Law Commons^™

The Reporter's Rejoinder, Daniel S. Kleinberger

Faculty Scholarship

The word "rejoinder" connotes a reply to criticism, and that connotation sets the scope of this short essay. This Rejoinder will leave aside (albeit with thanks) the articles that explain the background to, the context for, or particular aspects of the Uniform Limited Partnership Act (2001). Instead, this Rejoinder will focus on the three articles that purport to find a blemish (Professor Bishop), a general theoretical deficiency (Mr. Callison and Dean Vestal), or a fundamental misconception (Professor Ribstein) in the new Act.

A User's Guide To The New Uniform Limited Partnership Act, Daniel S. Kleinberger

Faculty Scholarship

The shelf life on uniform entity acts seems to be decreasing. The original Uniform Partnership Act (UPA) lasted eight decades, and the original Uniform Limited Partnership Act (ULPA (1916)) lasted six. In contrast, the 1976 Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (RULPA (1976)) warranted major revisions after just nine years (RULPA (1985)), and only sixteen years later NCCUSL recommended to the states that they adopt ULPA (2001) to replace RULPA in toto. NCCUSL's Revised Uniform [General] Partnership Act - RUPA - was first approved in 1992 and went through five official versions in its first five years of existence. NCCUSL's Uniform …

Diversity Jurisdiction For Llcs? Basically, Forget About It, Daniel S. Kleinberger, Carter G. Bishop

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Charging Orders And The New Uniform Limited Partnership Act: Dispelling The Rumors Of Disaster, Daniel S. Kleinberger, Carter G. Bishop, Thomas Geu

Faculty Scholarship

Last year, an article published in this magazine focused on the charging order as "the Exclusive Remedy Against a Partnership Interest" and announced the "[s]hocking [r]evelation" that ULPA (2001)--the new Uniform Limited Partnership Act--undermines the "exclusive remedy" limitation on charging orders. The authors asserted categorically that, "from an asset protection perspective, the 2001 Act is considerably less protective of a partner's partnership interest than the 1976 Act." Elizabeth M. Schurig & Amy P. Jetel, A Charging Order Is the Exclusive Remedy Against a Partnership Interest: Fact or Fiction?, Prob. & Prop. 57, 58 (Nov./Dec. 2003).

As this article will show, …