and Trade Deals. Individual Commonwealth Realms don’t have to sign such agreements if they don’t like the FTA.The Amendment will contain provisions recognising the interdependence of the new States from old. The New States may only vote on Amendments to the Constitution that would otherwise affect them (again, courts would approve of this, according to Article V).The US must represent the Commonwealth Realms at international organisations (since they become a state). A wild trivia has appeared: Interestingly, in the WTO and most international trade bodies, the UK would become represented trice (3 times) as a Sovereign entity, an EU member and a State of the USAThe new states may sign agreements with individual states (eg Alaska) and sovereign nations. This ties into how we will get the amendment passed. (Note: This includes international organisations, allowing the new states to remain a member of various trade bodies like the WTO)The new states may decide how much to integrate.The new states will scale spending on Defence, thus using the current figures. EG: if US cut their spending in half, the UK can cut their spending by half. This is good if the US cuts spending from 3.6 to 2.5, since the UK can cut from 2.1 to (1.8 - % change in US). This isn’t good if the US wants to spend more than 3.6%, since the UK has to increase spending.Alternatively, the new states have to spend at least 2% on defense as long as the US spends more than 2% on defense. Using the above example, if the US decreases from 3.5 to 2.4, the UK doesn’t have to do anything, but it does mean that the UK’s Comparative Advantage decreases. However, if the US increases spending, the UK doesn’t have to and can basically freeload.I guess since the UK has already gone through the effort of creating a "Customs Facilitation Agreement" (in the EU part of the negotiations), it may as well put it in the US Agreement.Allow US Territories in the Atlantic to become a state alongside British territories in the Atlantic should they want to under the same agreement (no electoral college, no federal law oversight). The reason why they haven’t become states yet is because the US Territories are too small (US Virgin Islands; tiny…).The territories probably would combine with the expectation of there being “no State power”All well and good, but how will you get it throughWell, that’s actually simpler than you think. Because the UK can sign agreements with states afterwards, the UK can promise:Uni cooperation with states with Ivy League unis (US version of Russell Group). I don’t mean just Ivy League ones, but these ones likely have large amounts of power.Help the USA set up a healthcare service that makes sense; emphasis will be placed on ensuring hospitals are transparent with pricing as well as removing the charges for A&E (or ER). This second bit will tide over the Republicans (tbf, Trump has kind of started this process by passing a law on Pharmaceuticals telling them to sell in the USA at market rates [ie, the same price they give other countries].Help them put in place a Background check system in the USA on the condition that the UK runs it. tide over Republicans by saying that the UK would not keep a register (the NRA have always supported background checks on the acception of there being no register) of gun owners who are US Citizens.Funding for the Wall or cooperation for Immigration Officials. It will be difficult to tide the Democrats over, because of the “Trump reaction”; A poll was released where the question asked Trump said this, do you agree. This is true even for things that they usually want, like Healthcare.Get all the commonwealth realms employees/firms to lobby States nearby (west coast for AU/NZ/Japan)The more …well, dumb Democrats can be convinced by showing the evils of Europe. There will be no lying, but perhaps some misleading. The work “they/them” must be used to try and get them into the mindset of “us vs them”:They want to determine the land borders (They said Gibraltar shouldn’t be a part of the UK despite 96% Referendum). sounds like the Vienna Awards to me, this doesn’t sound good considering the evils that Germany did in the previous century; and they say they’ve turned a new leaf...They wanted an easy way to make a racist immigration policy. Freedom of Movement means that white Europeans (statistically, Europe is one of the less diverse than most English speaking countries) can live elsewhere, but the countries can tell non-Europeans (which are basically Asians and Blacks) to go away.Germans are more likely to want “women to stay at home with the kids” and yet they’re mostly atheist.If they say yes, the US will become more diverse (since the Commonwealth Countries are more racially diverse than even the USA). Japan will be protected from Trump bashing (they will like this)Frances control over poor African countries (CFA Franc, Vietnam, Algeria)Republicans will be convinced by:Pointing out how we are the only allies you can count on. We fulfill our commitments and always come to the US’s defense.Philosophical debates about how guns are there checks on the government, ours is the queen. Who lives in a fancy Palace. They would likely be wary of not applying US Constitution (1 and 2 especially) to the UK for corruption reasons. This would address some of their worries.Trade benefits with Countries that are so similar. Say the UK doesn’t use rules as a hammer on US Goods/Exports, but that the UK only has rules forcing companies to tell the consumer what ingredients there are and whether they are genetically modified.The UK does indeed ban chlorine washed chicken as a result of EU Rules. Say that the UK will repeal this restriction immediately (put it in the agreement if you wish, but I don’t see why, since States can ban it if they want). If so, what will actually happen is that the UK will ensure the EU allows the UK to opt out of such bans (in return for packaging requirements; the packaging must say “chlorine washed”. Consumers can decide for themselves whether they want it or not.Inform them of the cooperation that already occurs. A town in the US wanted to set up Roundabouts/Circles and got Australia to mail over some documents on Roundabouts (obviously they inverted the documents since Australia drives on the Left and the US on the right.Among other things.What if you promise opposite things to different peopleThe new states won’t get to vote for federal laws or for president (no Presidential College). So the UK literally can’t lie. The UK can say “we will help set up X”, but it would never come into force without the Senate passing the law. Therefore, the above promises are more of a “If a state wants help, we, as brotherly constituents of the US, will help them set it up.”JoiningNext up is the President, who has to sign any agreement allowing a state to enter. Now if the Commonwealth Realms sign up to this idea, Trump can be convinced by flattering him; “Don’t you want to be in the history books; tripling the Size of the US [land area] and increasing the population by 50%?” or "If you don't sign this, you will lose to the EU"If not, well, if the amendment allows Commonwealth Realms to change their mind (ie. sign up to this deal later), then perhaps could still work.You know what the funny thing is; France was always accused of trying to get a “Europe of Concentric Circles”, with France at the center; and french colonies in the circles. (They already are, they’re in the CFA Franc basically against their will). Well, this sort of deal basically does this for the UK (except ours will be based on cooperation and sovereignty, while theirs is based on giving France control over their economies).Do I think the US part will work. Not really. It’s a long shot. Does it matter though. If the US says no, the worst that will happen is the UK will not have a trade deal with the USA, which we wouldn’t have if we stayed in. The UK would most likely have the Trade deal with CANZUK countries though.Conclusion: Both of these strategies will work independently of the other. The slim chance they could both occur simultaneously would be extremely beneficial but incredibly difficult. The main thing about this strategy is keeping Europe focussed away from the USA. The USA also must not think the UK will keep EU Membership and this is done by renegotiating behind closed doors (like it has been done anyway). The EU can be told that the government does not want to release the negotiating guidelines because it doesn't want brexiteers lying about the reports; and then rubbing it in saying the UK hasn't got what it wants; since what I want from Europe is relatively vague, because there are somethings I don't mind giving up if they can think of things to trade for it.Q: You say the EU and US must not know what the UK is doing with the other, does that mean it’s not good for them?No, it is good for everyone.The US has an ensured ally (allies if commonwealth join) and can access the UK market as if it was a State (without Customs; although perhaps with the Facilitation).The UK has a failsafe against the EU. If we get kicked out, we can force the US to include the UK as part of the EU Equivalence (more likely is that the US will force its firms to show solidarity and prohibit them from accessing the EU) and as part of the Free Skies agreement, an agreement that will allow UK/EU carriers to operate from the UK to the EU. The UK benefits even more since UK Carriers treated like US Carriers, and can thus operate US to US flights and UK to US flights (the UK always had this right in the EU, but after this, the EU loses this right since the UK is treated like it was in the USA)The EU is protected from the USA. The “french farmers” won’t like the Customs Border or the fact that the UK can lower tariffs from other agricultural countries though…Q: Why an Amendment to the US Constitution, and not a normal treaty?The US can always leave treaties, and Trump (as well as Democrats in general) has been noted to oppose some agreements. The US also would not want the UK getting such a privileged access to the US Market (US States, AFAIK, have lots of power when it comes to regulation); especially when the UK also benefits from the EU.The US can’t kick the UK out, so it has to give us something in order to get us to give permission for it, and the EU can’t kick the UK out unless the UK ignores ECJ rulings; in likelihood, this requirement will get scrapped for the UK since it would be able to operate under the EFTA court, which is not inferior to the ECJ. The EU countries could leave and then create a EU-but-not-that-EU, which the UK could solve by allowing Macron to create his Eurozone Constitution (like the 2004 EU constitution) which would prohibit leaving. In fact, France was the biggest obstacle to any Brexit deal at all, so if we give him the EZ Constitution, he would let us have what we want. Macron would love that, especially since he:Doesn’t know the UK will be getting a privileged position in the US and the EU, with opt-outs from the Customs Union from both, an automatic regulation conflict resolution process.Would get his Eurozone reforms like he wants.In fact, it’s even better. The only countries that can leave the EU would be the countries that don’t have the euro. Which is the countries that:We don’t rely on and aren’t close to us (apart from Denmark and Sweden)Don’t have as developed economies as the Eurozone + UK. (GDP per capita of Europe) This creates an Economic Migration path.You support Hard Brexit, and Economically/Legally/Philosophically, so do I. Why do I support this kind of deal thenInfluence is the main reason. Influence on Business Decisions. Why put a factory in Europe when it can be put in the UK, and exported to the US and the rest of Europe.But there is another reason. By improving the UK’s position in other countries and allowing the UK to conduct free trade with non-EU countries (and not dictated by the EU FTAs), the UK reduces it’s reliance on the European Commission, showing the rest of Europe a vision for Europe by example. Great Britain. A Square Peg in a Round Hole by David LucasI hope that Europe will see things our way; Common Law, Laissez-faire Individualism.But if not, we are fine whether we leave or not. We will be able to connect with other Commonwealth countries on a deep level (through the Closer Economic Relations that is between Australia and New Zealand; a very good model for all future trade arrangements)And if we still want to leave, we can, and we are in a bloody good place to be:our post-Brexit trade relations already figured out with (at minimum) the US, Canada, Mexico, US FTA countries, Australia, New Zealand, Japanthe Arctic Circle is predicted to be an international flashpoint with large amounts of resources and much shorter routes from Europe to Asia. This is another reason why I want to include Japan in my above answer. With Japan, we have an incredibly secure and beneficial route from Europe to East Asia.EU Trade taking a lower share than currently, vetoes on large acquis of EU Law, vetoes on future treaties.