Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/10/1997 03:19 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 1997
3:19 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gene Kubina
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL NO. 101
"An Act relating to certain irrevocable transfers in trust, to the
jurisdiction governing a trust, to challenges to trusts or property
transfers in trust, to the validity of trust interests, and to
transfers of certain trust interests; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 101(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 101
SHORT TITLE: TRUSTS & PROPERTY TRANSFERS IN TRUST
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY, Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/31/97 201 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/31/97 201 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
02/10/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 13
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 101.
VINCENT USERA, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 101.
DICK THWAITES, Attorney
Richard S. Thwaites Law Offices
13741 Arne Erickson
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 345-5293
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in HB 101.
RICH HOMPESCH, Attorney
Winfree and Hompesch
119 North Cushman, Number 400
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-1700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 101.
ROBERT L. MANLEY, Attorney
Hughes, Thorsness, Powell, Huddleston and Bauman
550 West 7th Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 263-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 101.
KEVIN WALSH, Certified Public Accountant
Walsh, Teleher and Sharp
330 Barnette, Suite 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-2222
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 101.
LINDA HULBERT, Insurance Agent
110 Cushman Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-4400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 101.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-9, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee to order at 3:19 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery, Sanders,
Brice and Ryan. Representative Hudson arrived at 3:21 p.m.
HB 101 - TRUSTS & PROPERTY TRANSFERS IN TRUST
Number 073
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would hear HB 101,
"An Act relating to certain irrevocable transfers in trust, to the
jurisdiction governing a trust, to challenges to trusts or property
transfers in trust, to the validity of trust interests, and to
transfers of certain trust interests; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 085
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, prime sponsor of HB 101, came forward to
explain the bill. He said HB 101 was the result of an effort, on
the part of his office, to look at what could be done to stimulate
economic development in the state of Alaska and to look at why it
is that Alaska couldn't be more of a financial center for the
economy of Alaska, America and the whole world. He indicated he
looked to see if there was an opportunity to change our laws that
would encourage financial markets to headquarter in Alaska. With
the help of a number of individuals who were also looking for a
home for this type of an entity, they came up with some changes
that could be made in Alaska to our trust laws that would make
Alaska an attractive place to administer large trusts. The trend
over the last 100 years in the trust law of this country has been
to make trusts weaker and weaker. Even the state of Alaska has a
law of perpetuities. Representative Vezey indicated he can't
remember what Alaska's law is, but typically the law on
perpetuities does not allow trusts to go on for more than 70 to 90
years, and more and more the corpus of trusts are being allowed to
be invaded by so called creditors who may have come along long
after the trust was created. They use the term "fraudulent
transfer" for something that might have happened 50 years earlier
as a reason for invading trusts. Representative Vezey pointed out
Alaska has a fairly simple clean trust law. We don't have 200
years of court presidencies and supreme court rulings to muddy the
waters in terms of what our laws mean.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said experts in trust law saw an opportunity
in Alaska's law to amend the law to create a strong trust that
would go on indefinitely, depending on the conditions of the trust.
One thing that would be done if the bill is passed is to wave
Alaska's law against perpetuities. The trust would be very very
difficult to invade. At the same time, there are very deliberate
precautions early in the trust bill to void any transfers in a
trust if they are fraudulent transfers. It is very clear that you
cannot put money in trust with the intent of defrauding creditors.
Number 326
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY pointed out that there is a huge market for
trusts - very large assets where people are looking for ways of
preserving these assets for future generations and more than just
one or two generations. He noted that currently this market is
largely going to foreign countries such as Asia, Caribbean, Cayman
Islands and Cook Islands. Those countries have strong trust laws.
He noted the Cayman Islands has 30 major banks as they are
administering funds, including the trusts.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he doesn't anticipate that all the funds
or all the assets of these trusts would come to Alaska. Many of
the assets will represent real estate all over the world. They
will represent stocks, stock markets and a certain amount of liquid
assets. It is the administration of these trusts that would come
to Alaska and the administration fees. He informed the committee
members the amount of money that is looking for home in trusts is
estimated to be in the billions of dollars per year. The fees
generated off of a billion dollars is somewhere between $1 million
and $5 million. Potentially, there could be a very large industry
here. If we don't do it, we won't know. If we do it, the down
side risk is very low, it's slim to none. Representative Vezey
said he genuinely believes we have a chance to create a substantial
financial industry in Alaska. The spinoff is that these holders of
large sources of wealth will have a strong reason to come to Alaska
to see where their money is being managed. They will see the
opportunity that we all see here and they may very well become
interested in investing in Alaska. He noted there are some
attorneys listening, by teleconference, who can answer legal
questions. Representative Vezey said in talking to insurance
companies, banks and various trust officers, he hasn't found anyone
in opposition to the bill. The legislation passed the House during
the Nineteenth Legislature with one opposition vote and the Senate
with one opposition vote.
Number 560
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked why the previous bill was vetoed.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he couldn't answer that question. He
noted he believes it was very poor judgement on the part of the
Administration. The reason stated in the veto message was that
there was concern that this trust might allow people to circumvent
Alaska's child support laws and would allow somebody to evade their
child support payments. He said you have to have a very vivid
imagination (indisc.) the law to believe that.
Number 615
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the veto message mentioning child
support as one of rationales. He asked Representative Vezey if he
has done anything to the bill to correct it.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the bill before the committee has been
changed from the bill that was passed last year. He said it was
changed to explicitly address the aspect of child support
obligations and to clarify that you can't fraudulently transfer
money into this trust or any other trust with the intent of evading
child support. Representative Vezey said he isn't talking about
people putting small sums of money into trust. These are expensive
to manage and unless you have a large capital base to justify the
fees that go with managing them, you're not going to be interested
in paying the overhead costs. People in the trust business
estimate that nobody with less than $5 million worth of assets that
they want to give away would be willing to pay the fees associated
with managing the trust. He noted they are giving away control of
the money or asset.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY urged the committee to adopt the proposed
committee substitute, Version B, 0-LS0391\B, dated February 10,
1997.
Number 811
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked Representative Vezey to discuss the
child support wording.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY read page 6, lines 4 and 20, "if a trust
contains a transfer restriction allowed under (a) of this section,
the transfer restriction prevents a creditor existing when the
trust is created, a person who subsequently becomes a creditor, or
another person from satisfying a claim out of the beneficiary's
interest in the trust,". He said that says that you can't attack
the trust unless, "(4) at the time of the transfer, the settlor is
in default by 30 or more days of making a payment due under a
support judgment or order for a child of the settlor."
Number 907
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON said if the bill becomes law, how would
we elicit the interest in support. He asked if it would come from
the banks.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that Alaska banks already have
affiliations with national banking corporations, Alaskan trust
companies and insurance companies. We are part of the national and
international scene. Banking interests in New York have made input
into the writing of the bill and are well aware of it. He said he
has heard estimates that the day the bill becomes effective, there
will be dozens of very large trusts established in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he believes the main answer to
Representative Hudson's question is it's a small world, especially
if you're talking about something as small as a specialist in trust
management.
Number 1147
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the ripple affect to our state's
economy will be very desirable.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he thinks it will be a very desirable
economic affect. The downside risk is minimal. The upside
potential is tremendous.
Number 1211
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN discussed a study done in 1986, weighing
the possibilities of Anchorage becoming an international financial
center. It wasn't exactly favorable, but the basic infrastructures
were there if someone wanted to do it. He continued to discuss the
study.
Number 1147
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt committee substitute
for HB 101, Version B, Bannister, dated February 10, 1997.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, CSHB 101, Version B, was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained when the legislature dealt with the
tort reform legislation last year, he became aware that the Alaska
statute of repose law is very very vague. Concurrent to that,
there was a federal bankruptcy court decision last March or April
that said our law is vague and, therefore, that the statute of
repose doesn't start counting until you get a court judgement.
Representative Vezey explained that the statute of repose, for the
purpose of a trust (indisc.) under this law is four years.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he believes it is on page 6, starting on
line 30.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to the wording and said it is the
finding of the statute of repose for creditors that existed at the
time it was created. It was four years or, if for some reason, the
transfer into the trust cannot reasonably be discovered, it was
done in a manner to hide that it happened, one year after it can be
discovered which could be any number of years down the road if it
was hidden. He said a creditor who becomes a creditor after the
trust is created has four years to bring an action. Since Alaska's
law on the statute of repose for fraudulent transfers is very
vague, the bill defines fraudulent transfer for the purpose of this
trust only.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned whether it is four years or one
year.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "For four years, you know, if you have
reason to know that it took place and if it was hidden from you,
then you have a year after your discovery."
Number 1347
VINCENT USERA, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section
Civil Division, Department of Law, came before the committee to
testify on HB 101. He said last year this trust was proposed and
the Department of Law was asked to review it. He stated that this
particular trust does not really come under the aegis of any agency
of state government since it's, for all intents and purposes, a
transaction between individuals. State government really doesn't
have any concerns except in the area of child support and possibly
spousal support. The bill last year was actually silent on the
issue and perhaps vague enough that a person could read into it
that the trust could be used as a vehicle for avoiding child
support obligations. He referred to the current bill and said
there is perhaps a flaw in it. Mr. Usera said the provisions (1),
(2), (3) and (4) on page 6, appears to allow the trust to be
invaded if one of the four events occur. He noted (4) doesn't seem
to belong in the bill. Mr. Usera said they don't believe that the
intent would be have to the trust voided simply because settlor was
30 days behind in child support payments. He suggested that the
committee consider taking that out and include another section that
would allow the trust to be invaded at any time that the settlor is
in default on a child support or a spousal support obligation. The
current language simply deals with the case of a child support
obligation established prior to the trust being created and that
the settlor be in default by 30 days or more prior to the trust
being created. A situation could occur where a child is born after
the creation of the trust and could be cut off entirely.
Additionally, if one were intending to use it as a means of
avoiding child support obligations, simply being up to date on the
day the trust is created would avoid the operation of that
particular section since they would not be 30 days in arrears.
MR. USERA said it only provides for a child of the settlor and
there are obligations, not too frequently, that arise for
stepchildren and others as well. There are two other legal issues
and one is the burden of proof for the proposition that the trust
should be invaded. He informed the committee the department has
been provided with a letter from an attorney in New York, addressed
to Lieutenant Governor Ulmer, stating that the burden of proof
issue had been fixed. He read from the letter, "As the bill
appears to be worded, the burden of proof as to whether it was
intended to avoid or defraud a creditor is on the person attempting
to void the trust or invade the trust." Mr. Usera said "If there
is no concern on the part of the bill's proponents about the burden
of proof, that is if the letter from the attorney in New York
expresses the concerns of the proponents and the intent that the
burden of proof not be shifted to the individual, then perhaps some
language might considered there to make a finding that the
operation of the trust, in actuality, does hinder delay or defraud
a creditor, it might be primafacie evidence of the intent as
opposed to having prove intent."
MR. USERA indicated he would make the letter available to the
committee members. He noted the letter reviews the bill point by
point and it also addresses some the concerns that were raised last
year.
Number 1645
MR. USERA explained the only other two issues are policy issues.
He said one policy implication is the bill's primary intent is to
allow formation of trusts to shield assets from creditors,
including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He said the
department would not express an opinion, but that is the intent of
the trust.
MR. USERA said a second concern is the repeal of the rule against
perpetuities. That has both negative and positive implications.
He noted the they will not express an opinion as to whether the
outcome is good or bad. The positive aspect of doing away with the
rule means that an individual can control and preserve the handling
of assets within his or her trust any number of generations down
the road. It would not be subject to being dissipated by two or
three generations in the future. On the opposite side of that,
there are implications, especially in the area of real property,
where the operation of the trust would actually never end. The
possibility that heirs of property could multiply (indisc.), at
some point years down the road there could be so many heirs that
this property would actually have very little value. There is an
underlying philosophy in the law that property ought to be freely
alienable and doing away with the rule against perpetuities was
meant to enhance that. Doing away with the rule would mean that
there are possibilities of certain portions of assets never being
alienable, especially in the area of real property it could become
a problem. He noted that is simply for the committee's
consideration. It is not to express an opinion as to the positive
or negative affects or values of either.
Number 1760
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the abolishment of the rule against
perpetuities would make a lot of law students very happy. He said
Mr. Usera indicated that there may be a policy concern about that
and its impact on real property transactions. He said it is his
understanding that if a trust took title to a property and there
was no ending date on the trust, it's possible that there could
never be alienability. He asked if the trust could sell the
property.
MR. USERA said the trust could sell the property. He noted what he
expressed is not a certainty, but a possibility. One could
structure the trust so that the land or property would be devised
to the settlor's heirs and their heirs ad infinitum and perhaps
including a provision that the property could be alienable with the
consent of all the beneficiaries of the trust. He said there could
be possibilities that would prevent certain assets from being ever
alienable. It may not be good or bad, but is something to
consider.
Number 1860
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Usera if the Administration sees
the potentials of the changes in the statutes in this regard as to
the additional revenues that might be generated, not to the state
but to other private parties. He asked if that has been discussed
with the Administration.
MR. USERA indicated not in his presence. He said he doesn't
believe that the Administration would argue with the fact that it
is probably going to mean the generation of considerable funds to
them. He pointed out the concern last year was the fact that the
trust could have used by people with a purpose of people avoiding
child support obligations. Mr. Usera said, "Perhaps those fears
were - perhaps they were exaggerated, I don't know, but certainly
there was a lot of room for litigation there. It was vague enough
that it would have provoked a fight if that's what somebody had
intended to do. We think the proponents have indicated they want
to correct that and I simply would point out that there is a minor
flaw in the correction itself that if we want to correct it, lets
do it all the way."
Number 1926
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said Mr. Usera has asked that the invasion of
the trust be allowed past the time the settlor settles the trust.
He said, "Once a settlor creates the corpus of the trust and the
entity of a trust is created with that corpus, the settlor no
longer owns..."
MR. USERA responded that legally, that is correct.
Number 1965
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said what Mr. Usera has recommended is that
sometime in the future if he or she encounters a child support
obligation, they're allowed to go back and get money from something
he or she doesn't own. He indicated he is having difficulty
understanding this.
MR. USERA said he understands Representative Ryan's point. He said
the point the department is trying to make is that this trust
should not be usable by somebody for the purpose of avoiding a
child support obligation. If one has the assets that it is
anticipated one would have to take advantage of this particular
vehicle, there probably will not be intentions of avoiding child
support. However, any statute that is not strongly worded and
perhaps has vague aspects to it can be used perhaps by those
intending to do just that - establish a trust to avoid a child
support obligation. People do it all the time in other ways such
as husbands selling a house to a brother for $1 in order to try and
keep it from being a part of marital assets. People try these
types of things all the time. Mr. Usera said they're usually
subject to being upset by the courts.
Number 2027
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "I'm trying to get it in my mind how --
if I give something away, how my subsequent actions down the line,
someone could come back and get that which I've given away which I
no longer own. If we were allowed to do this it would kind of
beget the whole purpose of the trust because either I want
something or I don't. If I've given it away or sold it, I no
longer have possession of it. How could someone put a claim on
it?"
MR. USERA said if a person is a beneficiary of the trust, then the
fact that he is no longer the legal owner is, to some degree, a
fiction. He said what he is suggesting is that we avoid the
possibility of this trust vehicle being used for an obviously
improper purpose and that is to avoid a child support obligation.
It wouldn't be equitable for an individual to set up a trust, be a
beneficiary of the trust, reaping the benefits and yet avoiding his
or her child support obligation.
Number 2138
DICK THWAITES, Attorney, Richard S. Thwaites Law Offices, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated he worked on the bill
and Representative Vezey has expressed the basic thrust of it. He
referred to the more recent testimony from Mr. Usera and said the
rule against perpetuities that has been discussed is an older rule
of the United States in that we have followed the uniform rule
against perpetuities and have adopted an earlier form of that.
More recently, we have seen that South Dakota, Wisconsin, Idaho and
Delaware have repealed, in its entirety, the rule against
perpetuities. There is also a bill pending in Texas to do the
same. South Dakota, as a result of that repeal, since they did not
have an income tax, Citibank has opened a branch and over a billion
dollars in assets have come in just because of the rule against
perpetuities repeal. He said they asked the uniform commissioners
what their feeling was and their preference was that we not repeal
the Uniform Act, but instead we provide an exception to it. Mr.
Thwaites said Richard Welman and Larry Wagner provided some
language which provides an exception to the rule against
perpetuities for these trust in particular. He noted it is
included in the bill.
MR. THWAITES referred to the idea of a substitution of the language
to specifically permit child support and said the actual bill is
structured in a way to fit within the revenue code provisions. He
said he believes Mr. Usera actually misspoke when he said that this
trust puts it out of the reach of the IRS when, in fact, one of the
things we think we are doing is bringing these trusts under the
purview of the IRS as it will be subject to the Alaska Court System
and the Federal Court System as well. Mr. Thwaites said we are
using the IRS code, as drafted, and the various regulations to the
utmost with regard to these provisions. The provision allowing for
the invasion of child support would avoid the necessity of the
completed gift transaction, thus making it an irrevocable transfer.
Mr. Thwaites explained that if language was added after the fact,
it is clear from the IRS opinions and letter rulings that have come
down that we couldn't have a completed gift. If we did not have a
completed gift, it would be "invadable" by anyone and everyone.
The problem is by providing a minimum crack in the shield, it opens
the door for everyone. He noted they tried to adopt language to
make it clear that it was not intended for that.
MR. THWAITES said, "Having to be current on child support up front
is the one thing we thought would be effective at least to show
that intent. Going so far as to making an absolute exception to
allow the invasion would then bring us back into not having done a
completed gift and then everything is for not."
MR. THWAITES referred to the current irrevocable trusts and said
the court will have jurisdiction over those. He said he spoke to
several practitioners that suggested even today if you have a
irrevocable trust and there is a problem with that irrevocable
trust, the Alaska court has jurisdiction. The court can make an
amendment and has done so many times. Mr. Thwaites said the focus
of this legislation is to create an Alaska trust subject to the
Alaska rules. The Alaska court would then have the authority to
make any such changes that might be required down the road,
especially if you had a piece of property with too many (indisc.)
and some other problems that might arise because of trustee
acquiring the property that became (indisc.) and he wasn't able to
sell it. Certainly, the court could step in and remedy that issue.
MR. THWAITES said he doesn't think that the bill is aimed at child
support individuals. He stated he doesn't think the trust will be
focused on child support types of issues. For example, what very
often happens is someone will take the property and move it into a
trust and move to California or another jurisdiction which requires
our Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) employees to chase
them down in other jurisdictions. By putting it into an Alaska
trust, if you are an Alaskan father or mother it means that it is
there and available and if there has been a fraudulent transfer and
if you put this into trust knowing full well that you have a child
support, then it is invadable under the Fraudulent Transfers Act.
That ought to be the mechanism and if that mechanism is left in
place, it doesn't create the problem that we have with the IRS and
the completed gifts because that is outside of the settlor's
jurisdiction. It would be the court that does it.
Number 2399
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Thwaites if he has reviewed the
language in the committee substitute.
MR. THWAITES indicated he hasn't received the committee substitute,
but noted he thinks he is familiar with the changes.
Number 2420
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked Mr. Thwaites if he is familiar with the
period of time to discover an action to invade a trust in the Cook
Islands.
MR. THWAITES said he believes it is very short, about six months.
Number 2442
RICH HOMPESCH, Attorney, Winfree and Hompesch, testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks. He referred to Representative Vezey
mentioning that the international trust market may be as great as
$1 billion. Mr. Hompesch said he thinks Representative Vezey
vastly understated that market. He referred to a state conference
for attorneys that he attended in Miami and said at that conference
he was told that over the last 20 years as much as $200 billion to
$300 billion has been transferred in foreign trusts.
TAPE 97-9, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. HOMPESCH said "...with the Cook Islands, there are
jurisdictions in the Caribbean and a few in Europe, mainly
(indisc.), and I think Alaska will be very effective in that
competition. I was in the Cook Islands in January of 1996, and my
specific reason was to evaluate the trust (indisc.) there and the
laws there. I was very impressed with what I found. You know in
a small island nation with a population less than the Fairbanks
North Star Borough, I found three trust companies, possibly 25
solicitors, an equal number of charter accountants all working in
the trust business on the Cook Island."
MR. HOMPESCH referred to there being a question about the statute
of limitations on the Cook Island law and said he believes it is
one to two years, but in most instances it's one year. An
important point is that in Alaska we think the statute begins upon
discovery of a fraudulent conveyance. In the Cook Islands, there
is no rule regarding discovery, the statute begins when the
transfer is made or the trust is established. So the difference in
the statute of limitations between Alaska and Cook Islands is very
very significant.
Number 070
MR. HOMPESCH explained there was a question of how the Alaska trust
will be promoted. He stated that in his view it will spread like
a wildfire. As soon as the act is passed and the information gets
out on the Internet, attorneys all over the United States will
become interested in this act and will be interested in setting up
trusts in Alaska. The information will be passed along very
quickly.
MR. HOMPESCH stated he agrees with Thwaites on the proposed
amendment by Mr. Usera regarding child support obligations. If the
trust could be invaded for child support obligations that arose
after the fact, the entire trust would be included in the settlor's
estate. If the trust is included in the settlor's estate upon
death, then there will be little incentive for Alaskans and people
outside of Alaska to set up these trusts. Therefore, in his view,
if the proposed bill is changed to provide for invasion after the
fact for child support obligations that arise down the road, the
bill will not be very well received across the country. It will
probably be fairly useless for most planning.
Number 136
MR. HOMPESCH said in response to Mr. Usera's comment he would like
to point out that on page 6, lines 25 through 29, of Version A,
subsection (d), as he reads it, if the person establishes an Alaska
trust in defraud of his child support obligations, the trust could
be levied. If the trust ever does pay any money back to the
settlor, the settlor isn't going to get the money because the CSED
can enforce court obligations against any distribution a settlor
may receive down the road. Mr. Hompesch said he believes the
biggest reason why deadbeat dads are not going to use this type of
trust is because of the cost of setting up one of these trusts. He
discussed how he assisted a client in setting up a trust in the
Cook Islands. He contacted a law firm in Denver and they quoted a
fee of $17,500 to set up a Cook Island trust. Mr. Hompesch
explained he isn't sure what attorneys will charge in Alaska, but
certainly $17,500 is not the type of fee that a deadbeat dad who is
working in a cash economy and is changing jobs frequently is going
to pay. The people who will be setting up these types of trusts
will have significant networks and will be setting them up to
benefit their families, spouses and children, not to defraud them.
Mr. Hompesch urged the committee members to support the bill.
Number 246
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to O. J. Simpson setting up a $5 million
trust on the Isle of Man and said he would point out that those
trusts and opportunities exist throughout the world. He noted
Representative Vezey had said this would set up what is called a
"strong trust." He questioned if that means that Alaska's trust
law is currently a light trust.
Number 286
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained a "strong trust" is a term he
invented. He said when you're going to argue with lawyers, you
have to go off into a field they don't know anything about before
you have a chance of winning, so you invent some of your own terms.
Number 304
MR. HOMPESCH explained under current law, probably in every state
with the exception of Missouri, if he sets up a trust and the
beneficiaries are his spouse, children and himself, his creditors
can attach the assets of that trust. Under current law, if he sets
up the trust and he is a beneficiary, creditors can attach. He
said he supposes that is what Representative Vezey means by "weak
trust." If his creditors can attach the assets of the trust, then
under state tax laws, the trust assets will be included in his
estate. He pointed out a significant difference under the Alaska
Trust Act is that the matriarch sets up one of these trusts for the
benefit of her family, she can also be an eligible beneficiary of
the trust, but under a unique provision in the bill, predators
arising after the trust is established may not attach the trust
assets. They could attach any distributions that the matriarch may
receive, but the creditors arising after the fact could not invade
the trust itself. He pointed out this law is not much different
from existing law regarding IRA accounts. Mr. Hompesch explained
under current law, Alaskans can establish an IRA account which in
effect is a trust. He said he is the owner and is a beneficiary of
his IRA account. Under Alaska law, the IRA is exempt from his
creditors. Mr. Hompesch said he believes the Alaska Trust Act is
an expansion of that principle or philosophy. That is what a
strong trust is.
Number 403
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I think I might have misspoke or been
misunderstood. I was taking about the markets for these trusts and
I said billions of dollars per year, and then as an example I said
the fees on a billion dollars would be somewhere in the $1 million
to $5 million range per billion dollars."
Number 433
ROBERT MANLEY, Attorney, Hughes, Thorsness, Powell, Huddleston and
Bauman, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said he
has been practicing in the area of trusts of the state law for
about 20 years. He noted he is state chairman of the American
College of Trusts and State Councils. He is also a fellow of the
American College of Tax Councils and is a member of the Executive
Committee of the Probate and Planning Section of the Bar. Mr.
Manley explained he really likes the legislation as it is an
opportunity to bring good clean industry and commerce to Alaska.
The state of Delaware has been doing this for years. They've set
up their corporate code in a fashion which is very corporation
friendly. The same thing was done with their limited partnership
law and to a certain extent their trust law. Mr. Manley said the
state of Delaware has been bringing in this type of commercial
activity for years. South Dakota has just recently gotten into the
game. They've repealed the rule against perpetuities and have
brought in substantial trust activity. Before that they repealed
the law, (indisc.) the maximum interest rate. Accordingly, all the
national credit card companies set up their credit processing
systems in South Dakota in order to take advantage of the unlimited
interest charges so they're governed strictly by market force. He
said it has been a big industry boom there.
MR. MANLEY said he believes the kind of trust business Alaska will
attract will primarily benefit attorneys, bankers, certified public
accountants and money managers. He said that kind of money will
circulate and float around in the Alaskan economy, but noted the
money really doesn't stay here anymore than it stays in
Switzerland, Hong Kong or New York. You have build an
infrastructure and have a group of people to manage and control
that money. He said that is a benefit that will be brought to
Alaska. In addition, we will have wealthy people that will have
more contact with Alaska and they're going to see investment
opportunities.
MR. MANLEY referred to before they passed the trust (indisc.) at
the Cook Islands, and said it was a small place somewhere out of
New Zealand. They didn't have any hotels at all. They set up the
trust business. Rich and famous people started going there. They
wanted hotel accommodations and now there are luxury hotels.
MR. MANLEY said another thing we can do is attract money from
foreign countries. Often times there is a concern in foreign
countries about political instability and taking advantage of these
trusts to protect their assets. He said he believes the United
States and Alaska's political structure is even more stable. We
can bring in a lot of foreign money that's going to be invested in
Alaska and America
MR. MANLEY explained under HB 101, the trustee must be a bank with
its principal offices in Alaska, an Alaska resident or a trust
company organized under Alaska law. He said there is the
opportunity to maintain a lot of Alaska contact. Some of the money
management is going to be outside if we're talking about huge
volumes, but it is a chance to grow the Alaska money management.
Number 577
MR. MANLEY referred to comments regarding child support issues and
said the way he analyzes it is any distributions that are made to
the person who set up the trust, the CSED can get to that money.
MR. MANLEY referred to the discussion about the rule against
perpetuities and said the reason we have it is it was established
by the kings in England during the feudal times so they could
extract the "death tax" when the feudal properties were transferred
from one person to another. Currently, the rule against
perpetuities works primarily to confuse law students and to allow
the federal government to impose what's known as a generation
skipping transfer tax, a second level of estate tax. There is some
concern about (indisc.) running in perpetuity, but right now a
corporation can be established in perpetuity and can own land in
perpetuity.
MR. MANLEY referred to the O. J. Simpson trust on the Isle of Man
and said it wouldn't work here because it was made quite clearly to
defraud creditors. He already has a judgement against him.
Number 671
MR. MANLEY explained the bill that was passed last session didn't
include any specific provisions on the statute of repose.
Subsequent to that, the (indisc.) bankruptcy court to Alaska came
down with a decision of Hocoshie (ph.) vs. Brown. He explained
with that case some people set up some trusts in (indisc.) in 1989
and 1990. In 1995, they were sued and had a large judgement
imposed on them. The bankruptcy court said they were going to look
at this as having a six year period in which to attack this trust
from the date you get the judgement and not from the date the
transfer was made. One problem is that if HB 101 is passed without
the amendment, he will have to advise his clients that this doesn't
work effectively to protect their children's or spouse's assets
that would be put in the trust because whatever happens, if you end
up with a catastrophe, if the FDIC sues you, if the EPA sues you
and you have a massive judgement against you, they can come in six
years after that day forward and take a shot at the money you put
in this trust.
MR. MANLY explained Missouri attempted to passed a similar trust
act a couple of years ago, but they haven't seen the kind of
benefits that we're anticipating because of glitches in the
Missouri trust law that doesn't allow it to work effectively. He
stated he is concerned that if the amendment isn't adopted, we're
going to have the same problem here. Once you transfer money into
the trust, if you don't have existing creditors that are being
paid, after four years, it's an old and cold transaction and the
creditors cannot come in and claim it was a fraudulent conveyance.
He said he is concerned that without this kind of change, even if
he set up a simple trust of $10,000 a year for his client's
children to go to college, if that client even whispers to him,
"And you know what, if I go broke at least I know my kids are going
to go to college," that is indicia of intent to benefit your
children over your creditor. Some bankruptcy will come in and try
to unravel that transaction. He urged that the amendment be
adopted.
Number 820
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the language in the committee substitute
is satisfactory.
MR. MANLEY explained it is a policy decision. If you want the CSED
to at any time come in and invade the trust proceeds that are set
aside for the benefit of another person, then that would be a valid
policy decision. The problem is that you then prevent the transfer
into the trust from being a completed gift which has negative
(indisc.) in the state tax consequences and makes the bill not the
kind of thing that's going to attract the industry and commerce we
want. He said he believes it is a balancing decision, but the
proposed modifications absolutely address the CSED's concerns
because if any money comes out to the deadbeat dad, that is
available right away.
Number 909
KEVIN WALSH, Certified Public Accountant (CPA), Walsh, Teleher and
Sharp, was next to testify via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
said he has practiced in the CPA profession for 20 years. Mr.
Walsh informed the committee members he has seen a lot of business
transactions, has done a lot of estate planning over the years and
has run up against the rule against perpetuities a number of times.
Mr. Walsh said he has heard a number of historical explanations for
it, but has yet to hear a rational explanation for it in terms of
how public policy is served by having such a rule. He said, "The
most common explanation I get is that `Well at least at some point
in the future some heir will vest in this property and have a
chance to dissipate the property.' I remain unclear as to how a
chance for an heir to dissipate the property serves some public
purpose, but perhaps an explanation is out there. I just haven't
heard it. I would encourage you to seek such an explanation if you
can."
MR. WALSH explained present law allows, in many instances, many
transactions to occur which may impair the ability of some future
creditor to obtain an asset. He said he can make gifts to charity,
transfer stock or other assets to his children, make transfers to
corporations and retirement plans, buy an insurance policy, invest
in a limited partnership in a limited liability company, create a
(indisc.) estate, impair his property with a covenant or an
easement. All of these things may add to the detriment of some
future creditor, however, he doesn't think that the rule that is
being proposed in the bill adds to the detriment of future
creditors. Mr. Walsh explained that creditors who lend to
individuals who are beneficiaries of these trusts have every right
to inquire what assets they have, what assets they're going to have
available and what assets they can pledge as collateral for their
obligation. If they don't want to do business with these people
who are beneficiaries of these trusts, they don't have to.
MR. WALSH referred to future creditors who may not have anticipated
doing business with (indisc.) creditors and said he doesn't see how
a transfer to this trust is any different than any one of the forms
of different transfers that were mentioned earlier which may result
in their reduced ability to obtain an asset.
MR. WALSH said states in other jurisdictions such Texas and Florida
have unlimited homesteading (indisc.) the way we have on our
retirement account exemptions. He said he could have $1 billion in
a retirement account or buy a home in Florida and be totally exempt
from a creditor with respect to that asset. This type of trust is
another form of that asset and he doesn't see why it should be
treated any differently.
MR. WALSH referred to discussion regarding transfers in
anticipation to defraud a creditor and said he believes that
present law probably very adequately addresses those concerns and
if not, they could be addressed separately from the bill.
Number 1068
MR. WALSH said, "I have probably been asked by clients six times
this year about the benefits of foreign trusts. Many people
besides rich people that are being referred to in other
conversations during other testimony about coming to Alaska, many
people in Alaska are talking about moving their money to foreign
trusts. We have a very litigious climate. We have almost an era
of uncertainty that people have about their ability to provide for
future generations. This money will leave the state. There are
other legal means to move this money off-shore right now. I would
like the state of Alaska not to miss the boat this time like we did
with LLC and come back 15 years or 10 years after the fact and say,
`Gee, maybe we'll do it this time around.' I'd appreciate it if
you'd consider this bill very carefully and pledge your support to
it. I certainly think it's a fair bill and protect the citizens of
Alaska adequately. Thank you very much."
Number 1140
LINDA HULBERT, Insurance Agent, testified from Fairbanks. She
stated she isn't an attorney or an accountant so she can't testify
to the technical aspects of the bill. She explained she helps
people plan their finances, their estates and how they transfer
assets to future generations. Ms. Hulbert said she believes there
are a lot of Alaskans, not necessarily wealthy Alaskans, who may
want to take advantage of the opportunity that this bill would
create. She said she thinks there are many people with special
assets like rural homes that they would like to go to future
generations. Ms. Hulbert said she doesn't see large amounts of
money, but she does see families who have worked really hard and
want to transfer things to future generations. Ms. Hulbert said
she thinks this bill will make this available not only for people
with mega wealth, but also to individuals have been here for many
generations and have planed for future generations.
Number 1353
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG read from page 3, line 7, Section 3(c) 1,
"some or all of the trust assets are deposited in this state." He
asked if there is any way, without destroying the intent of the
bill, increase the percentage of some. For example, it appears
that you could have $1 in the state of Alaska and the balance
somewhere else. He said what you would be doing is shopping for
the legal shield.
Number 1296
MR. THWAITES said this issue was discussed extensively last year.
In a lot of these situations it is the administrative (indisc.) of
the trust that is important. The fee structure is going to be
there and will be based on the total value of the trust and not
just what is located in Alaska or somewhere else. Mr. Thwaites
explained in modern financing, no matter what state you're in, most
of the assets, in the way of corporate securities, etc., are always
retained in New York physically. He said maybe 1 percent to 3
percent that would be invested into these trusts might spin-off to
the local economy eventually. He said there is no way to guarantee
that. He noted that on the Cook Islands it was a much greater
percentage. Basically, they felt that was something they didn't
want to quantify.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Also for the record, Mr. Thwaites, even we
had just $1 here the fact that the use of the law the state of
Alaska would undoubtedly generate a substantial amount of legal
business. Is that true?"
MR. THWAITES responded, "I believe so. I believe that first of all
an attorney in any other jurisdiction is not going to render an
opinion with regard to state law with out running a file of his E
and O coverage most likely."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said if there was any litigation revolving around
the trust, it would have to be litigated in the courts of the state
of Alaska which would be a tremendous economic value to the
judicial system.
Number 1425
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he thinks it is important to remember
that in managing money the new wealth that the industry creates for
the managers are the fees that charged. It is irrespective of
where the assets are located. He said he would anticipate that
most of the wealth of the world is in some sort of intangible form
like stocks and bonds issued by someone other than the state of
Alaska.
MR. THWAITES said a skyscraper in New York would be placed in a
limited liability company and those certificates would be held by
the trust here. All property management and the actual location of
the property would still be in New York. That would create a
substantial value for purposes of the trust in holding those
certificates.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if they would be just pieces of paper in a
safety deposit box.
MR. THWAITES indicated that is correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what value that would be to the state of
Alaska.
MR. THWAITES explained the value of the asset is what the trust
administration fees are going to be involved on.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said most investment bankers charge between 1
percent and 3 percent of the corpus of the principal of whatever
portfolio they're managing.
MR. THWAITES said that is correct, but noted something of this size
it would be 1/10 of a percent.
Number 1542
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said Mr. Hompesch made a statement that he had
seen a legal fee of as much as $17,000. He asked what a typical
ballpark legal fee would be to establish one of these trusts.
Number 1562
MR. MANLEY responded that he honestly couldn't give a ballpark
estimate as to what those fees would be. He referred to Chairman
Rokeberg's question about the assets under management and said you
can tinker with it however you feel is appropriate. He said, "You
could say that a significant portion has to be under management in
Alaska. You could say 5 percent entity, you could say 10 percent
entity. What you're doing is, to a certain extent, you're
negotiating with the marketplace. The big money folks usually have
established relationships with national trust companies or national
banks and they're uncomfortable perhaps with the money management
included in my fee of NBA or First National, First Interstate or
Key Bank. And I think that the market (indisc.) will probably work
to bring this money up here and gradually establish a co-trustee
relationship with our local bank. On the other hand, you can if
you want to require a little more Alaska contact up front. We're
to a certain extent shooting in the dark and I think that the group
of people working on this thought that some or all was the most
reasonable approach. But if you want some more immediate Alaska
touching and feeling of the money in terms of the management as
well as the administration, you can go for something higher."
Number 1674
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the implications would be to the
attractiveness in Alaska if a state income tax or a statewide sales
tax was implemented.
MR. THWAITES said, "That would drastically impact it because there
are other states that do not have the income tax. Delaware, when
it has chosen to seek out these markets, has exempted particular
industries from, you know the out of state people, from their local
taxation. So what they have done there is if you are a Delaware
resident, there is a tax on Delaware residents and they set up a
Delaware trust or something then that is subject to the Delaware
tax. But a New York resident coming into Delaware is not subject
to the Delaware income tax and they have managed to effectively
keep the market coming their way."
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to page 3, Section 3, and said it
talks about what has to happen for it be an Alaskan trust. There
are four main items there and it is not one of those four items.
All of the four items have to be satisfied.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to Mr. Manley being on the Executive
Committee of the Probate and Planning Section of the Bar and said
the it is his understanding that the Executive Committee has not
taken a position on the bill because they would have to go to the
Board of Governors of the Bar Association.
MR. MANLEY indicated that is correct. He said the Bar Association
doesn't permit its individual sections to take positions on bill
absent their consent. Mr. Manley noted their experience over the
last few years is that by the time the Board of Governors considers
the matter, the legislative session is over.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the lack of endorsement is not a negative.
It is because of the procedural problems you have to go through to
get that.
MR. MANLEY said that is a fair assessment.
Number 1874
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the letter to The Honorable Fran Ulmer,
Lieutenant Governor, from Mr. Blattmachr in New York City, would be
part of the committee file. He said the testimony of Mr. Usera
indicated that if the proponents of the bill supported his
positions on the burden of proof areas, then he thought that would
be satisfactory. He asked Mr. Manley if he could speak to that.
MR. MANLEY said he isn't entirely sure what point he was making in
the letter to the Lieutenant Governor. On page 6 there is an
indication that the bill doesn't change the burden of proof. He
said that is correct. The burden of proof regarding a fraudulent
conveyance is in no way touched. So we're not changing Alaska law
at this point.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Usera for clarification.
Number 1950
MR. USERA said, "I would like to clarify all of my remarks. One,
I don't want it to be perceived that we're trying to attack the
bill, we're not. One, there are no estate or taxation attorneys in
the Department of Law. There is no need for any. As I think I
mentioned, I preface my comments with there is no state agency that
has any oversight responsibility for this bill. We were asked to
take a look at it. We saw what we saw, what we perceived to be
certain flaws. We wanted to raise them up. Some of them have been
addressed and, quite honestly, with points that I have not
considered. I just don't know tax law to the extent that Mr.
Thwaites and Mr. Manley do and I appreciate their comments. I want
it understood that we were not attacking this bill in any way. In
the letter from Mr. Blattmachr there appears to be at least
implicit in the statement to Lieutenant Governor Ulmer, it appears
that he is trying to allay her concerns regarding the burden of
proof, and yet in reading the bill it is very difficult to perceive
anything that addresses the burden of proof. I was suggesting that
if in fact Mr. Blattmachr and those who are in favor of the bill
are not concerned about the burden of proof, perhaps there might be
a consideration to word something a little bit more explicitly
addressing that."
MR. MANLEY responded, "It just occurs to me that if the bill
doesn't say anything about changing the burden of proof, then in
the ordinary course you wouldn't expect that it would change the
burden of proof. You know to allay concerns it might be possible
to explicitly say, `this doesn't change the burden of proof
regarding fraudulent conveyances.' But I certainly think it's
redundant unnecessary."
Number 2108
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said there seems to be some concerns about the
disinheriting a spouse or other family members using this trust to
do what some people may think are immoral things. He asked Mr.
Manley to comment.
MR. MANLEY said, "Yes, in the recently passed Uniform Probate Code,
the Alaska legislature has continued and expanded what is known as
the spouse's elective share. Ever since at least 1976 and probably
before it has been prohibited under Alaska law to completely
disinherit your spouse. Under current law, the spouse is entitled
to what's known as the elective share of one-third of the augmented
estate. That includes not only the probate estate, but also a
variety of non-probate transfers including life insurance, trusts,
IRA, retirement plans and the like. And you put this entire pot
together and the spouse - surviving spouse is entitled to at least
one-third of those assets. The bill has been modified to
specifically provide that these kinds of trusts are included within
the augmented estate."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the letter from Mr. Blattmachr indicates
that there are some Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act (ANSCA)
trusts. He asked Mr. Manley to comment.
MR. MANLEY said, "At this point there is no connection. It was
initially proposed that this bill would also include additional
provisions to make ANSCA settlement trusts effective or more
reasonably set up, but those weren't incorporated in the drafting
process and I suspect those that are interested in that will
propose that as a separate bill. Perhaps Mr. Thwaites is in a
better position to answer that question."
MR. THWAITES responded, "Yes, the settlement trust language, and in
fact the letter to Lieutenant Governor Fran Ulmer there was
language attached to -- there was a sample of the bill with
language in the back that addressed the Section 39 ANSCA amendments
for settlement trusts, and that has been pulled out. So that
information is not relevant to this section because some of the
corporations, and so forth, have wanted to propose that were going
to do that perhaps separately. We don't know if we're short and
have not heard exactly what the status is, but that will probably
be addressed independently of this bill."
Number 2349
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there is a downside, particularly in the
real property law or any other areas of estates where the repeal of
the rule against perpetuities would be negative. He asked Mr.
Thwaites if he is correct in that we aren't abolishing the rule
against perpetuities in the state of Alaska, but only accepting it
for this particular area.
MR. THWAITES said that is correct. He explained, "Alaska has not
the most current rule against perpetuities, but it has the next
generation before that because they passed the Uniform Rule Against
Perpetuities Act just a few years ago - the new uniform. They
didn't adopt the newest one, but the one just before that. And
when we talked to the Uniform Commissioners, they said rather than
repeal it, because their job is make all acts uniform, rather than
do that they would like us to just provide an exception within that
Uniform Act for these types of trusts. So all we have in this bill
is an exception for these trusts with regards to the rule against
perpetuities. About four states, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Idaho
and Delaware..."
TAPE 97-10, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Hompesch if he would like to make
comments.
MR. HOMPESCH referred to the language that some or all of the trust
assets must be deposited in this state and said his comment is that
in order to develop the trust industry in Alaska, we need to start
slowly because it's not very developed currently. We do not have
the money managers and other professionals at this time that are
necessary to manage hundreds of millions of dollars. He said he
believes the "some or all" language is essential because it gets
our foot in the international trust industry. He urged the
committee not to require that a certain (indisc.) of the assets be
deposited in the state of Alaska. He said he isn't sure that the
people outside of Alaska who would be setting up these trusts, at
this time would, have a lot of faith in sophistication of Alaska,
but he believes this will change as the industry develops.
Number 116
MR. HOMPESCH said if Alaska adopted an income tax law, so long as
the trust itself was not taxed, it would have no effect. He said
he agrees with Mr. Thwaites that one way would be to provide if the
beneficiaries of the trust are Alaskan residents then they would
pay income taxes on any distributions. If it was done in that way,
the imposition of an income tax would not significantly affect the
industry.
Number 174
MR. HOMPESCH said he also agrees with Mr. Manley regarding the
burden of proof. He said, "I think it would be superfluous to say
that the burden of proof for these trusts do not change the burden
of proof regarding fraudulent conveyance. I see nothing in the act
that even suggests that the burden of proof has changed like that."
MR. HOMPESCH referred to the rule against perpetuities and said he
thinks it would be good policy, at some point, for Alaska repeal
the rule wholeheartedly. He noted this bill does not do so. Mr.
Hompesch pointed out that if you have a law that most attorneys
can't explain, you have to ask whether or not it's a good law.
Number 247
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG closed the public hearing on HB 101.
Number 260
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved and asked unanimous consent to move
CSHB 101, dated 2/10/97, Version B, out of committee with
individual recommendations, with the zero fiscal notes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he wanted to point out, for the record, that
he contacted the Division of Banking and Securities and they
indicated they had no problems with the bill and provided a zero
fiscal note. He asked if there was an objection to moving the
bill. Hearing none, CSHB 101(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor
and Commerce Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Committee
meeting at 4:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|