The Experts below are selected from a list of 27912 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Susan Ariel Aaronson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Limited Partnership business government civil society and the public in the extractive industries transparency initiative eiti
    Public Administration and Development, 2011
    Co-Authors: Susan Ariel Aaronson
    Abstract:

    This article examines the context and impact of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI). I hyppothesize that EITI is not as effective as it could be because the governments, firms, and NGOs involved in EITI have very different visions of EITI. In EITI, firms are supposed to publish what they pay to extract resources, governments publish what they earn, and a multistakeholder group monitors and attempts to see if these figures can be reconciled. The group is supposed to push for the government to find this balance. Some governments have not allowed civil society to fully participate in the EITI process. In that regard it is a Limited Partnership. Civil society,as representatives of the public, can not act as an anticorruption counterweight.

  • Limited Partnership business government civil society and the public in the extractive industries transparency initiative eiti
    Public Administration and Development, 2011
    Co-Authors: Susan Ariel Aaronson
    Abstract:

    This article assesses the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), a public-private Partnership designed to help resource-rich countries avoid corruption in the management of extractive industry revenues. Thirty-two nations have adopted EITI, and the numbers of implementing nations are rapidly increasing. However, the EITI Partnership is not as effective as it could be for three reasons. First, the partners (governments, civil society, and business) have different visions of EITI. Second, some implementing governments have not allowed civil society to participate fully in the process or have not consistently provided civil society with the information they need to hold their governments to account. In this regard it is a Limited Partnership. Third, in many participating countries, the public and legislators may not be aware of EITI. Thus, although public participation is essential to the success and potential positive spillovers of EITI, the public is essentially a silent partner, limiting the ability of the EITI to succeed as a counterweight to corruption. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  • Limited Partnership business government civil society and the public in the extractive industry transparency initiative
    Social Science Research Network, 2010
    Co-Authors: Susan Ariel Aaronson
    Abstract:

    In this paper, I assess the EITI a multisectoral Partnership designed to help resource rich countries avoid corruption in the management of extractive industry revenues. I hypothesize that the EITI Partnership is not as effective as it could be for three reasons. First, the partners (governments, civil society, and business) have different visions of EITI. Second, some implementing governments have not allowed civil society to participate fully in the process or have not consistently provided civil society with the information they need to hold their governments to account. In this regard it is a Limited Partnership. Third, in many participating countries, the public and legislators may not be aware of EITI. Thus, although public participation is essential to the success and potential positive spillovers of EITI, the public is essentially a silent partner, limiting the ability of the EITI to succeed as a counterweight to corruption.

  • Limited Partnership business government civil society ngos and the public in the extractive industry transparency initiative eiti
    Research Papers in Economics, 2009
    Co-Authors: Susan Ariel Aaronson, Jennifer M Brinkerhoff
    Abstract:

    This article examines the context and impact of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI). I hyppothesize that EITI is not as effective as it could be because the governments, firms, and NGOs involved in EITI have very different visions of EITI. In EITI, firms are supposed to publish what they pay to extract resources, governments publish what they earn, and a multistakeholder group monitors and attempts to see if these figures can be reconciled. The group is supposed to push for the government to find this balance. Some governments have not allowed civil society to fully participate in the EITI process. In that regard it is a Limited Partnership. Civil society,as representatives of the public, can not act as an anticorruption counterweight.

Carter G. Bishop - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • closely held business symposium the uniform Limited Partnership act an introduction
    Social Science Research Network, 2009
    Co-Authors: Carter G. Bishop
    Abstract:

    The Uniform Limited Partnership Act (2001) (ULPA 2001) adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws is the first uniform Limited Partnership act to exist independently of general Partnership law, to set forth express Limited liability Limited Partnership provisions, and to provide a full corporate-styled liability shield for Limited partners regardless of the magnitude and scope of participation in the control of the business. This Symposium explores some of the critical components of that Act.

  • The Limited LIability Partnership Amendments to the Uniform Partnership Act (1994)
    2006
    Co-Authors: Carter G. Bishop
    Abstract:

    Since 1990, dissatisfaction with corporate tax and business laws, and Subchapter S tax restrictions, has fueled an unprecedented explosion of state laws. Those laws provide business owners important options to form Partnership organizations combining corporate-styled Limited liability with Partnership tax characteristics. Every state has adopted a Limited liability company (LLC) act. Every state but Vermont and Wyoming has adopted a Limited liability Partnership (LLP) act providing some form of liability shield to the partners of a general Partnership electing to have one. Those LLC and LLP acts, however, are far from uniform. The LLC acts are a confusing and inconsistent amalgam of corporate, general, and Limited Partnership law. The LLP acts generally amend the Uniform Partnership Act of 1914 (UPA), rather than the Uniform Partnership Act (1994) (UPA 1994), and vary widely in liability shield adoption procedures and the scope and durability of the shield. LLCs and LLPs are relatively new business forms. With time, practitioners will become more comfortable with their advantages and particularities. These forms also will become more prevalent as other laws recognize their structure. For example, only recently has the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released rules which automatically classify LLCs and LLPs formed after January 1, 1997 as Partnerships. These rules eliminate a lingering concern that these entities could be considered associations taxable as corporations for federal tax purposes. Adding to the growing body of law, the IRS also has released rules to determine when LLC and LLP business owners may avoid self-employment taxes on their distributive share of income, and how they may select a tax matters agent to represent the business entity in a tax audit. In an important effort to provide more uniformity, in 1996 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the Uniform Limited Liability Partnership Amendments (ULLPA) to the UPA 1994. By extending elective corporate-styled Limited liability into the UPA 1994, the ULLPA followed the approach of the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA). Both the ULLPA and the ULLCA provide business owners the opportunity to obtain both corporate-styled liability and Partnership tax status where profits are passed through the entity, and taxed only once, at the owner's level. For all purposes other than the specially created partner liability shield, an LLP is a general Partnership. Therefore, a discussion of the ULLPA's main features can be organized readily around the principal UPA 1994 amendment areas: elective creation and annual report provisions; partner liability shield provisions; and provisions to recognize LLPs formed under foreign law.

  • charging orders and the new uniform Limited Partnership act dispelling rumors of disaster
    Social Science Research Network, 2006
    Co-Authors: Daniel S Kleinberger, Carter G. Bishop, Thomas Geu
    Abstract:

    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, the rumors of disaster are unfounded, and ULPA (2001)'s provisions on charging orders are nothing to be feared. To support this calming assertion, this article will explain: (1) the history and purpose of the charging order remedy, (2) the consequences of charging order foreclosure (including the possibility of redemption), and, most importantly from a practical perspective, (3) the current state of the law governing charging orders, foreclosure, and Limited Partnerships. Like the November/December article, this article leaves aside the separate issues that arise when secured creditors exercise rights and remedies under UCC Article 9.

Daniel S Kleinberger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • charging orders and the new uniform Limited Partnership act dispelling rumors of disaster
    Social Science Research Network, 2006
    Co-Authors: Daniel S Kleinberger, Carter G. Bishop, Thomas Geu
    Abstract:

    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, the rumors of disaster are unfounded, and ULPA (2001)'s provisions on charging orders are nothing to be feared. To support this calming assertion, this article will explain: (1) the history and purpose of the charging order remedy, (2) the consequences of charging order foreclosure (including the possibility of redemption), and, most importantly from a practical perspective, (3) the current state of the law governing charging orders, foreclosure, and Limited Partnerships. Like the November/December article, this article leaves aside the separate issues that arise when secured creditors exercise rights and remedies under UCC Article 9.

  • a user s guide to the new uniform Limited Partnership act
    Social Science Research Network, 2005
    Co-Authors: Daniel S Kleinberger
    Abstract:

    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 Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA) was substantially amended just one year after its initial adoption, is less than a decade old, and is already subject to a NCCUSL drafting project that will propose a second generation, replacement LLC act. There are many explanations for the increasing pace of change, but with ULPA (2001) the principal explanation is simple: RUPA called into question the venerable linkage between the uniform Limited Partnership act and the uniform general Partnership act, thereby cutting the ground out from under RULPA. This article seeks to provide a user's guide to ULPA (2001), which is far longer and more complex than its immediate predecessor. The Introduction describes the genesis of ULPA (2001), and Part II explains briefly why states should adopt the new Act in place of RULPA. Part II describes the new Act's basic structure, identifies the various sources for the Act's provisions, explains how the Act's various articles relate to each other, and provides in tabular form an overview of the differences between the new Act and RULPA (1986). Part IV identifies eleven major areas of practical concern under the new Act, and for each of those areas: (i) compares the new Act's provisions in detail with the provisions of RULPA (and, where useful, with ULPA (1916)); and (ii) identifies salient issues (including some traps for the unwary and uninitiated) that warrant special attention from practitioners who will make use of the Act. Part V states a conclusion.

William D Terando - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Bahta, Muhammad Azhary - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • PENERAPAN PERATURAN MENTERI HUKUM DAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA NOMOR 17 TAHUN 2018 TENTANG PENDAFTARAN PERSEKUTUAN KOMANDITER (CV), PERSEKUTUAN FIRMA, DAN PERSEKUTUAN PERDATA DALAM MENJAMIN KEPASTIAN DAN PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM
    SIGNIFIKAN, 2021
    Co-Authors: Bahta, Muhammad Azhary
    Abstract:

     Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Nomor 17 Tahun 2018 mengatur bahwa pendaftaran Persekutuan Komanditer (CV), Persekutuan Firma, Persekutuan Perdata diajukan melalui Sistem Administrasi Badan Usaha (SABU). Maka Permenkumham tersebut telah mengesampingkan ketentuan Pasal 23  Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Dagang (KUHD), sehingga proses pendaftaran akta pendirian CV, Firma, dan Persekutuan Perdata tidak perlu diajukan lagi ke pengadilan negeri.Mengingat bahwa penelitian ini menggunakan jenis penelitian hukum dengan metode pendekatan yuridis empiris yaitu penelitian hukum yang berarti penelitian terhadap peraturan yang mengatur tentang pengangkatan anak dikaitkan dengan kenyataan. Sedangkan jenis data yang digunakan dalam skripsi ini menggunakan jenis data yang bersifat kualitatif.Dengan diberlakukannya Permenkumham No. 17 Tahun 2018 ini maka pendaftaran CV menjadi lebih mudah dan lebih teratur. Dalam rangka percepatan dan peningkatan penanaman modal dan berusaha, perlu menerapkan pelayanan Perizinan Berusaha terintegrasi secara elektronik, maka yang harus dipenuhi dalam penerapan aturan tersebut adalah bagainmana mempercepat dan memudahkan proses pendaftaran prsekutuan. Hal yang sejauh ini sering terjadi sejak penerapan sistem pendaftaran yang terintegrasi melalui SABU adalah server yang down karena banyak yang mengakses, dan biasanya, kejadian tersebut terjadi lantaran kapasitas server yang tidak diperbaharui.Kata Kunci: Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Ham Nomor 17 Tahun 2018, Pendaftaran, Persekutuan, SABU Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2018 regulates the registration of Limited Partnership (CV), firm association, civil Partnership filed through the Sistem Administrasi Badan Usaha (SABU). So the Regulation has overridden the provisions of Article 23 of the Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Dagang (KUHD), so that the registration process for the deed of establishment of CV, Firma, and Civil Alliance does not need to be submitted again to the district court.Keyword: Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Number 17 of 2018, Registration, Partnership, SAB