BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                             Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
                              2011-2012 Regular Session


          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          As Amended April 17, 2012
          Hearing Date: April 24, 2012
          Fiscal: Yes
          Urgency: No
          RD:rm
                    

                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                    Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund

                                      DESCRIPTION  

          Existing law creates the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation 
          Fund and requires that the Secretary of State (SOS) adopt 
          regulations regarding the administration of the Fund and the 
          eligibility of victims to receive compensation from the Fund.  

          This bill would codify the process and requirements for an 
          aggrieved person who obtained a final judgment in a court of 
          competent jurisdiction, as specified, against a corporation for 
          fraud and who diligently attempted to recover the judgment from 
          the corporation, to file an application with the SOS for payment 
          from the Fund for the amount unpaid on the judgment for up to 
          $50,000 with respect to any one claimant per any single 
          judgment, as specified. The bill would allow a claimant whose 
          application for compensation from the Fund is denied by the SOS 
          to petition a court, as specified.  This bill would make it a 
          public offense punishable by imprisonment and fine, as 
          specified, to provide any specified information to the SOS that 
          is false or untrue or contains any willful, material 
          misstatement of fact.  This bill would also allow the SOS to 
          recover money paid to a successful claimant from the corporation 
          and to suspend the corporation, as specified.  Additionally, the 
          bill would allow the SOS to prescribe regulations in furtherance 
          of statutory requirements.  

          This bill would only apply to those applications filed on or 
          after January 1, 2013.  

                                                                (more)



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 2 of ?



          (This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in 
          Committee.)
                                           
                                     BACKGROUND  

          AB 55 (Shelley, Ch. 1015, Stats. 2002), was enacted as part of 
          the 2002 California Corporate Reform Package, a series of 
          measures designed to strengthen the state's corporate 
          accountability laws.  The bill, among other things, created the 
          Victim of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund (hereinafter 
          "VCFCF," or "Fund") within the State Treasury, for the sole 
          purpose of providing restitution to the victims of corporate 
          fraud.  The bill also set the SOS in charge of administering the 
          Fund and adopting regulations regarding the administration of 
          the Fund and eligibility of victims to receive compensation. 

          In October of 2011, a Sacramento Bee article highlighted that 
          this Fund was not doing what it was created to do-compensate 
          victims of corporate fraud. (Dan Morain, Fraud victims fund is a 
          travesty, 
           ÝOctober 9, 2011].)  

          In the near decade since its creation, over $14 million has been 
          collected, and approximately 770 claims have been made to 
          receive compensation from the Fund.  Documentation from the SOS 
          reports that the Fund collects approximately $1.5 million a year 
          from the $2.50 it receives of a $5 fee for statement filings by 
          both out-of-state and in-state corporations.  As part of the 
          2010-2011 state budget, the Legislature and Governor borrowed 
          $10 million from the Fund which must be repaid with interest 
          when the need arises to pay claims out of the Fund.  Including 
          that $10 million (which has not yet been repaid), as of April 4, 
          2012, the total amount in the Fund was $14,961,469.  The 
          remaining claims likely to be paid this fiscal year reportedly 
          total $2.6 million.  Existing regulations limit awards at 
          $20,000-thus, if a claimant has an outstanding judgment for 
          $40,000, assuming his or her application is approved, he or she 
          can only be awarded up to $20,000.  Under these conditions, the 
          average claim paid thus far is $11,535.

          The VCFCF is administered by regulations that were adopted prior 
          to the current SOS taking office and that were originally 
          modeled on the Department of Real Estate's (DRE) Real Estate 
          Recovery Program, which is a fund of last resort for victims of 
          fraud committed by real estate licensees.  (Bus. & Prof. Code 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 3 of ?



          Sec. 10470 et seq.).  This bill was introduced to address the 
          problems with the current regulations, and new regulations were 
          submitted to the Office of Administrative Law by the SOS on 
          April 3, 2012.  Both again appear modeled substantially on the 
          updated DRE statutory provisions, with modifications as 
          appropriate for this Fund.  

          This bill would codify much of the administration and 
          requirements of this program, while still allowing for the SOS 
          to promulgate regulations in furtherance of the statutory 
          requirements.  In doing so, the bill increases the overall limit 
          that may be recovered by a claimant for a single judgment to 
          $50,000 from $20,000.  The bill, among other things, also would 
          specify the types of documentation and information that has to 
          be provided to the SOS in making a claim for compensation, 
          provides for general notice requirements, allows a claimant to 
          petition a court upon denial of their application by the SOS, 
          allows the SOS to attempt to get reimbursement from the 
          corporation and suspend a corporation, as specified, and allows 
          the SOS to make regulations in furtherance of the statutory 
          requirements.  The bill would not apply to applications filed 
          with the SOS prior to January 1, 2013. 
                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing law  establishes the Victims of Corporate Fraud 
          Compensation Fund in the State Treasury and requires it to be 
          administered by the SOS.  Existing law requires that the SOS 
          adopt regulations regarding the administration of the Fund and 
          the eligibility of victims to receive compensation from the 
          Fund, and specifies that the money in the Fund shall be used for 
          the sole purpose of providing restitution to the victims of a 
          corporate fraud.  (Corp. Code Sec. 1502.5; see SOS regulations, 
          Cal. Code Regs., tit.2, div. 7, ch.12, Sec. 22500.).)

           Existing law  requires foreign and domestic corporations to pay a 
          $5 disclosure fee when filing specified statements with the SOS, 
          one-half of which must be deposited into the VCFCF.  (Corp. Code 
          Secs. 1502, 2117.)  

           Existing law  , the Corporations Code, defines person to include a 
          corporation as well as a natural person.  (Corp. Code Sec. 18.)  


           This bill  would reestablish the VCFCF and would codify statutory 
          requirements for both the administration of the Fund and for the 
          eligibility of victims to receive compensation from the Fund, 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 4 of ?



          under a new Chapter 22.5 (commencing with Section 2280) of 
          Division 1 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code.  
          
           This bill  would provide that an aggrieved person who obtains a 
          final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction, as 
          specified, against a corporation for fraud, misrepresentation, 
          or deceit, made with the intent to defraud, and who diligently 
          attempted to recover the judgment from the corporation, may file 
          an application with the SOS for payment from the Fund for the 
          amount unpaid on the judgment, as specified. 

           This bill  would increase the maximum amount that any one 
          claimant could recover for any single judgment that otherwise 
          meets the requirements for compensation from the Fund, from 
          $20,000 to $50,000.

           This bill  would provide various definitions for the purposes of 
          the VCFCF, including, among other things that: 
           claimant means an aggrieved person who resides in the state at 
            the time of the fraud and who submits an application pursuant 
            to this chapter;                   
           corporation means a domestic corporation, as defined, or a 
            foreign corporation that is qualified to transact business in 
            California, as specified;
           court of competent jurisdiction is a superior court of any 
            state, or a United States district court or United States 
            bankruptcy court; and
           "final judgment" is a judgment, arbitration award, or criminal 
            restitution order for which appeals have been exhausted or for 
            which the period for appeal has expired, enforcement of which 
            is not barred by the order of any court or by any statutory 
            provision, which has not been nullified or rendered void by 
            any court order or statutory provision, or for which the 
            claimant has not otherwise been fully reimbursed.   

           This bill  would also specify the information and documentation 
          required to be provided in an application, and allow for other 
          relevant documents as appropriate, including, among other 
          things:
           the claimant must provide the SOS with a copy of the final 
            judgment, underlying civil complaint and any amendments 
            thereto, for a finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit, 
            made with the intent to defraud, and may also provide other 
            relevant documentation; and 
           the claimant must provide the SOS with a description of 
            searches and inquiries conducted by or on behalf of the 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 5 of ?



            claimant with respect to the corporation's assets liable to be 
            sold or applied to satisfaction of the judgment, except that a 
            court's determination or finding of the corporation's 
            insolvency or lack of assets to pay the claimant shall be 
            deemed to satisfy this requirement. 

           This bill  would require the claimant to make specific 
          declarations, including among other things, that he or she: 
           is not a spouse  or an immediate family member of an employee, 
            officer, director, managing agent, or other principal of the 
            corporation nor a personal representative, of the spouse or an 
            immediate family member of an employee, officer, director, 
            managing agent, or other principal of the corporation; 
           has complied with specified requirements; and 
           does not have a pending claim and has not collected on the 
            final judgment from any other restitution fund, or if the 
            claimant has a pending claim or has collected from another 
            fund, include a description of the nature of the pending claim 
            and the recovery amounts from any restitution fund.

           This bill  would provide certain timelines by which the SOS, 
          claimant, and corporation must provide specified responses, 
          including, among other things: 
           the SOS must mail to the claimant an itemized list of 
            deficiencies, if any, of the claimant's application within 21 
            days if for a single claimant, or 40 days for multiple 
            claimants; and 
           the SOS must render a decision on the application within 90 
            calendar days after receiving a completed application. 

           This bill  would require the SOS to provide notice, as prescribed 
          by the SOS, to the corporation and claimant with respect to an 
          application made, for specified purposes, including, among other 
          things: 
           if after 30 calendar days the SOS has not received a response 
            to the latest list of deficiencies, the SOS shall notify the 
            claimant that unless the claimant responds to the deficiencies 
            within a specified period of time of not less than 15 calendar 
            days, that the application will be denied; and
           upon issuance of a proposed decision to award payment or an 
            offer to compromise, the claimant shall have 60 calendar days 
            from the date of service of the proposed award or offer to 
            compromise to accept the proposed award or offer to 
            compromise, and if the claimant fails to accept the proposed 
            award or offer to compromise within the specified time, the 
            application shall be deemed denied.
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 6 of ?




           This bill  would provide that if, at any time, the money 
          deposited in the Fund is insufficient to satisfy any duly 
          authorized award or offer of settlement, the SOS shall, when 
          sufficient money has been deposited in the Fund, satisfy the 
          unpaid awards or offer of settlement, in the order that the 
          awards or offers of settlement were originally filed, plus 
          accumulated interest at the rate of 4 percent per year.

           This bill  would permit a claimant whose application for 
          compensation from the Fund is denied by the SOS to petition a 
          court, as specified, for de novo review of the merits of the 
          application based on the administrative record. This bill would, 
          among other things, provide that the burden is on the claimant 
          to prove that the cause of action against the corporation was 
          for fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit, if final judgment in 
          the underlying action in favor of the petitioner was by default, 
          stipulation, consent or pursuant to Section 594 of the Code of 
          Civil Procedure, or if the action against the corporation was 
          defended by a trustee in bankruptcy.

           This bill  would make it unlawful for any person or the agent of 
          any person to file with the SOS any notice, statement, or other 
          document required under the provisions of this chapter that is 
          false or untrue or contains any willful, material misstatement 
          of fact. This bill would specify that such conduct shall 
          constitute a public offense punishable by imprisonment and fine, 
          as specified. 

           This bill  would permit the SOS to attempt to recover the amount 
          paid to a successful claimant from the corporation and suspend 
          that corporation, as specified.  This bill would require that 
          any sums received by the SOS pursuant to these provisions be 
          deposited in the State Treasury and credited to the Fund.

           This bill  would require that the SOS adopt regulations in 
          furtherance of the administration of the VCFCF. 

                                        COMMENT
           
          1.    Stated need for the bill  

          According to the author:

            During the horrendous display of corporate malfeasance of 
            Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and others, the California Legislature 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 7 of ?



            in 2002 enacted a group of reforms known as the California 
            Corporate Reform Package.  The Victims of the Corporate Fraud 
            Compensation Fund (Fund) was created to protect restitution 
            recovery for victims of corporate fraud as a last resort. 

            To qualify for restitution from the Fund, the victim must have 
            been unable to collect on their court judgment or criminal 
            restitution order against a California corporation.  The court 
            judgment or criminal restitution order must not be more than 
            18 months old and be based on a corporation's fraud, 
            misrepresentation, or deceit, made with the intent to defraud. 
             The victim is eligible to recover the actual out-of-pocket 
            losses up to $20,000 from the Fund.

            The Fund is funded through a $2.50 fee on annual corporate 
            disclosure documents administered by the Secretary of State.  
            About $1.5 million per year is generated by these disclosure 
            fees to provide victims with restitution.  Since its 
            inception, the Fund has collected at least $14.5 million and 
            as of January 1, 2012 the Fund has paid out only seven 
            victims' claims worth $112,496,60.  Meanwhile the Fund has 
            received 713 claims for request of payment.  Thus, the Fund 
            has distributed less than  of 1 percent of its total funds in 
            the first eight years of operation.  

            As of January 30, 2012, the Fund has about $4.98 million 
            available for victims.  As part of the 2010-11 state budget, 
            the Legislature and the Governor borrowed $10 million from the 
            Fund as a loan to be repaid with interest, when the need 
            arises to pay claims out of the Fund.  Ultimately, the Fund's 
            regulations are so burdensome that they require the Secretary 
            of State's staff to re-litigate cases where the corporations 
            have already been held liable by a court for corporate fraud 
            against the victims.  This often delays payments of 
            compensation and only continues to victimize the exact people 
            whom the Fund was created to benefit.  Additionally, the 
            numerous and onerous requests cause most victims to seek out 
            an attorney just to file for compensation.  This is evident 
            when over 30 claims were withdrawn by the victims and another 
            3 were nonresponsive. 

            Streamlining the Fund's procedures will ensure a timelier 
            payout of restitution to victims. . . . SB 1058 takes the 
            overall structure of the Fund, as established currently in 
            regulations, and removes those portions that are unnecessary 
            or burdensome to launch a newly constructed Victims of 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 8 of ?



            Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund in statute. 

          2.    Summary of most recent amendments and author's amendments  

          The most recent amendments to the bill reflect considerable 
          discussions between the author and the SOS, to strike a balance 
          between codifying the necessary elements of an application to 
          receive compensation from the Fund and allowing for regulations 
          to be promulgated as needed to execute those statutory 
          requirements, while also protecting against fraudulent claims 
          made against the Fund.  These amendments were made to address, 
          among other things: 
           issues of documentation (to prevent re-litigation of issues 
            and burdensome or unclear requirements for claimants who are 
            not necessarily represented by counsel, while providing the 
            SOS the information it needs to ensure the underlying judgment 
            was for fraud and determine the amount and breakdown of the 
            unfulfilled portion of the judgment);
           "burden flipping" for specified types of judgments (requiring 
            that a claimant show fraud, misrepresentation or deceit was 
            perpetrated against them, when the final judgment is not the 
            result of a fully litigated claim, but default, stipulated, 
            consent, or bankruptcy judgment instead);
           recoverable damages (whether only out of pocket damages should 
            be considered, or other damages as well);
           "double dipping" (by a claimant who has filed the same 
            judgment with different restitution funds provided for by the 
            government);
           suspension authority (giving the SOS the authority to suspend 
            a corporation from doing business in California once an award 
            has been made, and providing for related notice requirements);
           necessary notice requirements (to determine when notice is 
            required and by whom); and 
           timeframes for responses (to balance the interests of the 
            claimants against the interests related to expedient review of 
            applications and preservation of staff and Fund resources when 
            a claimant is unresponsive).

          The author's amendments would make both technical and clarifying 
          amendments to better achieve many of the goals and objectives 
          that were the concern of prior amendments, remove redundancies, 
          and streamline requirements to make them easier to understand by 
          victims.  

          As described further below, there are two issues that remain 
          unresolved:  (1) the types of judgments upon which a valid claim 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 9 of ?



          may be made to receive compensation from this Fund, and (2) the 
          interest rate, if any, that is appropriate to accrue when the 
          Fund has depleted and approved awards or settlements of offers 
          remain unsatisfied. 

          3.    Out-of-state judgments  

          This bill currently provides that a "court of competent 
          jurisdiction" is a superior court of any state, or a U.S 
          district court, or U.S. bankruptcy court.  Only judgments from 
          these courts may be used as the basis of an application for 
          compensation from the Fund. The SOS has indicated that it 
          prefers that superior courts should be limited to those in the 
          State of California.  Section 10471(a) of the Business and 
          Professions Code, for the purposes of the DRE recovery Fund, 
          provides that court of competent jurisdiction includes the 
          federal courts, but does not include the courts of another 
          state.  

          The SOS writes: 

            ÝA requirement that a judgment issued by any court - not just 
            a California court - is sufficient to qualify a claimant to 
            receive an award from the Fund] will increase the number and 
            complexity of claims filed against the Fund exponentially.  
            Under DRE's Consumer Recovery Fund, DRE limits the judgments 
            to California judgments, as do the current and proposed 
            regulations governing the VCFCF.  Furthermore, the DRE 
            licenses brokers and agents to do business in California.  By 
            contrast, the ÝSOS] office merely accepts the registration of 
            a corporation (California based) or foreign corporation 
            (non-California based) without any licensing requirement.  
            Equally important, under the DRE statutes and regulations, it 
            is easier to determine that the fraud occurred in California - 
            regardless of where the court judgment was received - because 
            any judgment has to involve the proposed sale or purchase of a 
            piece of property in California.  Under SB 1058, it will be 
            very difficult, if not impossible, to determine where the 
            fraud took place - the only required connection to California 
            is that the corporation is registered in the state and that at 
            the time of the fraud the claimant was a resident of 
            California.  It does not mean the fraud took place in 
            California or that the claimant is a resident of California 
            when applying to the Fund.  

          Because the purpose of this Fund is to assist victims of 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 10 of ?



          corporate fraud in the State of California, limiting the 
          recovery from this Fund to those victims who not only resided in 
          California at the time of the fraud, but can also present a 
          final judgment from a court that sits in this state and applied 
          the laws of this state appears justified.  Limiting the 
          judgments that can be used to obtain recovery from this Fund as 
          such would better ensure that the underlying fraudulent act took 
          place in California by a domestic corporation or a foreign 
          corporation that reached into this state in committing the 
          fraudulent act.  

          Moreover, it would likely be unsustainable to allow for the use 
                                                                                         of final judgments from any court across the nation to obtain 
          compensation from a fund with a relatively limited source of 
          funding.  Public policy supports preserving funds for those 
          victims in California who were defrauded by a California 
          corporation or by a foreign corporation that reached into the 
          state to defraud Californians.  The following amendment would 
          achieve this goal.

             Suggested amendment: 

             On page 7, strike lines 4 - 6 and insert "(e) "Court of 
            competent jurisdiction" means a state or federal court 
            situated in California and applying California law."

          4.    Interest rate accrual
           
          The bill currently provides that if, at any time, the money 
          deposited in the Fund is insufficient to satisfy an approved 
          award or offer of settlement, the SOS must then pay the claimant 
          an additional four percent interest per year added to the 
          original award, or offer once the Fund is replenished.   Because 
          the bill also requires that the SOS satisfy the unpaid awards or 
          offer of settlement in the order that the awards or offers of 
          settlement were originally filed, later awards or offers of 
          settlement cannot be paid until earlier claims and offers have 
          been satisfied. 

          The author of this bill has in large part modeled the bill's 
          provisions after the Department of Real Estate's (DRE) Consumer 
          Recovery Account, which currently provides for four percent 
          interest under these same circumstances.  The office of the SOS 
          raised the concern that while that the "DRE has the ability to 
          transfer money from a related account and to administratively 
          raise licensing fees if the balance in the fund falls below a 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 11 of ?



          certain level" and can therefore afford to provide a four 
          percent interest rate, the VCFCF would be unable to sustain such 
          accrual of interest.  Committee staff also notes that the 
          amounts that the DRE can collect for their fund is currently set 
          at $4 and $7, depending on the type of licensee paying the fee, 
          whereas the SOS only receives $2.50 per disclosure fee paid by a 
          corporation at the time that the corporation files its statement 
          with the SOS.   (See Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 10470.)  

          The SOS also writes, "Ýi]t's important to understand that the 
          sole reason a claimant's approved claim won't be paid under the 
          proposed regulations and under this bill is because there is no 
          money in the fund.  Therefore, the money is not sitting in an 
          account earning interest for the fund at the expense of the 
          claimant.  Furthermore, even if that were the case, setting a 4% 
          interest rate in statute when the State Treasurer's Pooled Money 
          Investment Account interest rate - the rate that state funds 
          earn interest at - is 0.383% will likely reduce the ability to 
          pay the claims of future victims in a timely fashion."

          Arguably, however, where a decision has been made that a 
          claimant has met the requirements to receive compensation from 
          the VCFCF, and the VCFCF does not have sufficient funds to 
          satisfy the award or offer of settlement, the provision of some 
          interest does appear appropriate.  This is especially the case 
          where existing law would otherwise permit a judgment rendered in 
          this state to accrue interest at the rate of not more than 10 
          percent per annum, or in the alternative, allow for the rate to 
          be variable and based upon interest rates charged by federal 
          agencies or economic indicators, or both.  In the absence of a 
          rate set by the Legislature, the rate is to be seven percent.  
          (Cal. Const. art. 15, Sec. 1.)  Under Section 685.010 of the 
          Code of Civil Procedure, the Legislature requires that interest 
          accrue at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the principal 
          amount of a money judgment that remains unsatisfied. 

          With the underlying purpose of the Fund being to help make whole 
          as many victims of corporate fraud as possible, to a reasonable 
          degree, public policy would favor a lower interest rate that is 
          sustainable to the Fund.  In other words, it would be to the 
          detriment of other victims to cause further depletion of the 
          Fund at a rate that outpaces the fees going into the Fund.  At 
          the same time, once an award is made or settlement is agreed 
          upon to compensate a victim from the Fund, a victim is arguably 
          harmed further by not having the award or settlement satisfied 
          immediately.  This is especially the case when the victim has 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 12 of ?



          been defrauded out of their life savings and the award or 
          settlement is their only remaining lifeline to recovery.   

          In order to achieve a balance between competing interests and 
          concerns, as stated above, the following amendment is suggested. 


             Suggested amendment: 
           
            On page 16, line 13, strike "4 percent per year" and insert 
            "at the rate set by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 
            on advances made to member banks under Sections 13 and 13a of 
            the Federal Reserve Act, at time of the award or settlement 
            offer, not to exceed 2 percent per year."

          5.    Declarations regarding spouses and immediate family members  
           

           This bill, in its current form, would provide that the claimant 
          must make specific declarations in his or her application, 
          including among other things, that he or she is not a spouse or 
          an immediate family member of an employee, officer, director, 
          managing agent, or other principal of the corporation, nor a 
          personal representative of the spouse or an immediate family 
          member of an employee, officer, director, managing agent, or 
          other principal of the corporation.   

          Committee staff notes that the situation could feasibly arise 
          where an elderly mother or father is targeted for fraud by an 
          adult child who falls under this description, thereby rendering 
          the victim unable to be compensated by the Fund upon making this 
          declaration.  Presumably, the concern addressed by this 
          declaration is that there could potentially have been collusion 
          between the "victim" and the corporation where such 
          relationships exist.  However, whether or not there was 
          collusion or actual fraud in these scenarios should be an issue 
          determined by a court in an underlying judgment (assuming that 
          the judgment is a result of a fully litigated case and not a 
          default judgment where the corporation does not show up to 
          court).  Thus, where full litigation of the issues results in a 
          finding that the claimant was, in fact, defrauded, compensation 
          from the Fund would arguably be appropriate even where such a 
          relationship exists between the claimant and the corporation.  
          Where the judgment is not the result of a fully litigated claim, 
          but the claimant can otherwise demonstrate that he or she was 
          the victim of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit, with the 
                                                                      



          SB 1058 (Lieu)
          Page 13 of ?



          intent to defraud, the existence of the relationship should also 
          not preclude an award for an otherwise valid application.  The 
          following amendment addresses this concern. 

             Suggested amendment:

             On page 10, after line 23, insert "(e) If a claimant is a 
            spouse or an immediate family member of an employee, officer, 
            director, managing director or other principal of the 
            corporation, or is a personal representative of the spouse or 
            an immediate family member of an employee, officer, director, 
            managing agent, or other principal of the corporation, the 
            claimant shall not be precluded for that reason alone from 
            receiving an award where the claimant can otherwise meet the 
            requirements of this section." 
             
             On page 10, line 24, strike "(e)" and insert "(f)"
             

          Support  :  None Known

           Opposition  :  None Known

                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  Author

           Related Pending Legislation  :  None Known

           Prior Legislation  :  AB 55 (Shelley, Ch. 1015, Stats. 2002), See 
          Background. 

           Prior Vote  :  Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee 
          (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

                                   **************