►
From YouTube: 2/22/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
E
A
All
right,
thank
you,
and
we
have
several
members
of
our
staff
with
us
here
today.
Mr
guyan,
could
you
please
put
those
on
the
record.
C
A
Thank
you
so
much.
We
are
going
to
open
today's
hearing
on
sb
95.
A
This
is
a
bill
from
senator
orrin
shaw
and
I
believe
we
have
robert
kim
albert
kovacs
and
mackenzie
warren
with
us
to
present
the
bill.
Please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
D
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
Thank
you
for
hearing
senate
bill
95.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
committee,
for
the
record.
My
name
is
james
orenshaw.
I
represent
state
senate
district
21,
that's
parts
of
henderson,
an
unincorporated
clark
county
and
today
I'd
like
to
direct
the
committee's
attention
to
a
mock-up
that
was
prepared
by
the
legal
division.
At
my
request
that
mock-up
I
emailed
to
all
the
members
I
think
within
the
last
hour,
and
it
should
be
posted
on
nellis.
D
So
I'd
ask
chair,
tribal
and
members
of
the
committee
to
refer
to
proposed
amendment
3113
the
senate
bill
95
mock-up,
that
is
on
nellis
and
should
be
in
all
the
members
in
boxes,
rather
than
the
original
version
of
the
bill.
D
I've
been
very
lucky
during
the
interim
to
work
with
the
executive
committee
of
the
state
bar
of
nevada
business
law,
section
ms
warren,
mr
kim,
mr
kovacs,
on
this
legislation.
I
believe
this
legislation
clarifies
many
points
in
nevada
laws
that
affects
business
entities
and
I
believe
that
it
would
be
a
positive
change.
The
mock-up
does
represent
a
lot
of
discussions
with
different
stakeholders
and
attempts
to
address
any
concerns
and
reach
compromise
with
that
chair
scheible.
D
With
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
turn
this
over
to
attorney
mackenzie
warren
in
las
vegas
and
mr
kim
and
mr
kovacs,
then
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
after
their
presentation.
If
that's
all
right
with
you
chair.
F
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
distinguished
members
of
senate
judiciary,
mackenzie
warren
with
mcdonald
carano
on
behalf
of
the
business
law
section
of
the
state
bar.
We
want
to
thank
senator
oran
shaw
for
sponsoring
this,
especially
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
lcb
legal,
mr
anthony,
who
worked
with
us
feverishly
through
the
weekend
to
prepare
the
mock-up.
F
This
is
a
highly
technical
area
of
the
law
and
we
appreciate
the
lcb's
due
diligence
and
legal
and
helping
us
get
this
right
before.
I
turn
it
over
to
rob
kim
to
walk
us
through
the
mechanics
of
the
bill,
a
bit
about
the
business
law
section
and
please
do
save
your
hard-hitting
questions.
For
mr
kim
and
mr
kovacs
senator
orwen
shaw,
and
I
have
joked
that.
Yes,
we
remember
taking
biz
orgs
in
law
school,
but
we
don't
exactly
remember
what
our
score
was.
F
F
Finally,
sb
95
seeks
to
clarify
and
supplement
primarily
nrs
chapters,
78
86
and
92a,
in
order
to
preserve
nevada's
status
as
having
the
most
modern
and
innovative
business
entity
laws
in
the
nation.
These
amendments,
we
believe,
provide
additional
flexibility
for
nevada
public
companies
as
they
navigate
the
current,
mostly
virtual
environment.
F
G
Thank
you,
mackenzie.
Thank
you
church.
I
will
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee
and
obviously
senator
ornishal,
for
helping
us
bring
this
bill
to
you.
As
you
may
recall,
from
past
sessions.
You
know
we
try
to
take
input
that
we
have
from
our
own
practice
from
our
colleagues
and
peers
and
through
other
trends,
we
see
respected
business
entities
and
try
to
use
them
and
incorporate
them
into
nevada's
own
business
statutes
so
that
we
provide
our
citizens
and
those
that
avail
themselves
to
our
laws.
G
You
know
the
most
flexible
and
powerful
statues
that
they
can
choose
to
if
they
want
to
use.
So,
as
mckenzie
was
saying
a
lot
of
the
sections
we
try
to
do.
A
lot
of
this
build
particularly
tries
to
clean
up
a
lot
of
items.
There's
a
prevailing.
C
G
G
A
Questions
for
the
end,
some
of
the
senators
do
like
to
queue
up
rather
early.
G
No
problem,
and
so
this
this
section
is
meant
to
change
the
burden
of
the
actual
date
of
the
time
frame
in
75
160.
G
So
that's
not
a
burden
of
the
clerk
of
the
quarter,
but
on
the
party
seeking
service,
and
that
way
it's
ensured
that
that
will
actually
happen
versus
assuming
that
someone
at
the
click
of
the
court
will
be
conducting
this
as
well.
So
that
was
the
purpose
of
that.
To
make
sure
that
that
requirement
prior
to
the
date
running,
did
not
get
overlooked.
G
If,
if
it
helps
to
I've,
got
the
reference
that
I
there's
a
memorandum
that
I
submitted
as
part
of
the
materials
here
that
you
can
track
along
where
I
try
to
at
least
cross-reference
the
relevant
sections
as
to
the
different
subjects.
So
the
second
item
does
relate
to
the
definition
of
publicly
traded
corporation
and
then
this.
G
What
we
originally
submitted
was
just
to
move
the
definition
of
publicly
traded
corporation
from
from
some
of
the
anti-takeover
statutes
that
are
kind
of
mid-chapter
embedded
within
chapter
78
and
move
it
forward,
because
the
definition
of
publicly
traded
corporation
was
not
limited
to
those
sections.
G
It
had
been
at
some
point,
but
with
this
with
the
laws
developing
and
publicly
traded
companies
being
more
complex
amongst
all
of
us
and
and
what
we,
what
we
do,
what
we
operate
and
what
we
invest
in.
Maybe
we
thought
it
was
appropriate
to
bring
the
definition
forward
to
78010
as
you'll
see
in
the
amendments.
G
The
lcb
had
thought
also
to
bring
forward
other
sections,
but
we
had
thought
that
it
was
better
to
leave
those
other
definitions
where
they
were
because
they
only
did
relate
to
those
anti-takeover
statutes.
We
didn't
want
to
bring
too
many
definitions
forward
that
didn't
have
a
general
applicability
that
we
wanted.
The
publicly
traded
corporation
definition
to
have
also,
as
part
of
that
they
also
cleaned
up
securities
act.
Securities
exchange
act
of
1934
reference,
so
they
brought
that
forward
as
well,
and
there
are
some
minor
cleanups
that
follow
along
with
that.
G
G
Only
if
it
wants
to
if
it
doesn't
want
to
do
that,
it
doesn't
have
to,
and
we
are
offering
this
amendment
because
now
versus
two
years
ago,
when
we
had
or
previously
when
we
got
submitted,
the
state
venue
for
selection
is
because
courts
now
have
been
a
little
more
decided
in
terms
of
allowing
these
types
of
provisions.
So
again,
we
want
to
be
able
to
offer
corporations
specifically
publicly
traded
corporations,
the
ability
to
designate
the
right
venue
for
the
right
actions
if
they
feel
the
need
to
in
their
violence
and
articles.
G
Moving
to
section
five
in
the
fiduciary
duty
section
7138.
G
The
feedback
we
had
gotten
over
the
years
is
that
people
thought
that,
because
it's
unique
to
have
a
multi-constituency
type
framework,
we
thought
it
was.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
that
was
recognized
and
that
people
didn't
feel
the
need
to
be
limiting
themselves
through
these
five
factors,
and
so
because
we
had
field
many
questions
to
that
effect.
So
we
thought
it
was
appropriate
to
clarify
that
the
next
series
of
sections
amendments
relate
to
sections
six,
nine
and
ten,
and
they
relate
to
the
concept
of
distributions
by
a
corporation.
G
Currently
section.
7191
just
says
that
a
corporation
can
make
distributions
of
property
to
its
shareholders
for
the
benefit
of
his
shareholders,
and
we
thought
it
was
appropriate
because
nowadays,
with
a
corporation
they've,
gotten
a
lot
more
complex
at
times
where
they
have
not
just
common
stock
but
also
have
preferred
stock.
G
Obviously,
the
corporation
needs
to
have
the
appropriate
terms
and
conditions
and
articles
of
with
respect
to
any
different
series
and
classes.
But
we
thought
it
was
appropriate
to
update
this
as
well
and,
along
with
these
revisions,
the
lcb
kind
of
picked
up
that
phrase
and
put
that
also
in
other
sections
of
the
bill.
So
I
think
that
picked
up
78,
288
and
78
300
sections,
9
and
10
of
the
model
got.
G
G
Not
to
really
allow
virtual
meetings
to
occur,
but
to
just
enhance
our
laws
and
make
sure
they're
accurately
described
as
people
were
now
shifting
from
the
traditional
physical
meetings
to
more
of
a
virtual
meeting,
whether
entirely
virtual
or
partially
virtual
and
partially
in
person,
and
so
most
of
these
changes
address
the
the
fact
that
some
companies
may
like
to
hold
virtual
meetings.
Only
so
we
have
instances
where,
for
example,.
G
Obviously,
if
you
opt
to
have
a
meeting
virtually
there
is
no
longer
a
place
per
se,
and
so
we
had
to
just
adjust
that
section
to
notice
that
if
there
was
a
physical
meeting,
then
you
stayed
timed
in
place.
There
was
a
virtual
meeting.
You
have
saved
time
and
date
and
so
just
to
make
sure
that
those
little
details
were
accommodated.
For
now
that
we
are
seeing
virtual
meetings,
whether
in
holland
park
being
more.
G
Commonplace.
The
next
item
is
section
13..
So
this
is
a
interesting
area
of
our
corporate
statute,
in
that
it's
entitled
voting
trusts,
but
it
also
covers
voting
agreements
between
stockholders
and
and
the
provision
we're
addressing
is
the
fact
that
the
statute
had
provided
for
a
15-year
maximum
on
such
agreements
between
stockholders
such
voting
agreements
between
stockholders.
G
What
we
found
is
that
people
are
actually
surprised
that
there
is
actually
a
statutory
cap
on
on
that
and
that
you're
not
allowed
to
contract
around
that.
So
for
our
purposes,
we
didn't
really
change
the
applicability
of
the
15-year
cap,
but
we
did
a
lot
of
people
to
contract
around
it
because
people
may
have
the
very
they
may
have
the
appropriate
purposes
and
reasons
to
have
a
term
longer
than
15
years.
G
But
as
part
of
that
amendment,
we
were
very
sure
to
obviously
make
sure
that
any
transferees
of
those
shares
of
stock
have
notice
of
this
restrictions
before
they
have
before
they
are
before
they
actually
acquire
the
stock,
whether
it's
a
legend
or
there
is
some
other
kind
of
notification.
G
Years
section
15
relates
to
the
the
ability
of
a
corporation
to
identify
its
directors,
officers
and
agents,
and
in
this
section
we
thought
it
was
a
time
for
us
to
for
us
as
a
as
a
state
to
include
managers
as
one
of
those
capacities
that
a
director
officer
or
agent
of
the
corporation
can't
serve
into.
G
So
the
purpose
of
these
amendments
is
to
be
sure
that
that
capacity
is
covered
and
obviously
to
avoid
any
ambiguity
as
to
what
manager
might
mean
the
the
the
mock-up
does
expand
on
that
to
say
that
it
has
a
manager
of
a
limited
liability
company
and
not
just
any
manager,
as
one
might
commonly
interpret.
That
word.
G
Item
item
16
is
a
very
technical
amendment
that
we
were
that
was
asked
by
us
by
the
real
property
section
to
submit
and
what
it
does
is
it
generally.
There
is
a
certification
requirement
under
chapter
81
for
certain
nonprofit
cooperative
associations.
G
What
we
do,
what
we
did
here
is
to
exempt
from
that
certification
requirement
certain
corporations
that
are
also
associations
or
unit
owner
associations,
as
defined
in
chapter
116,
0
1
1.,
that
being
that,
usually,
if
you're,
a
member
of
an
association
like
that
they
usually
don't
have
an
actual
certificate
that
says
you're
a
member
you're,
just
a
member,
because
you
own
property
in
the
association
or
in
the
in
the
confines
of
the
association.
So
that
was
more
of
a
kind
of
a
trap
for
the
unwary
and
the
business
side.
G
Items
7
17-27
address
llc's,
and
this
is
probably
one
of
the
bigger
changes
that
we're
making
this
in
sb95
and
they
relate
to
how
they
relate
to
the
default
rules,
with
respect
to
how
decisions
and
voting
and
other
things
are
submitted
or
determined
by
the
members
of
an
llc
and
in
going
through
these
sections.
G
That
is
a
concept
that
already
exists
in
chapter
86
and
that
would
the
intent
there
was
to
say
you
know,
distributions
decision,
making
other
things
that
need
member
either
member
vote
or
member
assessment
would
be
done
based
on
each
member's
contributions
to
the
capital
of
the
limited
liability
corporation.
G
Now
that
phrase
alone
would
make
would
might
make
someone
think
that,
once
contributions
to
the
capital
corporation
would
be
limited
to
actual
monetary
contributions
and
to
senator
picker's
credit,
he
picked
up
on
that
potential
for
misinterpretation
and
going
back
to
chapter
86,
chapter
86,
0.321,
contributions
to
capital,
an
existing
section
of
chapter
86
makes
it
very
clear
that
the
contributions
to
capital
by
a
member
may
be
cash.
Maybe
property?
May
be
services
rendered
may
or
can
include
a
promissory
note
or
other
binding
obligation
to
contribute
cash.
G
So
again,
I
think
it's
important
because
usually
when
you
form
a
new
company,
people
might
have
the
same
contribution.
Everyone
puts
in
the
same
amount
of
money
or
it
could
be,
a
combination
of
funds
could
be
a
combination
of
services
could
be
combination
of
relationships
or
just
other
other
property.
That's
assigned,
and
I
think
86
321
makes
sure
that
all
the
parties
that
are
contributing
capital
to
the
corporate
to
the
llc
are
viewed
on
par
with
each
other
for
the
value
of
what
they've
contributed.
G
G
The
next
group
of
sections
relate
to
sections
28
to
31
and
37
relating
to
dissenters
rights,
and
here
we
want
to
introduce
a
new,
a
concept
that
allows
parties
that
take
action
that
want
to
approve
a
business
combination
that
they
give.
G
That
gives
rise
to
the
center's
rights,
but
they
want
but
want
to
approve
that
action
via
written
consent
versus
actual
formal
meeting,
the
ability
to
actually
obtain
advanced
notice
of
those
stockholders
that
intend
to
dissent
and
intend
to
demand
a
fair
value
for
their
shares
and
the
reason
why
we
think
it's
important
to
have-
and
this
is
a
relatively
new
this
is.
I
think
this
would
be
unique
to
nevada
in
that
it
allows
this
process.
This
advanced
notice
process
would
allow
the
party
to
have
a
transaction
to
be
able
to
have
to
assess.
G
So
this
will
allow
for
greater
information
and
deal
certainty
for
the
parties,
and
we
think
it's
will
be
a
big
benefit
for
those
that
use
nevada,
corporate
law,
sections,
32
and
35
just
relate
to
defined
term
cleanup,
the
use
of
a
domestic
corporation
and
publicly
traded
corporation,
and
these
are
just
meant
to
use
this
consistent
term
domestic
corporation
throughout
those
sections,
as
it
relates
to
the
sanders
rights
generally
and
then
sections
33
and
34.
G
Much
like
we
in
chapter
86,
we
talked
about
having
a
standard
based
on
contributions
of
capital.
We
want
to
make
similar
changes
to
chapter
92,
a
150
that
relates
to
business
combinations
involving
llc's
to
use
that
same
standard,
and
so
in
the
mock-up.
We
have
references
to
using
an
interest
standard
based
on
the
constitution
of
capital
of
the
llc
of
members
as
a
default
voting
standard
along
those
lines.
G
We
also
did
a
sim
made
a
similar
change
in
92,
a
140
relating
to
the
limited
partnerships
so
that
those
entities
as
well
will
have
the
same
clarity
as
to
our
same
default,
rule
as
suspect
to
how
voting
would
be
determined
amongst
limited
partners
to
extend
that
already
handle
and
eliminate
partnership
agreement.
G
And
then
the
last
item
is
section
36,
where
we
want
to
clarify
the
reference
to
action
for
dissenters
rights
and
make
sure
that
the
trigger
for
the
center's
rights
for
the
notice
to
be
given
was
the
action.
Was
the
business
action
itself
and
not
the
action
by
written
consent
or
in
lieu
of
a
meeting
taken
by
the
corporation
to
approve
the
actual
business
combination.
There
was
some
ambiguity
as
to
when
the
center's
notice
had
to
be
issued
and
some
people
were
using
the
wrong
date.
G
So
I
think
I
covered
most
of
the
items
I
do.
It
does
occur
to
me
that
there's
a
new
a
new
item,
14
point
section,
14.5,.
G
G
It
is
page
22,
it's
section
14.5
relating
to
nrs78630,
and
there
we
reference-
we've
inserted
the
phrase,
at
least
before
the
preceding
10
percent,
so
that
as
a
minimum
threshold
of
stockholder
ownership,
that
is
needed
in
order
to
be
able
to
bring
in
action
or
for
receiver,
and
that
also
addresses
is
consistent
with
some
changes
in
section
25
and
26.
G
That
also
try
to
provide
the
reference
to
10
as
a
threshold
for
members
of
the
llc
to
bring
an
action
for
to
to
the
district
court
for
receivership,
for
or
for
other
actions,
and
I
know
there's
that
those
will
be
items
that
some
will
be
speaking
as
to
later
as
well.
So
that
concludes
my
formal
comments,
but
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
that
anyone
may
have
at
this
time.
A
And
senator
orrinshaw
was
there
somebody
else
here
to
present
the
bill,
or
should
we
move
on
to
questions.
D
H
E
And
thank
you,
churchill
and
thank
you,
mr
kim
you've
addressed.
In
fact
I
really
want
to
just
put
on
the
record.
I
appreciate
the
effort
you
took
to
reach
out
to
the
committee
members,
particularly
since
you
spent
so
much
time
with
me
on
this.
This
is
an
area
I
practiced
in
earlier
in
my
career.
E
I've
since
left
that,
so
you
were
able
to
to
bring
me
up
to
speed
on
on
some
of
the
more
recent
changes,
but
still
have
a
couple
of
questions,
particularly
as
you
and
I
discussed
in
order
to
get
the
stash
or
the
legislative
intent
on
the
record.
First,
I'm
looking
at
section
it's
one.
E
When
the
legislature
strikes
a
word
knowing
that
it
exists
elsewhere
in
the
statutory
scheme
that
the
intent
is
to
delete
the
the
word
from
the
requirement.
So
we're
not
intending
to
strike
true
copies
to
be
provided.
Correct.
I
G
G
Went
back
to
my
notes
and
the
reason
why
I
truly
tested
was
removed
was
because
no
one
knew
what
that
exactly
meant.
But
clearly
the
intent
is
to
provide
true
and
correct
copies
without
a
doubt
by
the
serving
party
to
the
actual
person
that
is
intended
to.
E
All
right,
thank
you
and
then
in
looking
at
the
proposed
amendment,
most
of
the
definitions
were
returned
to
their
original
place
in
the
statutory
scheme
other
than
the
publicly
traded
corporation,
and
it's
my
understanding
that
that
is
so
that
it
applies
in
a
broader
category
of
cases
and
not
just
within
the
section
that
it
was
placed
before.
Is
that
correct.
E
All
right,
thank
you
for
that,
and
then
we
changed
the
definition
of
stockholder.
We
dropped
stockholder
and
added
16
or
17
words.
I
mean
that's
taken
after
my
my
own
approach
to
things
where
I
like
to
take
more
words
than
necessary
to
describe
it,
were
you
able
to
find
a
rationale
for
expanding
that
from
stockholders
to
the
holders
of
shares
of
one
or
more
classes
or
series
of
capitals
stock
of
the
corporation?
G
Well,
yes,
well,
we
talked
about
that.
Robert
came
again
for
the
state
bar
in
nevada,
so
the
reason
why
that
was
appropriate
too,
to
amend
section
six
was
because
we
thought
it
would.
There
was
a
the
potential
for
some
of
this
claim
that
that
distributions
have
to
be
made
to
all
shirt
to
all
shareholders
instead
of
subsets,
which
the
other
sections
of
chapter
70
clearly
allow
the
corporation
to
do
to
extend,
obviously,
like
I
said
before,
a
corporation
has
delineated
those
rights
in
the
articles
of
incorporation,
whether
through
designation
or
otherwise.
G
So
we
thought
it
was
more
precise
that
1978-191
actually
just
acknowledged
that
distributions
can
be
made
to
one
or
more
classes
or
series
of
holders
of
capital
stock.
Because
of
because
of
that
ability.
E
E
So
it's
my
understanding,
then
that
this
would
not
displace
any
provisions
of
an
existing
stockholder
agreement
in
those
distributions,
but
just
to
clarify
the
intent,
particularly
where
those
operating
agreement
may
be
silent.
As
to
how
that
happened,
that
this
is
focusing
on
those
where
distributions
are
appropriate.
Is
that
correct.
G
E
Thank
you,
thank
you
and
then
your
indulgence,
just
one
last
substantive
question
and
then
we
can
take
things
offline
when
we're
looking
at
sections
18,
22
25,
where
we're
talking
about
the
definitions
and
particularly
in
22,
I
mean
in
18,
we
don't
reference
86
321,
but
we
have
it
on
record.
E
The
intent
is
to
include
that
definition,
but
the
definition
that
we
change
in
22
troubles
me,
and
that
is
where
we're
taking
out
the
vesting
language
and
in
fact
words
lim
we're
merely
talking
about
majority
and
interest
of
managers
or
appears
to
be
that,
where
it's
managed
by
a
majority
in
interest
it
doesn't
reference
non-managing
members
that
would
also
be
vested
with
an
interest
or
the
authority.
G
Barbara
kim
against
r
of
nevada
so
as
it
relates
to
section
22,
86
291
and
looking
back
at
our
notes,
we
had
not
intended
to
make
amendments
to
this
section.
G
E
All
right-
and
I
appreciate
that
manager.
Thank
you
for
your
indulgence.
I
just
think
that
this
is
particularly
where
we're
striking,
and
this
is
not
changed
in
the
the
amendment
where
we're
striking
in
proportion
to
their
contribution
to
its
capital.
So
it's
almost
contradicting
what
we
did
before.
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
get
clear
on
on
the
fact
that
we're
not
intending
to
change
the
vesting
of
authority
in
members
versus
managers
or
anything
like
that.
So
thank
you
for
your
indulgence.
Thank
you.
A
C
Thanks,
madam
chair,
actually,
first
a
a
comment,
mr
kim,
do
you
put
this
memorandum
together
that
you
sent
with
the
tables
and
so
forth.
C
Just
you
know
I,
I
I've
been
here
six
sessions.
This
is
probably
the
best
I've
ever
seen
seriously.
It's
great
I
went
through
and
going
man
this
guy
laid
out
everything
my
so
just
want
to.
Thank
you
for
anybody
listening
out
there.
If
you
want
to
see
a
super
professional
presentation,
mr
kim,
did
it
so
question,
though,
actually
the
business
law
section
that
you
represent,
how
many?
How
many
people
are
there,
because
I
read
your
little
disclaimer
at
the
beginning.
You
can
definitely
tell
this
is
put
together
by
lawyers.
C
G
Sure
the
executive
committee
of
the
state
bar
this
business
law
section
consists
of
anywhere
from
10
to
15
persons,
there's
13
persons
on
it
right
now,
and
the
13
persons
are
from
firms
small
and
large,
north
and
south
east
west.
You
know
whatever
whoever
has
an
interest
in
obviously
helping
craft
our
laws
and
obviously
providing
input
into
what
it
is,
we're
trying
to
do
here,
which
is
providing
those
that
avail
themselves
through
our
state's
laws.
G
Usually
what
we
do
is,
after
we,
we
usually
stimulate
something
to
the
members
of
the
section.
Just
they
know
what
we're
what
is
being
proposed,
but
once
we,
the
executive
committee,
meets
about
20,
20,
15
20
25
times,
depending
on
how
often
we
think
we
need
to
to
put
these
materials
together
and
usually
happens
in
the
in
the
even
year
and
the
off
year,
usually
from
early
spring
to
mid-summer
and
then
by
august.
First
or
so,
we
were
required
to
submit
our
proposal
to
the
state
bar
in
nevada
for
distribution.
G
To
the
other
section
section
chairs
or
exactly.
C
That
answers
it
times
10
almost,
I
was
just
wondering
how
I
didn't
want
it
to
be.
You
know,
mr
kim
and
his
wife
in
the
basement
coming
up
with
these
or
something
no
offense.
So
when
I
hear
that
there's
10
or
15
and
all
these
different
things
that
makes
me
much
more
comfortable
so
anyway.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
kim.
Thank
you
for
really
a
fantastic
presentation
and
I'll
rely
on
mr
pickard.
Since
he's
practiced
in
this
area
determine
how
we
vote.
A
C
Good
afternoon
cheryl
scheible
paul
moradkin,
with
the
vegas
chamber
m-o-r-a-d-k-h-a-n
the
chamber
appreciates
the
work
that
has
been
done
by
the
business
law
section
and
the
sponsor
today,
as
you've
heard
during
the
presentation.
C
I
A
All
right,
we
will
move
then
to
testimony
opposition
on
sb95.
I
B
I
I
H
And
I
serve
as
the
deputy
secretary
of
state
for
commercial
recordings,
both
our
deputy
secretary
for
securities
and
I
reviewed
and
discussed
senate
bill
95
with
senator
orange
hall,
mr
rob
kim
and
ms
mckenzie
warren
and
determine
the
changes
in
this
bill
apply
to
the
internal
governance
of
business
and
not
the
filing
requirements
within
our
office.
Therefore,
we
have
no
concerns
nor
we
do
anticipate.
H
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
kyle,
for
your
help.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
your
testimony.
That
now
concludes
the
hearing
on
sb
95,
we'll
move
on
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
I
A
Okay,
I
do
want
to
note
for
the
committee
that
our
hearing
schedule
has
changed
for
tomorrow
we
will
be
hearing
sb
113.
You
should
have
received
the
new
the
revised
agenda
earlier
today.
I
will
begin
at
one
o'clock
as
usual
and
with
that
today's
meeting
is.