HB 296-UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT CHAIRMAN MACKIE called the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and announced HB 296 to be up for consideration. MR. PAT HARMON, Aide to Representative Pete Kott, said HB 296 is the Uniform Partnership Act. Present statutes are seriously out of date and based on the 1914 version. Two things have changed over the years; one is that the individual concept in the 1914 Act is a partnership entity and the other is the way the default classification for businesses works. Now the default classification is a partnership. MR. ART PETERSON, Uniform Law Commissioner, stepped to the witness stand for comments. CHAIRMAN MACKIE stated that Mr. Peterson had been before this committee for many years for updating statutes. They all had a lot of respect for his knowledge and the work that he does on these. He asked if he could touch on the highlights of this and inform them of significant changes that may or may not have controversy. MR. PETERSON said he had a lot of materials from the National Conference. He said the original Uniform Partnership Act was enacted in all states except Louisiana. The partnership law of this country is the Uniform Partnership Act plus the court decisions interpreting it. When that Act changes, Alaska has to flow with it or we're going to be doing a number of business entities a great disservice. There are provisions in there for conversion from a regular partnership to a limited partnership and provisions dealing with limited liability partnerships. This has already been enacted in 24 states and four states have enacted the 1994 version without the limited liability partnership provisions that this bill includes. The revision reflects modern business practices and more than eight decades of court decisions and scholarly analysis in recognition of how business is done. The basic changes are the statutory statement of the entity concept of partnerships changing from the earlier version of the aggregate of individuals concept. The current law is a confusing mix of the two concepts and the bill before them clearly adopts the entity concept and the ramifications of that appear throughout the bill. The basic one being, when a partner leaves the partnership, it doesn't collapse as it does under current law. The partnership will continue and there are provisions for how a partner gets out, etc. The Department of Community and Economic Development had one concern that they presented in the House - changing annual reports to biennial. Another changes is the transition period from a five year period to a three year period. Everyone is agreeable with that. The bill carefully tracks the national version. CHAIRMAN MACKIE noted that there were all "Do Passes" throughout the committee process and it passed 36 - 0 in the House. SENATOR KELLY moved to pass CSHB 296 (L&C) from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.