During the late 12th and early 13th
centuries, the then Pope was having some difficulties with what, he deemed to
be, heretical Catholics – those whose beliefs were out of step with the orthodox
Catholic teachings of the time. This
resulted in some pretty horrific acts, particularly in southern France, and
none more so than the massacre at Beziers in July 1209.
The town of Beziers was seen as a stronghold of Catharism
(the heretics) but also included a fair-sized population of orthodox Catholics. When ordered to attack the town, the story
goes that a young soldier asked the Pope’s representative, Arnaud Amalric, how
he would be able to tell the difference between orthodox Catholics and the
heretic Cathars. The reply has been
filtered down through history to us as ‘Kill them all and let God sort them out”.
I feel a little uncomfortable quoting Amalric in a context
as mundane as the PPSR but I’ve found myself increasingly resorting to advice
along the lines of:
‘When in doubt, lodge a registration’ or
‘It’s better to have a registration you don’t need than need a registration you don’t have’ and
‘Register them all and let God sort them out’.
Personally, I don’t really like the ‘scatter gun’ approach,
I prefer a little more surgical precision, but there comes a point where the issue
is not just about being right but also about avoiding getting caught up in expensive,
long, drawn out arguments where you need to demonstrate that you are right.
While the PPSR has been with us for well over 4 years now,
there is still a surprising lack of legal precedent established and there are a
number of areas where argument is commonplace.
The extent to which a Transitional registration is still
appropriate despite minor amendments to terms & conditions; when is it
appropriate to register against a Trust and when against the trustee of that
trust; and to what extent a PMSI registration can also perfect a non-PMSI
element are just a few of the more contentious areas.
In a recent question that was put to me, a client is trading
with a buying group where invoices will be paid by one entity and yet goods
will be delivered to, and on-sold by, a number of separate, albeit, related
entities. Who should the registration be
lodged against?
Without going into the specific terms, my advice was,
effectively, two-fold:
- You register against the entity, or entities, that have demonstrably accepted your retention of title clause; and
- Register against them all – at least one of the registrations is bound to be right!
The second response isn’t one I’m particularly proud of, but
suppliers regularly face complicated scenarios such as these and legal advice
can be expensive. A PPSR registration, on the other hand, will
cost as little as $6.80.
Not sure which of 10 companies to register against?
Asking a law firm to check your agreements and
advise, will result in an expenditure of anything up to $1000; by comparison, lodging
a registration against each of the 10 companies, just to be on the safe side, will
cost $68.
And, as I suggested earlier, just because you’ve had legal
advice, probably very good legal advice, doesn’t mean you won’t still get an
argument from a liquidator who believes they have received equally good legal
advice.
Is there a downside to multiple registrations in such
circumstances?
The PPSA allows for appeals to be made by Grantors that
believe a registration is unreasonable but, for any penalties or claim for
damages to be made against the registering supplier, it would need to be
demonstrated that the supplier didn’t have a ‘reasonable belief’ that the
registration would be appropriate.
Again, there are no legal precedents that help us very much here, but,
the more complicated the scenario, the more difficult it would be to
demonstrate that the supplier’s registrations were not a reasonable response to
a complex situation.
So, while I don’t particularly want to align myself with a 13th
century, blood-thirsty religious fanatic, my advice may often be ‘Register
them all and let God sort them out’.
No comments:
Post a Comment