BobTHJ wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> What's wrong with allowing partnerships to initiate CFJs anyway? >> Using them to circumvent Excess. I wouldn't want to loosen up >> any Excess limitations right now. -G. >> > Yes, but partnership's rights could be preserved by simply counting > any CFJ called by a partnership as also being called by the members of > its basis for the purposes of excess CFJs. When safe and practical, > lesser regulation and more freedom is better.
Part of it also pertained to qualification to judge, but changing "initiator" to "initiator's basis" in R591 and R1504 ought to cover that sufficiently.
