H.R. 2443, the Equitable Escheatment Act of 1993: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Supervision, Regulation, and Deposit Insurance of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session, March 22, 1994, Volume 4 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
abandoned property Attorney beneficial owner bill broker brokerage firms California CASTLE Chairman NEAL claims clearing firms Committee companies Congress constitutional contingency fee corporation CUSIP customers databases decision Delaware and Massachusetts depositories disgorge dividend dividends and interest due process EASLEY enacted Equitable Escheatment Act escheat laws escheated funds fair February 16 federal final judgment financial institutions financial intermediaries firms and banks Governor CARPER Governor RICHARDS headquartered hearing incorporated interest payments issue issuer Judge Gibbons KOPPELL Law Firm LAW REVIEW legislation litigation located March 22 Massachusetts Merrill Lynch million Missouri money order municipal bonds negotiations North Carolina owed owner-unknown paid Pennsylvania percent primary rule principal executive offices question received retroactive Sanford Levinson SCHUMER securities industry Senator HUTCHISON Special Master statement statute Supreme Court talking taxpayers Texas Thank Treasurer U.S. Supreme Court unclaimed distributions unclaimed dividends unclaimed securities distributions unconstitutional unfair unknown Washington York and Delaware
Popular passages
Page 136 - The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr. Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate...
Page 326 - Federal regulation of future action based upon rights previously acquired by the person regulated is not prohibited by the Constitution. So long as the Constitution authorizes the subsequently enacted legislation, the fact that its provisions limit or interfere with previously acquired rights does not condemn it. Immunity from federal regulation is not gained through forehanded contracts. Were it otherwise the paramount powers of Congress could be nullified by 'prophetic discernment' The rights acquired...
Page 235 - Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States l Hon.
Page 220 - ... minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum State. The concept of minimum contacts, in turn, can be seen to perform two related, but distinguishable, functions. It protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it acts to ensure that the States through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system.
Page 229 - While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress
Page 187 - In witness whereof, the parties have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written.
Page 124 - Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify on my bill, HK 1-2438, the Horse Protection Act.
Page 234 - ... that it was deprived of any right to participate in the national political process or that it was singled out in a way that left it politically isolated and powerless...
Page 4 - I am not a member of this subcommittee. I am a member of the full committee.
Page 253 - The Honorable Thomas S. Foley Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker: This report is in response to Section 213 (c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended.