An Uneasy Relationship Between the Bankruptcy Reform Act and the Uniform Commercial Code: Delayed and Continued Perfection of Security Interests

The widespread adoption of article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code in the 1950s and 1960s resulted in an ‘uncertain correlation’ between state personal property security law and the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. Although the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 frequently relied upon existing state law to determine the validity of a secured creditor\u27s interest in the personal property of a bankruptcy debtor, its provisions were more compatible with pre-Code personal property security law. As a result, courts often struggled to reconcile the meanings of the two statutes. The enactment of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 held out the promise of greater correspondence between the concepts of bankruptcy law and those of article 9. The Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States, established in 1970 to study the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, relied heavily on the work of practitioners and scholars familiar with article 9. The statutory revision proposed by the Commission in 1973 embodied many recommendations made by these practitioners and scholars, and served as an important foundation for the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Although the Bankruptcy Reform Act employs concepts drawn from article 9, some incongruities between the two statutes remain. For example, under the provisions of article 9, a secured party may, in certain circumstances, delay perfection of a security interest without sacrificing priority to other parties whose claims to the secured collateral arise before the security interest is perfected. If perfection is about to expire or lapse, article 9 requires the secured party to continue the perfection of the security interest in order to retain priority over others who may claim an interest in the collateral. The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 also makes delayed perfection of security interests in personal property effective against the trustee in bankruptcy, but the Reform Act authorizes delayed perfection in cases in which article 9 does not. In addition, the Reform Act does not expressly sanction continuation of perfection after bankruptcy proceedings have been instituted. This article explores some of the uncertainties in the relationship between the Bankruptcy Reform Act and article 9. It first describes and evaluates the article 9 provisions dealing with delayed and continued perfection. Against this background, the article examines the relationship of delayed and continued perfection, under both the Reform Act and article 9, to the bankruptcy trustee\u27s avoiding powers. Finally, some suggestions for legislative changes in the Reform Act are offered

Alien Registration- Dawson, George H. (Houlton, Aroostook County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/36246/thumbnail.jp

Letter from George M. Dawson to John Muir, 1888 Jan 19.

Geological and Natural History Survey, Alfred R.C. Selwyn, Director, Museum and Office, Sussex St., Ottawa.19 January, 1888.Dear Sir:Last summer, in the course of my work, I had occasion to make a partial examination of the Stickeen or Stikine River, in northern B.C. while Mr. McCowell of my staff made a survey of the river, to Telegraph Creek. As I am now reporting on the work, and understand that you have published various observations made on the Stikine, I take the liberty of writing to ask whether you will be so good as to give me references to such publications. So little has been done on the river heretofore that it is desirable to chronicle all previous work.Yours truly,George M. DawsonJohn Muir, Esq.,Martinez, Cal.[Following rough draft of a letter, written in Muir\u27s hand, found on back of above letter]Dear Sir:In the year 1879 I spent a few weeks on the Stickeen River, but most of my notes are still unpublished. I explored in a very imperfect way some of the larger glaciers flowing into the main canyon. Only a few letters published in the San Francisco Bulletin, written in a popular style and not likely to prove of much interest to you in the work you are engaged upon. I have seen nothing of the upper main affluents of the river save what came in my way in [my] journey to the Cassiar(?) gold mines on the upper Mackenzie

Letter from George M. Dawson to John Muir, 1888 Apr 25.

[letterhead]25 April 1888Dear Sir,Please accept thanks for your articles on [Stikive?] etc from S.F. newspapers. I am much indebted for the trouble you have taken in the matter & shall endeavor to do justice to your work in so far as it [illegible] within my province. [illegible] G saw [illegible] a number of [illegible] work a short [illegible] of the geological [illegible] by [Prof?] [illegible]Yours tuyGeorge M. DawsonJohn Muir Esq Martinez Cal.01301 [4][in margin: It is not long since David & I were talking about you & he was greatly interested to hear all I had to tell him of your welfare & of our pleasant sojourn with you in Cal]reaches within the veil?You ask about Walter. well he is much about as you saw him. In some points better but scarcely so strong. His local trouble is better controlled than then I want say cured, for that can neverbe.Hee does a little light office work, but of course is unfitted for anything very active_and with good care may hold out quite a while_My parents were terribly affected over our misfortune, & poor Mother took to her bed & for a week or two, it seemed as though she would never be up again. She is gaining again however, but both are quite feeble_ Of course my own family were badly frightened fro in spite of my efforts to prevent anything of the kind, news by the daily papers came that we were both fatally hurt. My telegrams soon relieved them regarding myself_Is it not about time you were coming East? When you start we want to know your movements and watch that we may all be at home, when you reach DetroitGive kind regards to Mrs. Muir and to your Sister, Annie, if she is still with you & believe me with best wishes Yours Sincerely John S. GrayP.S. I saw the [Frost?] brothers last fall, when their youngest brother Alex was dying in this city. [illegible] had received your letter but why he had not written I do not know my recollection is that he said he intended to soon.[1][letterhead]Detroit April 28th 1888Mr. John Muir My Dear FriendTwo weeks have past since receipt of your very kind letter fo the 8th [illegible]_Your words of sympathy were gratefully read, and we all wish to thank you for your kind expressions. In our way that is from our point of [illegible] [David\u27s?] departure, is sad indeed_ but for him it was not so_ To look forward there was a constant threatening of the dreaded fiend-paralysis__ his own words_ a lingering life, in death, of imbecility, and perhaps weakness, of the mental facilities. These he was happily delivered from. Even the pain of parting from all he loved in this life was spared him. that night in the sleeper he was weak and tired [2]and after I had helped him as one would a child, he lay down peacefully in the berth, fell quietly asleep and for six hours, each time I looked at him in my anxiety for him he seemed to be quietly resting_ The crash came the rolling cars went down the soft embankment and piled in the ruins at the bottom. We were all more or less hurt_ he struck only very slightly on the head_but enough to render him unconscious. It was some time before we could get uninjured help enough, to get him out, and only a few minutes later the car was all in flames so that our effects were burned - those not previously removed. I thought he would die before we got him out but stimulants brought him around a little, but by no sign or word, did he ever show a spark of consciousness_ & for nearly three days in the hospital I watched beside him, being joined by his wife as quickly after as possible_ Had he been strong and robust as I was he would no doubt have recovered_ Hemorrhage of the brain_ the blood vessels of which were very weak_brought death and we parted from him without a word of his_I was in great anxiety at the thought of taking him away in that critical con=01301[3]dition he was in but his physician deemed it advisable. The railway men who saw the situation said it was a wonder anyone escaped from such an accident unless killed or mangled. So the escape was a closer on than I realized at the time for myself_David had not done much in a lit- erary way for several years but enough of his best prose and poetry is extant to fill two volumes_ so a committee of his old friends thought and under their directions a collection is being made, while a brief biography by a Mr. [Larned?] -a fine writer- will form part of one of the volumes These will not likely be out till the end of summer, but I will see that you have a copy when published_ as they will not be put in the market_Has a good while his friends had urged him to allow them to collect & publish one volume but of late years his mind was so much taken up with matters pertaining to the eternal state, that he placed no value on them and would give them nothing but discouragement_ I never knew anyone to whom the promises of the future, were so real, and so precious. and it was no hardship to him to be called away, but as he often said to depart and be with Christ is far better _ And indeed what else is there that has lasting value like the faith tha

A model law fusing incapacity and mental health legislation

An outline for a model law is presented here that would govern the non-consensual treatment of people who lack the capacity (or competence) to consent due to mental impairment, whether this is due to ‘mental disorder’ or ‘psychiatric disorder’ as conventionally conceived, or due to a ‘physical disorder’. Our aim in drafting this model law is to give coherent and practical expression to the case, previously made by two of the current authors, that separate legislation authorising the civil commitment of ‘mentally disordered’ persons is unnecessary, and discriminatory, and should be replaced by new, comprehensive legislation that would govern the non-consensual treatment of both ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ conditions. This new scheme – which we have described as the ‘fusion’ proposal – would be based squarely on incapacity principles: that is, on the impaired capacity of a person to make decisions about treatment, from whatever cause – whether this is due to schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s Disease, a learning disability, a confusional state due to infection, a cerebrovascular accident, a head injury, or any other mental impairment.A model statute of this kind, drafted largely by Rowena Daw, is presented here in skeleton form.  

Outline of The Model Law

Part I PrinciplesPart II General provisionsPart III Serious medical treatmentPart IV Informal patients needing care and treatmentPart V Compulsory provision of care and treatmentPart VI Forensic provisionsPart VII The Mental Capacity TribunalPart VIII Patient safeguard

Addendum

Possible amendments to Parts IV and V following review of the commentaries:As a result of a consideration of the commentaries on the Model Law we propose a number of possible amendments to Parts IV and V that take account of some of the points raised (see our response to the commentaries). We here reproduce the complete clauses as amended