Legislature(2001 - 2002)

04/19/2002 02:00 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 499 - DISPOSITION OF BUSINESS ASSETS                                                                                       
Number 1141                                                                                                                     
CHAIR ROKEBERG  announced that the  next order of  business would                                                               
be, HOUSE  BILL NO.  499, "An  Act relating  to the  sale, lease,                                                               
exchange, or other disposition of  business property and assets."                                                               
[Before the committee  was committee substitute (CS)  for HB 499,                                                               
version 22-LS1490\S,  Bannister, 4/5/02,  which was adopted  as a                                                               
work draft on 4/5/02.]                                                                                                          
Number 1162                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL moved  to  adopt  the proposed  committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 499,  version  22-LS1490\B,  Bannister,                                                               
4/19/02, as a work draft.                                                                                                       
Number 1181                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                
Number 1190                                                                                                                     
HEATHER  M. NOBREGA,  Staff  to  Representative Norman  Rokeberg,                                                               
House  Judiciary Standing  Committee,  Alaska State  Legislature,                                                               
explained that Version  B has been tailored  to more specifically                                                               
address the  issues raised  by the Savage  Arms, Inc.  v. Western                                                             
Auto  Supply  Co.  case.   Version  B  specifically  rejects  the                                                             
"continuity  of enterprise"  theory,  and places  in statute  the                                                               
generally  accepted  law -  from  the  [American Law  Institute's                                                               
Restatement (Third)  of the Law  of Torts ("Third  Restatement of                                                             
Torts")] - regarding successor liability.                                                                                       
CHAIR  ROKEBERG noted  that  [the provisions]  of  Version B  are                                                               
MS. NOBREGA confirmed that.                                                                                                     
CHAIR ROKEBERG said:                                                                                                            
     So what  we're doing  here is,  by slimming  this thing                                                                    
     down,  we're overcoming  some  of  the objections  that                                                                    
     were raised  by the trial  attorneys as to  the general                                                                    
     applicability  (indisc.) other  areas  of contract  law                                                                    
     and so forth that went  further afield [and] might have                                                                    
     some unintended  consequences we weren't ...  [able to]                                                                    
     specifically identify  at this  juncture.   And because                                                                    
     of the need for speed, I  felt is was wise to take this                                                                    
     route.   Also, because  of the  briefs provided  by all                                                                    
     parties,  I   think  that  we're  on   ...  very  sound                                                                    
     foundation as  to the  applicability provisions  in the                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ asked  for  an explanation  of why  the                                                               
title was changed.                                                                                                              
MS.  NOBREGA said  she  had  not requested  a  title change,  and                                                               
surmised that the drafter must have decided to change the title.                                                                
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Representative  Berkowitz if he is concerned                                                               
that the new title is "too loose."                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ said,  "Let me  just put  it this  way:                                                               
I'm suspicious of titles at this time of year."                                                                                 
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that [the title] is a little too broad.                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ said:   "It  doesn't specify  that what                                                               
we're  doing  now   is  a  fairly  narrow   modification  to  the                                                               
"continuity  of   enterprise"  exception   to  the   doctrine  of                                                               
successor liability."                                                                                                           
Number 1316                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  BERKOWITZ  made  a  motion  to  adopt  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1, to  "tighten this title so tight  that no blowtorch,                                                               
that no crowbar can get into it."                                                                                               
CHAIR ROKEBERG  noted that Version B  must first be adopted  as a                                                               
work draft.                                                                                                                     
Number 1339                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection.                                                                                
CHAIR  ROKEBERG   announced  that   Version  B  was   before  the                                                               
Number 1348                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ restated his  motion to adopt Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1.   There being  no objection, Conceptual  Amendment 1                                                               
was adopted.                                                                                                                    
Number 1362                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  JAMES  moved  to report  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 499,  version  22-LS1490\B,  Bannister,                                                               
4/19/02,   as  amended,   out   of   committee  with   individual                                                               
recommendations  and the  accompanying zero  fiscal note.   There                                                               
being no objection,  CSHB 499(JUD) was reported out  of the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects