NACM Convenes Committee to Explore U.S. Bankruptcy Reform Recommendations

NACM, as part of its ongoing Government Affairs Committee, has gathered a group of nearly a dozen elite trade credit professionals as part of a committee tasked specifically with setting a course for the association’s effort to push reform of Chapter 11 in 2015. The committee aims to establish a strong NACM legislative platform, which will be brought to Capitol Hill this year. Among Bankruptcy Code areas being reviewed by the NACM committee are preferences, Section 503(b)(9), venue provisions, creditors’ committees, executory contracts and provisions for very small businesses.

At present, no existing proposals for deep reform of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code carry real momentum in either house of the U.S. Congress. However, given that the current makeup of the U.S. Congress includes some committee leadership that has been amenable to pushing past changes considered fair and friendly to B2B creditors, bankruptcy reform will very likely find its way onto the radar of top federal lawmakers within the next year.

NACM Joins Groups Urging Individual Surety Reform in U.S. Code

February 2015

The Honorable Anne Rung
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy
Office of Management and Budget
Eisenhower Executive Office Building – Room 263
1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20503

Dear Madam Administrator:

Pursuant to Sections 1302 and 1303 of Title 41, United States Code, we, on behalf of the members of the signatory associations, request that you initiate a modification to Part 28.203 (Acceptability of Individual Sureties) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require that the assets pledged by an individual surety are real and readily available by requiring that such pledged assets meet the standards currently required by FAR Part 28.204.

The requirements of the Miller Act (41 USCA Section 3131 et seq) are designed to protect the interest of the federal contracting agencies, as stewards of taxpayer funds by requiring bid and performance bonds and the interests of subcontractors and suppliers by requiring payment bonds, which provide such downstream parties payment protection of last resort for work performed and supplies furnished.

The current coverage of the Government-wide Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 28.2 (Sureties and Other Security for Bonds) provides the contracting officer guidance, but implementation can be compromised by the severe challenges faced by even the most seasoned construction contracting officer. A determined and unscrupulous individual surety can too readily pledge assets that provide only illusory or insufficient protection. The core challenge for the contracting officer relates to verifying the existence of and assessing the value of the assets being pledged by the individual surety in support of the surety bonds being furnished to the Government. Those assets deemed "acceptable" under FAR 28.203-2(b)(3) include stocks, bonds, and real property owned in fee simple. The contracting officer faces several challenges in determining if the "acceptable assets" actually exist and can be readily liquidated to pay valid claims against a payment bond.

NACM-National Joins NACM North Central in Supporting B2B Exemption For Unclaimed Property

February 10, 2015

Charles A. Trost, Esq.
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP
Nashville City Center
511 Union St., Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219-1760

Dear Mr. Trost,

I am writing to you and the Uniform Law Commission today on behalf of the National Association of Credit Management and its more than 15,000 members in the trade credit industry. I understand the Commission is redrafting the 1995 Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (UUPA) and that a business-to-business (B2B) exemption for business associations involved in the ordinary course of business is being reviewed.

Our association urges the Commission to offer guidance and clarification in the UUPA that states should indeed adopt a B2B exemption as part of the updated UUPA. This is deeply important because the 1995 Act does not specifically exempt such transactions and fewer than one-third of all U.S. states have such an exemption in place. It is problematic because so many businesses face a host on onerous and inconsistent unclaimed property regulations in the present landscape.

  • 1
  • 2