Charging Orders and the New Uniform Limited Partnership Act Dispelling Rumors of Disaster
Daniel S. Kleinberger
William Mitchell College of Law
Carter G. Bishop
Suffolk University Law School
University of South Dakota Law School
Probate and Property, Vol. 18, July/August 2004
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.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 6
Keywords: charging order, limited liability company, LLC, partnership, corporation, taxationAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: September 17, 2006
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.454 seconds