The Driver’s License Rule Is Not Needed in California-A Response to the Rubenstein Article
Harry C. Sigman
Disclaimer: The viewpoints and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by the Business Law News, the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California, or the State Bar of California.
The Business Law News has generously offered me the opportunity to respond directly to the article by Neil Rubenstein presented immediately above in this issue (the "Rubenstein article"), given that it makes numerous references to my article in the 2013 Business Law News Issue 4, published last December (the "Sigman article," which I respectfully urge all readers to review). A response to the Rubenstein article is imperative. Space limitations require brevity.
The Sigman article did not advocate that California adopt Alternative B. It observed that Alternative B is vastly superior to Alternative A and that the State Bar UCC Committee (the "UCC Comm.")1 had unequivocally expressed its opposition to Alternative A when the question was presented as a choice between those two Alternatives. The Sigman article urged that the Legislature do nothing this year. It argued that what the Legislature did during 2013 produced the best outcome for California, so that no further legislative action was necessary: without more, a fine approach to the individual debtor’s name issue would go into effect on July 1, 2014.