Q: When do 731 + 451 = 38?
A: When the subject is state enactments of Revised Article 7.
I reported earlier this month on recent state enactments of Revised Article 1 and the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4. I didn't forget Revised Article 7; I was simply waiting for definitive action on bills in two states that had made their way to their respective governor's desk, but on which neither governor had yet acted.
Last Thursday (May 27) and Friday (May 28), Florida Governor Charlie Crist and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, respectively, signed Florida HB 731 and Georgia HB 451, making Florida and Georgia the 37th and 38th states to enact Revised Article 7. Both enactments will take effect on July 1, 2010.
Additional bills are pending in Massachusetts, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin. As of May 28, Massachusetts HB 89 and Ohio HB 490 are showing some signs of life; but Washington SB 5154 and Wisconsin AB 688 do not appear to be going anywhere in 2010.
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Mississippi Makes Ten
Mississippi became the tenth state to enact the 2002 amendments to UCC Articles 3 and 4 when Governor Haley Barbour signed SB 2419* into law on April 13. SB 2419 will take effect on July 1, as will Indiana SB 501 (now Pub. L. No. 135-2009), enacted last year with a delayed effective date of July 1, 2010.
* - If SB 2419 looks familiar, it's the same bill by which Mississippi enacted Revised Article 1 -- making it a 1-3-4 bill, which is even more rare than a 1-3-4 double play!
* - If SB 2419 looks familiar, it's the same bill by which Mississippi enacted Revised Article 1 -- making it a 1-3-4 bill, which is even more rare than a 1-3-4 double play!
UCC Article 1 Legislative Update
As I predicted in my last legislative update, Mississippi and Wisconsin are the 38th and 39th states to have enacted Revised Article 1.
As introduced on January 11, 2010, Mississippi SB 2419 initially included a choice-of-law provision similar to the original version of Revised § 1-301 that every enacting state has rejected and that the ALI and NCCUSL replaced in 2008. Subsequently amended to replace the introduced version of § 1-301 with language tracking the now-official version, SB 2419 passed the Mississippi Senate on February 10 and the Mississippi House on March 9, and Governor Haley Barbour signed it into law on April 13. Mississippi SB 2419, which adopts uniform Revised § 1-201(b)(20), defining good faith as "honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing," takes effect on July 1.
As introduced on January 22, 2010, Wisconsin SB 472 initially included uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20), but was subsequently amended to substitute the pre-revised § 1-201(19) "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned" definition in existing Wisconsin law. So amended, SB 472 passed the Wisconsin Senate on April 13 and the Wisconsin Assembly on April 22, and Governor Jim Doyle signed it into law on May 12. Wisconsin Act 320 (née SB 472) should take effect on August 1.
As of July 1, the effective date for Mississippi SB 2419 and the delayed effective date for last year's Indiana SB 501 (which I previously discussed here and here), which replaces the existing "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned" good faith definition in Indiana's version of Revised Article 1 with the uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20) definition, will tilt the balance in favor or uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20) -- as opposed to retaining the pre-revised 1-201(19) definition -- to 28-10 in favor of uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20). When it takes effect on August 1, Wisconsin Act 320 will tilt the balance back slightly to 28-11 in favor of uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20).
As introduced on January 11, 2010, Mississippi SB 2419 initially included a choice-of-law provision similar to the original version of Revised § 1-301 that every enacting state has rejected and that the ALI and NCCUSL replaced in 2008. Subsequently amended to replace the introduced version of § 1-301 with language tracking the now-official version, SB 2419 passed the Mississippi Senate on February 10 and the Mississippi House on March 9, and Governor Haley Barbour signed it into law on April 13. Mississippi SB 2419, which adopts uniform Revised § 1-201(b)(20), defining good faith as "honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing," takes effect on July 1.
As introduced on January 22, 2010, Wisconsin SB 472 initially included uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20), but was subsequently amended to substitute the pre-revised § 1-201(19) "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned" definition in existing Wisconsin law. So amended, SB 472 passed the Wisconsin Senate on April 13 and the Wisconsin Assembly on April 22, and Governor Jim Doyle signed it into law on May 12. Wisconsin Act 320 (née SB 472) should take effect on August 1.
As of July 1, the effective date for Mississippi SB 2419 and the delayed effective date for last year's Indiana SB 501 (which I previously discussed here and here), which replaces the existing "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned" good faith definition in Indiana's version of Revised Article 1 with the uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20) definition, will tilt the balance in favor or uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20) -- as opposed to retaining the pre-revised 1-201(19) definition -- to 28-10 in favor of uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20). When it takes effect on August 1, Wisconsin Act 320 will tilt the balance back slightly to 28-11 in favor of uniform Revised 1-201(b)(20).
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
New Credit Card Rules Go Into Action
Happily, the CARD act provisions are in full effect now. So, what to look for on your statements? I think the disclosure about how long it will take you to pay off your credit card if you only pay the minimum is helpful, especially when coupled with how much you need to pay in order to pay off the debt in just three years. But, consumers must actually read the statements to get the disclosure . . .
CNN has a good piece on credit card reform (click here, as I could not embed it). With card companies increasing rates, there has been a greater proliferation of high rate cards. First Premier has a card for high risk customers that carries a 59.9% interest rate! Yikes! Interestingly, the National Credit Union Administration caps credit unions at 18% interest on credit union cards by law, but private card companies have no such similar limit (See LA Times, Seattle Times). Of course, its all about access to credit, according to the American Banker's Association. While I can understand access to credit and the need for people to build credit, 59.9% is over-the-top and at that rate perhaps some people should not be getting credit, as the cost is too high. Perhaps there is a role for the traditional usury statutes again.
Whose to blame for all this mess? Well, the Supreme Court had a part to play with its 1978 decision in Marquette vs. First Omaha Services making it legal under the National Bank Act for banks to locate in states without interest rate restrictions. Although the Court recognized that this would impair the effectiveness of state usury laws, the problem is "better addressed to the wisdom of Congress than to the judgment of this Court." Despite the passage of the CARD Act, Congress has not addressed the interest rate differential. Perhaps the increases in rates after the CARD Act might provide some impetus for changes to the extent banks overreach in their charging of customers.
CNN has a good piece on credit card reform (click here, as I could not embed it). With card companies increasing rates, there has been a greater proliferation of high rate cards. First Premier has a card for high risk customers that carries a 59.9% interest rate! Yikes! Interestingly, the National Credit Union Administration caps credit unions at 18% interest on credit union cards by law, but private card companies have no such similar limit (See LA Times, Seattle Times). Of course, its all about access to credit, according to the American Banker's Association. While I can understand access to credit and the need for people to build credit, 59.9% is over-the-top and at that rate perhaps some people should not be getting credit, as the cost is too high. Perhaps there is a role for the traditional usury statutes again.
Whose to blame for all this mess? Well, the Supreme Court had a part to play with its 1978 decision in Marquette vs. First Omaha Services making it legal under the National Bank Act for banks to locate in states without interest rate restrictions. Although the Court recognized that this would impair the effectiveness of state usury laws, the problem is "better addressed to the wisdom of Congress than to the judgment of this Court." Despite the passage of the CARD Act, Congress has not addressed the interest rate differential. Perhaps the increases in rates after the CARD Act might provide some impetus for changes to the extent banks overreach in their charging of customers.
- JSM
UCC Legislative Update
It has been a fairly quiet eight months on the UCC legislative front since my last update.
Revised Article 1
As of March 1, 2010, Revised Article 1 was in effect in thirty-seven states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
State legislatures continue to grapple with the definition of "good faith," although the uniform § R1-201(b)(20) definition has the upper hand. Of the 37 enacting states, 26 have adopted the uniform definition, while 11 have retained the pre-revised definition that, in conjunction with § 2-103(1)(b), imposes a different good faith standard on merchants and non-merchants. Effective July 1, 2010, one of those eleven minority states (Indiana) will join the majority as SB 501, enacted in 2009 primarily for the purpose of amending Articles 3 and 4, also revises Ind. Code § 26-1-1-201(19) to require all parties to act honestly and to observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. (At present, Indiana's Revised Article 1 requires only “honesty in fact.”) This change will take effect July 1, 2010, and further tip the balance among enacting states in favor of the unitary good faith definition in uniform R1-201(b)(20).
With many state legislatures occupied with more pressing issues of the moment, 2009 yielded only three new adoptions -- Alaska, Maine, and Oregon -- down from five in 2008, and seven in 2007. While a downward trend in new enactments eventually becomes inevitable once two-thirds of the states have signed on, 2009's three enactments were the fewest in a year since 2003 (when Idaho became the third state overall to enact Revised Article 1).
As of March 1, only two states -- Mississippi and Wisconsin -- appear to be serious candidates to enact Revised Article 1 in 2010.
Mississippi SB 2419, introduced and amended (to replace a choice-of-law provision that appeared to have derived from the original § R1-301 that all 37 enacting states have declined to adopt and the ALI and NCCUSL have disavowed with one that reflected the substitute § R1-301 the ALI and NCCUSL promulgated in 2008) in January, unanimously passed the Mississippi Senate on February 10. It is presently before the House Judiciary Committee.
Wisconsin AB 687, introduced on January 25 and amended on February 16 to replace the uniform R1-201(b)(20) "good faith" definition with the pre-revised 1-201(19) version, received the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions's unanimous approval on February 26. It is presently before the Assembly Rules Committee.
Two other bills, Massachusetts HB 89 and Washington SB 5155, seem less likely to produce results.
Massachusetts HB 89, the fifth attempt to enact Revised Article 1 in the Commonwealth, was assigned to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies on January 20, 2009. No further action had been reported as of March 1, 2010.
Washington SB 5155, introduced on January 15, 2009, appeared to be drawn directly from the language of official Revised Article 1 circa 2001, including the original version of § R1-301. At an initial public hearing on January 23, 2009, all those testifying in support of and in opposition to the bill opposed the choice-of-law provision. The Washington Senate appears to have taken no further action except to "reintroduce and retain [the bill] in present status" on January 11, 2010.
Article 2 and 2A Amendments
As of March 1, 2010, only three state legislatures (Kansas, Nevada, and Oklahoma) have considered bills proposing to enact the 2003 amendments to UCC Articles 2 and 2A. The Kansas and Nevada bills died on the vine.
In 2005, Oklahoma amended Sections 2-105 and 2A-103 of its Commercial Code to add that the definition of “goods” for purposes of Articles 2 and 2A, respectively, “does not include information,” see 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-105(1) & 2A-103(1)(h) (West 2009), and amended its Section 2-106 to add that “contract for sale” for purposes of Article 2 “does not include a license of information,” see id. § 2-106(1). The net effect is similar to having enacted Amended §§ 2-103(k) & 2A-103(1)(n), both of which exclude information from the meaning of “goods” for purposes of Article 2 and 2A, respectively. Otherwise, no state has enacted any of the 2003 amendments.
While the list of states enacting any of the 2003 amendments may not change in the near future, the number of amendments Oklahoma enacts may. Introduced on February 1, 2010, Oklahoma HB 3104 proposes amendments to forty-nine sections of Article 2 and four sections of Article 2A. The bill includes neither the reformulation of Sections 2-206 and 2-207 nor the addition of Sections 2-313A and 2-313B included in the 2003 Article 2 amendments. Many of the amendments appear designed to facilitate electronic signatures and transactions and to accommodate the terminology surrounding them that grows out of UETA, E-SIGN, and Revised UCC Articles 1 and 7, or to otherwise align Article 2 and 2A terminology with that used in Revised Articles 1 and 7. That is not to say that HB 3104 proposes only cosmetic changes to Oklahoma's versions of Articles 2 and 2A. Several of the proposed amendments alter existing substantive rights, obligations, or remedies. Some of those alterations (e.g., raising the § 2-201 floor from $500 to $5,000) do not seem to be inherently controversial; some (e.g., granting/recognizing a right to cure after a justifiable revocation) may or may not be controversial depending on how courts have interpreted the current Article 2; and some (e.g., giving sellers the right to recover consequential damages) do seem inherently controversial. More on this if the bill progresses.
Article 3 and 4 Amendments
As of March 1, 2010, the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 were in effect in eight states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma (for a second time), South Carolina, and Texas. They will take effect in Indiana on July 1, 2010.
As of March 1, 2010, the only pending Articles 3 and 4 bill is Massachusetts HB 90, which has been languishing for more than a year.
Revised Article 7
As of March 1, 2010, Revised UCC Article 7 was in effect in thirty-six states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Additional bills are currently pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin; but only the Wisconsin bill appears to be making any progress.
First introduced on February 18, 2009, Georgia HB 451 won unanimous approval in the Georgia House on March 12, and the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage on March 26. However, the legislature adjourned on April 3 without a third reading and final action in the senate. HB 451 was "recommitted" to the Georgia Senate on January 11, 2010. No further action has been reported.
Massachusetts HB 89, which also proposes adopting Revised Article 1, was assigned to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies on January 20, 2009. No further action has been reported.
Washington SB 5154 was introduced on January 15, 2009, scheduled for a public hearing on January 23, 2009, and then stalled, like its Revised Article 1 counterpart, but without as compelling a reason. It was "reintroduced and retained in present status" on January 11, 2010. No further action has been reported.
Wisconsin AB 688 was introduced on January 25, 2010. On February 22, the Assembly Committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business unanimously recommended passage. The bill is now before the Assembly Rules Committee.
Revised Article 1
As of March 1, 2010, Revised Article 1 was in effect in thirty-seven states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
State legislatures continue to grapple with the definition of "good faith," although the uniform § R1-201(b)(20) definition has the upper hand. Of the 37 enacting states, 26 have adopted the uniform definition, while 11 have retained the pre-revised definition that, in conjunction with § 2-103(1)(b), imposes a different good faith standard on merchants and non-merchants. Effective July 1, 2010, one of those eleven minority states (Indiana) will join the majority as SB 501, enacted in 2009 primarily for the purpose of amending Articles 3 and 4, also revises Ind. Code § 26-1-1-201(19) to require all parties to act honestly and to observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. (At present, Indiana's Revised Article 1 requires only “honesty in fact.”) This change will take effect July 1, 2010, and further tip the balance among enacting states in favor of the unitary good faith definition in uniform R1-201(b)(20).
With many state legislatures occupied with more pressing issues of the moment, 2009 yielded only three new adoptions -- Alaska, Maine, and Oregon -- down from five in 2008, and seven in 2007. While a downward trend in new enactments eventually becomes inevitable once two-thirds of the states have signed on, 2009's three enactments were the fewest in a year since 2003 (when Idaho became the third state overall to enact Revised Article 1).
As of March 1, only two states -- Mississippi and Wisconsin -- appear to be serious candidates to enact Revised Article 1 in 2010.
Mississippi SB 2419, introduced and amended (to replace a choice-of-law provision that appeared to have derived from the original § R1-301 that all 37 enacting states have declined to adopt and the ALI and NCCUSL have disavowed with one that reflected the substitute § R1-301 the ALI and NCCUSL promulgated in 2008) in January, unanimously passed the Mississippi Senate on February 10. It is presently before the House Judiciary Committee.
Wisconsin AB 687, introduced on January 25 and amended on February 16 to replace the uniform R1-201(b)(20) "good faith" definition with the pre-revised 1-201(19) version, received the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions's unanimous approval on February 26. It is presently before the Assembly Rules Committee.
Two other bills, Massachusetts HB 89 and Washington SB 5155, seem less likely to produce results.
Massachusetts HB 89, the fifth attempt to enact Revised Article 1 in the Commonwealth, was assigned to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies on January 20, 2009. No further action had been reported as of March 1, 2010.
Washington SB 5155, introduced on January 15, 2009, appeared to be drawn directly from the language of official Revised Article 1 circa 2001, including the original version of § R1-301. At an initial public hearing on January 23, 2009, all those testifying in support of and in opposition to the bill opposed the choice-of-law provision. The Washington Senate appears to have taken no further action except to "reintroduce and retain [the bill] in present status" on January 11, 2010.
Article 2 and 2A Amendments
As of March 1, 2010, only three state legislatures (Kansas, Nevada, and Oklahoma) have considered bills proposing to enact the 2003 amendments to UCC Articles 2 and 2A. The Kansas and Nevada bills died on the vine.
In 2005, Oklahoma amended Sections 2-105 and 2A-103 of its Commercial Code to add that the definition of “goods” for purposes of Articles 2 and 2A, respectively, “does not include information,” see 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-105(1) & 2A-103(1)(h) (West 2009), and amended its Section 2-106 to add that “contract for sale” for purposes of Article 2 “does not include a license of information,” see id. § 2-106(1). The net effect is similar to having enacted Amended §§ 2-103(k) & 2A-103(1)(n), both of which exclude information from the meaning of “goods” for purposes of Article 2 and 2A, respectively. Otherwise, no state has enacted any of the 2003 amendments.
While the list of states enacting any of the 2003 amendments may not change in the near future, the number of amendments Oklahoma enacts may. Introduced on February 1, 2010, Oklahoma HB 3104 proposes amendments to forty-nine sections of Article 2 and four sections of Article 2A. The bill includes neither the reformulation of Sections 2-206 and 2-207 nor the addition of Sections 2-313A and 2-313B included in the 2003 Article 2 amendments. Many of the amendments appear designed to facilitate electronic signatures and transactions and to accommodate the terminology surrounding them that grows out of UETA, E-SIGN, and Revised UCC Articles 1 and 7, or to otherwise align Article 2 and 2A terminology with that used in Revised Articles 1 and 7. That is not to say that HB 3104 proposes only cosmetic changes to Oklahoma's versions of Articles 2 and 2A. Several of the proposed amendments alter existing substantive rights, obligations, or remedies. Some of those alterations (e.g., raising the § 2-201 floor from $500 to $5,000) do not seem to be inherently controversial; some (e.g., granting/recognizing a right to cure after a justifiable revocation) may or may not be controversial depending on how courts have interpreted the current Article 2; and some (e.g., giving sellers the right to recover consequential damages) do seem inherently controversial. More on this if the bill progresses.
Article 3 and 4 Amendments
As of March 1, 2010, the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 were in effect in eight states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma (for a second time), South Carolina, and Texas. They will take effect in Indiana on July 1, 2010.
As of March 1, 2010, the only pending Articles 3 and 4 bill is Massachusetts HB 90, which has been languishing for more than a year.
Revised Article 7
As of March 1, 2010, Revised UCC Article 7 was in effect in thirty-six states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Additional bills are currently pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin; but only the Wisconsin bill appears to be making any progress.
First introduced on February 18, 2009, Georgia HB 451 won unanimous approval in the Georgia House on March 12, and the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage on March 26. However, the legislature adjourned on April 3 without a third reading and final action in the senate. HB 451 was "recommitted" to the Georgia Senate on January 11, 2010. No further action has been reported.
Massachusetts HB 89, which also proposes adopting Revised Article 1, was assigned to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies on January 20, 2009. No further action has been reported.
Washington SB 5154 was introduced on January 15, 2009, scheduled for a public hearing on January 23, 2009, and then stalled, like its Revised Article 1 counterpart, but without as compelling a reason. It was "reintroduced and retained in present status" on January 11, 2010. No further action has been reported.
Wisconsin AB 688 was introduced on January 25, 2010. On February 22, the Assembly Committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business unanimously recommended passage. The bill is now before the Assembly Rules Committee.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Odel Initiative on Consumer Protection Legislation
Professor David Oedel over at Mercer University Law School is heading up a legislative proposal that some of you might be interested in signing onto:
If you are interested in being a part of this initiative, contact Dave at oedel_dg@law.mercer.edu with e-mail, including your name, title, and institution.
Dear Senators and Congresspersons,
As law professors concerned about encouraging the most thoughtful, effective and flexible forms of financial reregulation, we urge that federal law should permit states also to protect financial consumers. In other words, any new financial regulation emerging from Congress this year should include a provision that would allow states the freedom to protect financial consumers with state rules that are stricter than (but consistent with) the minimum consumer protection standards established by federal law. This basic model of state regulatory freedom to protect state interests in ways that do not conflict with federal law has worked well in a number of other arenas, such as in some areas of environmental protection and insurance. Our sense is that many recent financial troubles could have been averted had the states been freer to regulate on behalf of their consumers on the main streets of their states.
We do not propose to alter the current law of federal preemption as it relates to national systemic safety and soundness. Our proposal is only to free up state innovation on matters of consumer financial protection.
Thank you for your consideration.
If you are interested in being a part of this initiative, contact Dave at oedel_dg@law.mercer.edu with e-mail, including your name, title, and institution.
- JSM
Friday, November 13, 2009
Hooray for the New Overdraft Rules
Yes, its taken a long time. Yes, it has needed urging through proposed legislation in Congress. Yes, it has taken the coordinated efforts of several federal agencies. But, success at last. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve Bank announced final rules amending Regulation E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (see press release). As we've complained here before, these overdraft charges amount to about $1.7 billion each year in fees to banks (See FDIC Study, How Your $4 Cup of Coffee). There were a number of touchy issues with the banks pushing back firmly on how the rules would come out. Fortunately, the Federal Reserve seems to have come down firmly on the side of consumers on most of the issues primarily raised by debit card use.So, here are the highlights:
- Banks must comply with the Final Rules as of July 1, 2010
- Banks cannot charge an overdraft fee on ATM and point-of-sale debit card (POS) transactions without the customer affirmatively opting-in to overdraft protection
- The rules apply to existing and new accounts
- Banks must offer the same account terms to customers who do not choose overdraft protection for ATM and POS transactions
Three issues remain unresolved by the Final Rules: (i) the size of overdraft fees (often $35 per transaction with no daily limit on the number of transactions charged; (ii) the batch reordering of transactions done by banks to increase the amount of fees generated on transactions by customers who do opt-in; and (iii) debit holds that trigger overdraft fees on transactions such as gasoline, hotels and restaurants. These gaps aside, the progress made by the Federal Reserve on debit cards is substantial.
Remember, banks can still charge the fees on those who have not opted-in until July 2010. So, still use your debit cards with care. As for me, I will not be opting-in, but will await the sales pitch that banks will inevitably make.
- JSM
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Update on H.R. 3126 Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009
The U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 3126, a bill for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), Oct. 22 in a 39-29 vote. The bill does not have a date scheduled for a full House vote, and the Senate does not have a companion bill proposed at this time.
In case you've not been following this, the CFPA would have the authority to write new consumer protection rules in the arenas of lending and credit, to monitor banks and other financial institutions for compliance with these rules, and to penalize institutions for any infractions. The CFPA would also have the ability to ban products, marketing tactics, and other business practices that it deems “unfair, deceptive, or abusive.”
The Financial Services Committee added several amendments which altered the Obama Administration’s original outline of the agency. An amendment added Oct. 21 exempts the insurance agency from CFPA oversight and prevents the agency from interfering with state insurance regulators’ oversight of insurance companies and products. An amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) adds five representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages” to the CFPA Oversight Board. Another amendment phases out the Home Valuation Code of Conduct; the amendment would allow all originators, licensed or registered in accordance with the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act, to order appraisals directly.
The bill is now over at the House Energy and Commerce Committee which appears to be amending the bill to replace the executive who was to run the agency with a five-member commission with staggered terms.
In case you've not been following this, the CFPA would have the authority to write new consumer protection rules in the arenas of lending and credit, to monitor banks and other financial institutions for compliance with these rules, and to penalize institutions for any infractions. The CFPA would also have the ability to ban products, marketing tactics, and other business practices that it deems “unfair, deceptive, or abusive.”
The Financial Services Committee added several amendments which altered the Obama Administration’s original outline of the agency. An amendment added Oct. 21 exempts the insurance agency from CFPA oversight and prevents the agency from interfering with state insurance regulators’ oversight of insurance companies and products. An amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) adds five representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages” to the CFPA Oversight Board. Another amendment phases out the Home Valuation Code of Conduct; the amendment would allow all originators, licensed or registered in accordance with the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act, to order appraisals directly.
The bill is now over at the House Energy and Commerce Committee which appears to be amending the bill to replace the executive who was to run the agency with a five-member commission with staggered terms.
- RH (Reid Haataja, posted by JSM)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Communication From Academic Faculty Who Teach Courses Related to Consumer Law and Banking Law
Seventy-three professors issued a joint letter supporting the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency at the federal level. We are strong supporters of the importance of this legislation in that consumer transactions lack the transparency that is necessary for honest and fair financial products, including, a wide variety of debt instruments (i.e., mortgages, credit cards), payment devices such as debit cards, and banking fees in general. The letter supports the passage of H.R. 3126, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D), creating the oversight agency. Some of the impediments to governmental oversight have included the dispersion of regulatory authority over a number of federal agencies none of whom has consumer issues as the primary mission, emerging financial products and technology that raise new regulatory issues, and industry opposition. We will certainly follow the progress of this legislation (and related legislation such as the Consumer Overdraft Fair Practices Act) and the industry response (see, Big Banks Alter Debit Overcharge Rules).
The press release:
FOR RELEASE ON SEPT. 29, 2009 AT 10:00 AM:
Consumer and Banking Scholars Show Support for the Consumer Financial Protection Act
Hempstead and Jamaica, NY – On September 30, 2009, the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Representative Barney Frank, will hold hearings on H. 3126, titled “the Consumer Financial Protection Act” which would create an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Today more than seventy law scholars who teach in fields related to consumer law and banking law have signed a detailed Statement of Support demonstrating their strong views about the importance of this legislation.
The faculty endorsing the Statement of Support include leading scholars who teach in fields related to consumer law and banking law who teach at many of the nation’s leading American law schools—in states including Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming as well as Washington, D.C. The signatories have no economic stake in the passage of this legislation.
The Statement concludes that on balance, the existing regulatory structure places “a higher value on protecting the interest of financial product vendors who promote complex debt instruments using aggressive sales practices, than on protecting the interests of consumers in transparent, safe, and fair financial products.” The body of the Statement is 8 pages long, single-spaced. It refers specifically to dozens of scholarly articles and studies demonstrating that at critical moments of consumer confusion and vulnerability,” the existing regulators “have been unwilling to expend resources to develop appropriate rules and guidelines and to police mortgage and credit instruments.” The Statement urges passage of H. 3126 because “consolidated authority and a dedicated consumer-oriented mission would be likely to improve public confidence in the safety and efficiency of the vast consumer financial products marketplace.” It further provides an analysis of desirable aspects of the legislation and points to extensive scholarship supporting the need for a new approach to handling consumer financial regulation.
For further information please contact the signatories of the Statement at their home institutions or:
Norman I. Silber
Professor of Law
Hofstra Law School
516-463-5866
norman.i.silber@hofstra.edu
law.hofstra.edu
Jeff Sovern
Professor of Law
St. John's University School of Law
718-990-6429
sovernj@stjohns.edu
law.stjohns.edu
The press release:
FOR RELEASE ON SEPT. 29, 2009 AT 10:00 AM:
Consumer and Banking Scholars Show Support for the Consumer Financial Protection Act
Hempstead and Jamaica, NY – On September 30, 2009, the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Representative Barney Frank, will hold hearings on H. 3126, titled “the Consumer Financial Protection Act” which would create an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Today more than seventy law scholars who teach in fields related to consumer law and banking law have signed a detailed Statement of Support demonstrating their strong views about the importance of this legislation.
The faculty endorsing the Statement of Support include leading scholars who teach in fields related to consumer law and banking law who teach at many of the nation’s leading American law schools—in states including Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming as well as Washington, D.C. The signatories have no economic stake in the passage of this legislation.
The Statement concludes that on balance, the existing regulatory structure places “a higher value on protecting the interest of financial product vendors who promote complex debt instruments using aggressive sales practices, than on protecting the interests of consumers in transparent, safe, and fair financial products.” The body of the Statement is 8 pages long, single-spaced. It refers specifically to dozens of scholarly articles and studies demonstrating that at critical moments of consumer confusion and vulnerability,” the existing regulators “have been unwilling to expend resources to develop appropriate rules and guidelines and to police mortgage and credit instruments.” The Statement urges passage of H. 3126 because “consolidated authority and a dedicated consumer-oriented mission would be likely to improve public confidence in the safety and efficiency of the vast consumer financial products marketplace.” It further provides an analysis of desirable aspects of the legislation and points to extensive scholarship supporting the need for a new approach to handling consumer financial regulation.
For further information please contact the signatories of the Statement at their home institutions or:
Norman I. Silber
Professor of Law
Hofstra Law School
516-463-5866
norman.i.silber@hofstra.edu
law.hofstra.edu
Jeff Sovern
Professor of Law
St. John's University School of Law
718-990-6429
sovernj@stjohns.edu
law.stjohns.edu
- JSM
- JJK
Monday, September 14, 2009
Who's the Bull, and Who's the Matador Here?
Photo by pasotraspasoThis one wasn't hard to predict: credit card issuing banks are already making lemons out of lemondate with the new regulations aimed at curbing abuses. Business Week reports (no link available) that issuers are expecting new fee income (especially from cardholders who pay off their balances in full every month or don't use their cards very often) to more than make up for the losses caused by the new regs. Prohibit them from raising rates without 45 days' notice, and they all switch to variable rates (jumping throung one huge loophole in the regs). Prohibit marketing to college students "near" campus, and they set up tables two blocks away, say near a fraternity or sorority house. For those of us teaching commercial law and regulation, consumer protection, and administrative law, this is one more chapter in the saga of regulators' introducing rules that both fail to curb the real abuses, as well as increasing the abusive potential of the work-arounds put in place by the industry. When are we going to learn?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Mid-Year Legislative Update
With most state legislatures having concluded their business for the year, here is the 2009 mid-year legislative update.
Revised Article 1
As of January 1, 2009, Revised Article 1 was in effect in thirty-four states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Notwithstanding my suggestion elsewhere that the promulgation of a substitute § R1-301 might “grease the skids” for additional enactments, 2009 has turned out to be a relatively quiet legislative year for Revised Article 1, with only three enactments – down from five in 2008, and seven in 2007. While the most noteworthy nonuniformity among the thirty-seven enactments remains the definition of “good faith” – with 26 states having adopted the uniform § R1-201(b)(20) definition and 11 having retained the pre-revised definition that imposes a different good faith standard on merchants and non-merchants – all three 2009 enactments adopt the uniform definition and one of the eleven states (Indiana) that retained the pre-revised definition has amended its version of Revised Article 1 to adopt the uniform definition effective July 1, 2010.
As of June 26, Alaska (HB 102), Maine (LD 1403), and Oregon (SB 558) have enacted Revised Article 1 thus far this year. The Alaska and Oregon enactments take effect on January 1, 2010, with Maine’s following on February 15, 2010.
The Washington legislature failed to act on SB 5155 before adjourning sine die on April 26. (That’s probably just as well, because the introduced version of SB 5155 appeared to be drawn directly from the language of official Revised Article 1 circa 2001 and included the no-longer-official version of Revised 1-301 that all 37 enacting states have declined to adopt).
It is possible that the Massachusetts legislature will consider a Revised Article 1 bill sometime this year; however, having waited months for HD 89 to be assigned a bill number, and given the failure of four prior bills to garner a floor vote in either chamber, I would be surprised to see definitive action anytime soon.
Article 2 and 2A Amendments
As of June 26, 2009, only three state legislatures (Kansas, Nevada, and Oklahoma) had considered bills proposing to enact the 2003 amendments to UCC Articles 2 and 2A. In 2005, Oklahoma amended Sections 2-105 and 2A-103 of its Commercial Code to add that the definition of “goods” for purposes of Articles 2 and 2A, respectively, “does not include information,” see 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-105(1) & 2A-103(1)(h) (West Supp. 2008), and amended its Section 2-106 to add that “contract for sale” for purposes of Article 2 “does not include a license of information,” see id. § 2-106(1). The net effect is similar to having enacted Amended §§ 2-103(k) & 2A-103(1)(n), both of which exclude information from the meaning of “goods” for purposes of Article 2 and 2A, respectively. Otherwise, no state has enacted the 2003 amendments.
Article 3 and 4 Amendments
As of January 1, 2009, the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 were in effect in six states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, South Carolina, and Texas. However, by July 1, 2010, that number will increase by at least 50%.
As of June 26, Indiana (SB 501), New Mexico (SB 74), and Oklahoma (SB 991) have enacted the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 thus far this year. Oklahoma SB 991 will take effect on November 1, 2009; New Mexico SB 74 will take effect on January 1, 2010; and Indiana SB 501 will take effect on July 1, 2010.
In addition to enacting the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 and the usual conforming amendments, Indiana SB 501 also revises the definition of “good faith” in Ind. Code § 26-1-1-201(19) – Indiana’s counterpart to UCC § 1-201(b)(20) – to require all parties to act honestly and to observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. At present, Ind. Code § 26-1-1-201(19) requires only “honesty in fact.”
Revised Article 7
As of January 1, 2009, Revised UCC Article 7 was in effect in thirty-one states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. As of July 1, Revised Article 7 will be in effect in South Dakota, as well.
This has been a relatively active legislative year for Revised Article 7. In addition to South Dakota SB 89, which will be in effect by the time you read this, Alaska (HB 102), Maine (LD 1405), and Oregon (SB 558) have already enacted Revised Article 7 in 2009, and Louisiana HB 403 lacks only Governor Bobby Jindal's signature (or pocket veto). Alaska HB 102 and Oregon SB 558 will take effect on January 1, 2010, as will Louisiana HB 403 (if enacted). Maine LD 1405 will take effect on February 15, 2010.
Georgia HB 451 made significant progress toward adoption. First introduced on February 18, the Georgia House unanimously passed the House Judiciary Committee’s substitute version on March 12, and the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage on March 26. However, the legislature adjourned on April 3 without a third reading and final action in the senate.
Washington SB 5154 stalled, like its Revised Article 1 counterpart, but without as compelling a reason.
UETA
While the Georgia legislature did not pass HB 451 prior to adjourning, it did pass the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (HB 126), to which Governor Sonny Perdue affixed his signature on May 5. As a result, effective July 1, 2009, Illinois, New York, and Washington will be the only states in which UETA is not in effect.
Revised Article 1
As of January 1, 2009, Revised Article 1 was in effect in thirty-four states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Notwithstanding my suggestion elsewhere that the promulgation of a substitute § R1-301 might “grease the skids” for additional enactments, 2009 has turned out to be a relatively quiet legislative year for Revised Article 1, with only three enactments – down from five in 2008, and seven in 2007. While the most noteworthy nonuniformity among the thirty-seven enactments remains the definition of “good faith” – with 26 states having adopted the uniform § R1-201(b)(20) definition and 11 having retained the pre-revised definition that imposes a different good faith standard on merchants and non-merchants – all three 2009 enactments adopt the uniform definition and one of the eleven states (Indiana) that retained the pre-revised definition has amended its version of Revised Article 1 to adopt the uniform definition effective July 1, 2010.
As of June 26, Alaska (HB 102), Maine (LD 1403), and Oregon (SB 558) have enacted Revised Article 1 thus far this year. The Alaska and Oregon enactments take effect on January 1, 2010, with Maine’s following on February 15, 2010.
The Washington legislature failed to act on SB 5155 before adjourning sine die on April 26. (That’s probably just as well, because the introduced version of SB 5155 appeared to be drawn directly from the language of official Revised Article 1 circa 2001 and included the no-longer-official version of Revised 1-301 that all 37 enacting states have declined to adopt).
It is possible that the Massachusetts legislature will consider a Revised Article 1 bill sometime this year; however, having waited months for HD 89 to be assigned a bill number, and given the failure of four prior bills to garner a floor vote in either chamber, I would be surprised to see definitive action anytime soon.
Article 2 and 2A Amendments
As of June 26, 2009, only three state legislatures (Kansas, Nevada, and Oklahoma) had considered bills proposing to enact the 2003 amendments to UCC Articles 2 and 2A. In 2005, Oklahoma amended Sections 2-105 and 2A-103 of its Commercial Code to add that the definition of “goods” for purposes of Articles 2 and 2A, respectively, “does not include information,” see 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-105(1) & 2A-103(1)(h) (West Supp. 2008), and amended its Section 2-106 to add that “contract for sale” for purposes of Article 2 “does not include a license of information,” see id. § 2-106(1). The net effect is similar to having enacted Amended §§ 2-103(k) & 2A-103(1)(n), both of which exclude information from the meaning of “goods” for purposes of Article 2 and 2A, respectively. Otherwise, no state has enacted the 2003 amendments.
Article 3 and 4 Amendments
As of January 1, 2009, the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 were in effect in six states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, South Carolina, and Texas. However, by July 1, 2010, that number will increase by at least 50%.
As of June 26, Indiana (SB 501), New Mexico (SB 74), and Oklahoma (SB 991) have enacted the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 thus far this year. Oklahoma SB 991 will take effect on November 1, 2009; New Mexico SB 74 will take effect on January 1, 2010; and Indiana SB 501 will take effect on July 1, 2010.
In addition to enacting the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 and the usual conforming amendments, Indiana SB 501 also revises the definition of “good faith” in Ind. Code § 26-1-1-201(19) – Indiana’s counterpart to UCC § 1-201(b)(20) – to require all parties to act honestly and to observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. At present, Ind. Code § 26-1-1-201(19) requires only “honesty in fact.”
Revised Article 7
As of January 1, 2009, Revised UCC Article 7 was in effect in thirty-one states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. As of July 1, Revised Article 7 will be in effect in South Dakota, as well.
This has been a relatively active legislative year for Revised Article 7. In addition to South Dakota SB 89, which will be in effect by the time you read this, Alaska (HB 102), Maine (LD 1405), and Oregon (SB 558) have already enacted Revised Article 7 in 2009, and Louisiana HB 403 lacks only Governor Bobby Jindal's signature (or pocket veto). Alaska HB 102 and Oregon SB 558 will take effect on January 1, 2010, as will Louisiana HB 403 (if enacted). Maine LD 1405 will take effect on February 15, 2010.
Georgia HB 451 made significant progress toward adoption. First introduced on February 18, the Georgia House unanimously passed the House Judiciary Committee’s substitute version on March 12, and the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage on March 26. However, the legislature adjourned on April 3 without a third reading and final action in the senate.
Washington SB 5154 stalled, like its Revised Article 1 counterpart, but without as compelling a reason.
UETA
While the Georgia legislature did not pass HB 451 prior to adjourning, it did pass the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (HB 126), to which Governor Sonny Perdue affixed his signature on May 5. As a result, effective July 1, 2009, Illinois, New York, and Washington will be the only states in which UETA is not in effect.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Is Congress Afraid or Unwilling to Compare?
Photo by nromagnaI recently found yet another striking illustration of the stark contrast between U.S. and European legislative efforts to explore comparative (foreign) solutions.
When the U.S. Congress was considering the wholesale revision of the Bankruptcy Act in the early 1970s, the Bankruptcy Commission report contained a section on "Contemporary Bankruptcy Experiences in Other Nations." I was excited to see this early openness to comparative analysis . . . until I read the two-paragraph section. After a number of observations on how different the "legal, economic, and social conditions" are in the U.S. and elsewhere, and without saying anything about the approach(es) taken by foreign systems, the report concluded glibly "the bankruptcy experience of other countries is not a useful resource." [H.R. Doc. No. 93-137, Pt. I, at 66 (1973)] Sigh. Granted, at least in my area of interest (consumer bankruptcy), there wasn't much to compare in the early 1970s, but one might have expected a bit more effort from U.S. policymakers . . .
In contrast, when Denmark set out to consider adopting the first consumer insolvency law in Continental Europe, it took careful account of comparative lessons to be learned. Like the U.S. commission's report, the 1982 report of the Danish commission assigned to explore this issue contains a section on "Foreign Law." [Betænkning on Gældssanering, nr. 957 (1982)] This section, though, is not two paragraphs, and it doesn't dismiss all foreign legislation as "not a useful resource." Instead, it undertakes an impressively sophisticated analyis of consumer bankruptcy legislation and practice in England, Ireland, the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand (11 pages). Though the approaches of these "Anglo-American" systems was ultimately rejected as inconsistent with Danish-Continental legal philosophy and practice, at least they considered--quite carefully and sensitively--relevant foreign models.
Note that the language of all of the systems considered by the Danes was English. So there's one less excuse for the U.S. Commission's failure to consider these comparative models. But it gets better! Midway through the Danish report's comparative consideration of U.S. law, it directs the reader to consider a lengthy passage from the legislative history of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, enacted a few years earlier. The entire page-and-a-half passage is reproduced in English! The message is clear and impressive: Any educated reader of this Danish report would read English well enough as to not require a translation of the legislative history of the U.S. law. Stunning. Granted, a country with a language not widely in use, like Danish, might be expected to take seriously the notion of English proficiency, but the contrast between the attitudes and abilities of the Danish and U.S. bankruptcy commissions is shocking.
Unlike in the early 1970s, U.S. legislators now have a wealth of comparative analysis of both legislation and practice in European bankruptcy systems, especially consumer bankruptcy. Doug Boshkoff pioneered this area of research with his 1982 empirical article on the discharge process in England (Limited, Conditional, and Suspended Discharges in Anglo-American Bankruptcy Proceedings, 131 U. Pa. L. Rev. 69 (1982)). The rapidly developing consumer insolvency systems in Continental Europe have also been explored in detail in recent years (see, e.g., here and here).
So when Congress returned to the drafting table to revise (many would say deform) the consumer bankruptcy law in 2005, did they consider comparative experience then? I searched in vain for any comparative reference in the legislative history of BAPCPA (the 2005 reform law's acronym). So is Congress afraid, or does it just not care . . . ?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
UCC Legislative Update
Nearly three months after both houses of the Illinois legislature passed SB 2080, Governor Rod Blagojevich signed it into law on August 22, making Illinois the 34th state to enact Revised UCC Article 1 and the 31st state to enact Revised UCC Article 7.
As have all thirty-three prior state enactments, and consistent with the ALI's and NCCUSL's promulgation earlier this year of a substitute for the original version of uniform R1-301, Illinois Public Act 95-0895 (neé SB 2080) rejects the 2001 uniform version of R1-301 in favor of language generally tracking its version of pre-revised 1-105. Act 95-0895 also rejects the uniform good faith definition in R1-201(b)(20), joining Alabama, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia in opting to retain the bifurcated good faith standard of pre-revised 1-201(19) and 2-103(1)(b).
Act 95-0895 will take effect January 1, 2009.
As have all thirty-three prior state enactments, and consistent with the ALI's and NCCUSL's promulgation earlier this year of a substitute for the original version of uniform R1-301, Illinois Public Act 95-0895 (neé SB 2080) rejects the 2001 uniform version of R1-301 in favor of language generally tracking its version of pre-revised 1-105. Act 95-0895 also rejects the uniform good faith definition in R1-201(b)(20), joining Alabama, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia in opting to retain the bifurcated good faith standard of pre-revised 1-201(19) and 2-103(1)(b).
Act 95-0895 will take effect January 1, 2009.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Waiting for SB 2080
Both chambers of the Illinois legislature passed SB 2080 on May 31, 2008. Taking advantage of most of the 30 days the Illinois Constitution affords the legislature to present a passed bill to the governor, see Ill. Const. art. IV, § 9(a), SB 2080 was sent to Governor Rod Blagojevich on June 27, 2008. As of July 30, 2008, Governor Blagojevich has neither signed nor vetoed SB 2080. If this were legislation Congress forwarded to President Bush or that most state legislatures forwarded to their respective governors, SB 2080 would by now be deemed enacted by passage of time. However, the Illinois Constitution affords the governor 60 days to sign or veto a bill before it is deemed enacted without the governor's action. See Ill. Const. art. IV, § 9(b). So, while the bills enacting Revised Article 1 in Pennsylvania (also enacting Revised Article 7), South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont this year have all taken effect since the Illinois General Assembly passed SB 2080, Illinois's incipient enactment of Revised Articles 1 and 7 continues to idle. (Hopefully, unlike Godot, SB 2080 will eventually arrive.)
If enacted, SB 2080 will make Illinois the thirty-fourth state to have enacted Revised Article 1 and the thirty-first state to have enacted Revised Article 7.
If enacted, SB 2080 will make Illinois the thirty-fourth state to have enacted Revised Article 1 and the thirty-first state to have enacted Revised Article 7.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Ding, Dong, the Which* is Dead
At its annual meeting last week, the American Law Institute approved an amendment, which NCCUSL (a.k.a. the Uniform Law Commission) had previously approved, replacing the oft-jilted text of Revised UCC § 1-301 with language consistent with pre-Revised UCC § 1-105:
§ 1-301. Territorial Applicability; Parties’ Power to Choose Applicable Law.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties.
(b) In the absence of an agreement effective under subsection (a), and except as provided in subsection (c), [the Uniform Commercial Code] applies to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to this state.
(c) If one of the following provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code] specifies the applicable law, that provision governs and a contrary agreement is effective only to the extent permitted by the law so specified:
(1) Section 2-402;
(2) Sections 2A-105 and 2A-106;
(3) Section 4-102;
(4) Section 4A-507;
(5) Section 5-116;
[(6) Section 6-103;]
(7) Section 8-110;
(8) Sections 9-301 through 9-307.
In so doing, the bodies responsible for the Uniform Commercial Code followed the lead of thirty-two of the thirty-three states that have enacted Revised Article 1 to date. Only Louisiana — deferring to its Civil Code to ascertain the applicable law where the transaction does not fall within the scope of a more specific choice-of-law provision elsewhere in the UCC — has enacted a version of Revised § 1-301 that differs non-trivially from the new official version.
* - As in, "Which state's law do you want to govern our contract?"
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Tennessee Enacts Revised UCC Article 1; Illinois SB 2080 Makes Further Progress
On May 15, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredensen signed SB 3993, subsequently designated Chapter 930, making Tennessee the thirty-third state to enact Revised UCC Article 1 since the ALI and NCCUSL promulgated it in 2001.
Prospects look reasonably favorable for Illinois to follow suit in the near future. The Illinois Senate unanimously passed SB 2080 on April 9. On May 20, the Illinois House Judiciary Committee recommended passage and the bill was placed on the House's "short debate" calendar. On May 23, the House extended the final action deadline until May 31.
Revised Article 1 is already in effect in twenty-eight states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. It will take effect in Pennsylvania on June 15 and in Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont on July 1.
As I have discussed previously, the two primary bones of contention during the enactment process have been uniform R1-301's choice-of-law rules and uniform R1-201(b)(20)'s "good faith" definition. None of the thirty-three enacting states has adopted uniform R1-301; instead, all have chosen to either leave their pre-revised 1-105 in place or to enact a substitute 1-301 with language consistent with pre-revised 1-105. (Louisiana subsequently amended its substitute 1-301 to diminish the distinction between choice-of-law rules applicable to UCC and non-UCC transactions; but, a fuller exploration of that amendment is another topic for another day.) There had been less uniformity with regard to defining "good faith." Twenty-three states have enacted uniform R1-201(b)(20)'s "honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing" definition; while ten states — including Tennessee — have retained pre-revised 1-201(19)'s "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned" definition, reserving the requirement of commercial reasonableness for merchants under 2-103(1)(b) & 2A-103(3). If enacted as it currently reads, Illinois SB 2080 would make uniform R1-301 0-for-34 and would make Illinois the eleventh enacting state to retain the bifurcated good-faith standard.
Prospects look reasonably favorable for Illinois to follow suit in the near future. The Illinois Senate unanimously passed SB 2080 on April 9. On May 20, the Illinois House Judiciary Committee recommended passage and the bill was placed on the House's "short debate" calendar. On May 23, the House extended the final action deadline until May 31.
Revised Article 1 is already in effect in twenty-eight states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. It will take effect in Pennsylvania on June 15 and in Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont on July 1.
As I have discussed previously, the two primary bones of contention during the enactment process have been uniform R1-301's choice-of-law rules and uniform R1-201(b)(20)'s "good faith" definition. None of the thirty-three enacting states has adopted uniform R1-301; instead, all have chosen to either leave their pre-revised 1-105 in place or to enact a substitute 1-301 with language consistent with pre-revised 1-105. (Louisiana subsequently amended its substitute 1-301 to diminish the distinction between choice-of-law rules applicable to UCC and non-UCC transactions; but, a fuller exploration of that amendment is another topic for another day.) There had been less uniformity with regard to defining "good faith." Twenty-three states have enacted uniform R1-201(b)(20)'s "honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing" definition; while ten states — including Tennessee — have retained pre-revised 1-201(19)'s "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned" definition, reserving the requirement of commercial reasonableness for merchants under 2-103(1)(b) & 2A-103(3). If enacted as it currently reads, Illinois SB 2080 would make uniform R1-301 0-for-34 and would make Illinois the eleventh enacting state to retain the bifurcated good-faith standard.
Monday, April 28, 2008
So, Why the Disconnect?
To date, five states — Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Vermont — have enacted Revised UCC Article 1 without enacting Revised Article 7, while two states — Maryland and Mississippi — have enacted Revised Article 7 without enacting Revised Article 1. (While Tennessee technically falls into this latter group, I am excluding it because both houses of the Tennessee legislature recently passed a Revised Article 1 bill and I have no reason to believe that Governor Phil Bredesen will not sign it in short order.) Why?
Louisiana's failure to enact Revised Article 7 might be explained by some eccentricity of the Louisiana Civil Code's treatment of documents of title. But, why have Florida, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Vermont revised their versions of Article 1 while retaining (conforming amendments excepted) their pre-2003 versions of Article 7; and, why have Maryland and Mississippi revised their versions of Article 7 while retaining (conforming amendments again excepted) their pre-2001 versions of Article 1?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Louisiana's failure to enact Revised Article 7 might be explained by some eccentricity of the Louisiana Civil Code's treatment of documents of title. But, why have Florida, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Vermont revised their versions of Article 1 while retaining (conforming amendments excepted) their pre-2003 versions of Article 7; and, why have Maryland and Mississippi revised their versions of Article 7 while retaining (conforming amendments again excepted) their pre-2001 versions of Article 1?
Inquiring minds want to know.
What About Revised Article 7?
To finishing following up on Robyn Meadows's earlier post, when Governor Edward Rendell signed Pennsylvania HB 1152 into law on April 16, Pennsylvania became the twenty-ninth state to enact Revised UCC Article 7 — joining Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Nine days later, Governor Phil Bredesen added his signature to Tennessee HB 3950, bringing the number of enacting states to thirty.
Elsewhere, on April 9, the Illinois Senate unanimously passed SB 2080 — which, as has been true in a number of states (including Pennsylvania, but not Tennessee) proposes enacting both Revised Article 1 and Revised Article 7. The bill now awaits a first reading in the Illinois House, which stands in recess until April 29. Massachusetts HB 4302, likewise, combines Revised Articles 1 & 7. As detailed in my white paper on Revised Article 1, HB 4302 has a tortured history and appears to stand little chance of enactment any time soon.
All of the enacted versions of Revised Article 7 are in effect except for Pennsylvania's, which should take effect on or about June 15, and Kansas's and Tennessee's, which will take effect on July 1. If enacted, Illinois SB 2080 will take effect on or after June 1.
Elsewhere, on April 9, the Illinois Senate unanimously passed SB 2080 — which, as has been true in a number of states (including Pennsylvania, but not Tennessee) proposes enacting both Revised Article 1 and Revised Article 7. The bill now awaits a first reading in the Illinois House, which stands in recess until April 29. Massachusetts HB 4302, likewise, combines Revised Articles 1 & 7. As detailed in my white paper on Revised Article 1, HB 4302 has a tortured history and appears to stand little chance of enactment any time soon.
All of the enacted versions of Revised Article 7 are in effect except for Pennsylvania's, which should take effect on or about June 15, and Kansas's and Tennessee's, which will take effect on July 1. If enacted, Illinois SB 2080 will take effect on or after June 1.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The (Next to) Last Shall be (Among the) First
For several years now, those of us who teach UCC Articles 3 and 4 have had to caution our students that New York (the financial and commercial capital of the Western hemisphere) and South Carolina (home to many fine golf courses) had not adopted the 1990 revisions of Article 3 and 4, on which most payments teaching materials focus much of their attention. More recently, we have had to decide how much emphasis to give the 2002 amendments to Article 3 and 4 -- which, until April 15, only five states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, and Texas) had enacted.
But, wait! In the spirit of Matthew 20:16 (it seems only fair, being Sunday morning and all), South Carolina has vaulted from the rear of the peloton to the lead group. By affixing his signature to SB 936 on April 15, Governor Mark Sanford made law a sweeping revision of South Carolina's Articles 3 and 4 that has the effect of enacting the 1990 revisions as amended by the 2002 amendments.
Meanwhile, New York SB 2410 proposes comparably sweeping changes to New York's versions of Article 3 and 4. However, SB 4120 does not appear to be making any progress since first being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2007 (not a typo).
But, wait! In the spirit of Matthew 20:16 (it seems only fair, being Sunday morning and all), South Carolina has vaulted from the rear of the peloton to the lead group. By affixing his signature to SB 936 on April 15, Governor Mark Sanford made law a sweeping revision of South Carolina's Articles 3 and 4 that has the effect of enacting the 1990 revisions as amended by the 2002 amendments.
Meanwhile, New York SB 2410 proposes comparably sweeping changes to New York's versions of Article 3 and 4. However, SB 4120 does not appear to be making any progress since first being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2007 (not a typo).
Friday, April 18, 2008
Vermont and Pennsylvania Enact Revised Article 1; Tennessee and Illinois Progress Toward Enactment
Governor Jim Douglas signed Vermont HB 563 into law on April 10. Governor Ed Rendell did likewise to Pennsylvania HB 1152 on April 16. Pennsylvania HB 1152, by its terms, takes effect on or about June 15, 2008. Vermont HB 563, along with Kansas SB 183 (enacted last year) and South Dakota SB 93 (enacted earlier this year), will take effect on July 1, 2008.
Vermont HB 563 and Pennsylvania HB 1152 both eschew uniform R1-301 (making it 0-for-32 for those scoring at home) and adopt the uniform R1-201(b)(20) good faith definition (that tally now stands at 23-to-9 in favor of the new unitary standard).
Elsewhere:
The Tennessee Senate and House have approved slightly different versions of Tennessee SB 3993. The Tennessee Senate is scheduled to vote next Monday (April 21) whether to accept the House's amended version.
The Illinois Senate has unanimously approved Illinois SB 2080, which now awaits a first reading in the Illinois House.
Massachusetts HB 4302 continues to idle.
The bills pending in Tennessee, Illinois, and Massachusetts all reject uniform R1-301. The Massachusetts bill adopts the uniform R1-201(b)(20) good faith definition, while the bills pending in Tennessee and Illinois retain the bifurcated good faith standard currently in effect by replacing the language of uniform R1-201(b)(20) with "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)