Don Grandi — Don Grandi is introduced as an attorney from North Dakota who has helped introduce similar bills in other states. He then introduces himself as an attorney in private practice and a partner in True North Public Policy, explaining that the firm focuses on property rights issues across the country and works with state legislators on this type of bill.
David Webb — Referenced as the author of The Great Taking, with the speaker distinguishing his own argument from Webb's.
Mr. Grady — Mr. Grady responds to the committee’s question about why current law would not be adequate in the event of a future crash, and continues by illustrating his point with an example from the 2007–2008 housing crisis, referencing Lehman Brothers and J.P. Morgan Chase.
Mr. Grady — Explained that there is an investor protection entity for securities holders.
Mr. Grady — Identified SIPC and explained its purpose as protecting investors from loss of securities due to broker misfeasance.
Mr. Grady — Explained that the described situation is a margin account and that the investor authorizes the broker to use stock as collateral.
Mr. Grady — Clarified that margin-account securities are authorized collateral and said the statute covers everything else.
Mr. Grady — Pointed to Article 8, Section 5 and said brokers and custodians must maintain sufficient unencumbered assets.
Mr. Grady — Explained that if investor assets are pledged and the intermediary fails, 8-511B gives the bank priority; also said the bill is well drafted.
Mr. Grady — Explained the drafting history, including removal of 'or margin accounts' from an earlier draft and the role of priority clauses.
Mr. Grady — Said brokers and custodians must maintain sufficient unencumbered assets to satisfy entitlement holders.
Mr. Grady — Said the bill is well drafted and covers the relevant situations.
Mr. Grady — Explained that the bill was drafted carefully, and that an earlier draft included 'or margin accounts' language that was removed.
Mr. Grady — Explained that jurisdiction and choice of law are addressed in two sections and that the Article 9 reference was removed for conformity.
Mr. Grady — Mr. Grady explains that the bill would apply to larger intermediaries, including those based in New York.
Mr. Grady — Mr. Grady says the bill would apply to larger intermediaries based in New York, Delaware, or Belgium, and points to language about certificates.
Mr. Grady — Mr. Grady explains that the cited language applies to a separate type of transaction under Article 9.
Mr. Grady — Mr. Grady distinguishes the debtor in Article 9 from the securities intermediary referenced elsewhere in the bill.
Mr. Grady — Mr. Grady says the referenced section has never been invoked under UCC Article 8 and explains Article 9 was added for conformity.
Mr. Grady — Representative Birch thanks Mr. Grady for being present.
Mr. Grady — Representative Birch thanks Mr. Grady for being present.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman is referenced during a single committee exchange, first being addressed as Mr. Chairman and then appearing in the back-and-forth with Mr. Grady, with the discussion continuing seamlessly in the same immediate context.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman is repeatedly addressed as 'Mr. Chairman' during a continuous segment of the meeting, reflecting ongoing procedural exchange rather than distinct substantive discussion.
Jordan Redman — Chairman Redman is referenced during the roll call and procedural discussion, then addresses the committee to take up a motion to hold a bill in committee at the call of the chair before moving on to the next bill.
Jordan Redman — Explained that extending notice from 30 to 60 days has not shown problems and argued insurers usually know in advance when leaving a market.
Jordan Redman — Continued explaining that insurers are profitable and the bill simply extends the notice runway.
Jordan Redman — Agreed to the proposed effective-date change.
Jordan Redman — Confirmed he was fine with the proposed date change and then the committee moved to public testimony and questions.
Jordan Redman — Responded that a good politician might claim the bill improved service, but he could not say it necessarily did; he said the prior law preserved best practices and reasonable compliance.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman is addressed as Mr. Chair during the exchange, and the speaker indicates that the question would be better directed to Mr. Gifford when he returns, deferring the substantive response.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman addresses the chair during a continuous procedural discussion about the bill, arguing that it should not be allowed to die, asking whether the committee would be willing to let the test requirement take effect in a year while still moving the bill forward, and then returning to the motion and procedure before the committee.
Kyle Harris — Kyle Harris questioned the bill’s practical effects and novelty, asking whether enactment would require stockbrokers to rewrite existing sales contracts and how many other states had seen or passed similar legislation.
Kyle Harris — Representative Harris votes yes.
Kyle Harris — Referenced as having asked about the 30-day issue when the bill was introduced.
Kyle Harris — Representative Harris expressed support for the legislation and asked how many third-party inspectors are currently operating in the state. In response, it was noted that at least three different third-party inspection companies had been spoken with, answering Harris’s question about the current landscape.
Kyle Harris — Representative Kyle Harris thanks Mr. Gifford for his service and asks how many chaplains would be immediately affected by the bill; shortly after, another speaker echoes Harris in reference to that same question.
Kyle Harris — Kyle Harris questioned the comparison between the MDiv and MA paths, noting that the MDiv appears to require more hours and asking whether the comparison is truly apples-to-apples once additional military training, captain’s training, and chaplain procedures are taken into account.
Kyle Harris — Representative Kyle Harris is called on and immediately states that he wants to speak to the original motion for a due pass before addressing General Orders or amendments.
Vito Barbieri — Asked how an individual can own stock yet not own it, and how securitization can be controlled by a clearinghouse.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri expresses support for the bill, argues the discussion has focused too much on existing UCC language, makes an amended motion to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation, and later votes yes.
Vito Barbieri — Asked whether the bill would supersede existing 30-day notice provisions in contracts.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri asked whether the prior bill had improved service, and the witness later referred back to his question in the ongoing discussion of the bill's impact.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri questions Mr. Gifford about whether chaplain training is sufficient to address suicide counseling concerns, referencing a conversation with a Boise psychologist and noting the high suicide rate in the state. He asks whether the training would be adequate to handle such counseling needs.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri is briefly referenced in connection with a discussion about increasing suicides and suicide counseling.
Jeff Ehlers — Addressed as Representative Ehlers before he responds.
Jeff Ehlers — Questioned whether the bill applies broadly or only to rare collateralized situations.
Jeff Ehlers — Asked whether his understanding of the bill was correct.
Jeff Ehlers — Continues questioning the interpretation of the bill.
Jeff Ehlers — Argued that the bill appears limited to collateralized investments and asked for the specific language.
Jeff Ehlers — Continued to argue that the bill is limited to a specific UCC subsection and collateralized cases.