When do I have an interest over 'Proceeds'?

What does ‘Proceeds’ mean?

The term 'proceeds', in this context, refers to money that comes to a buyer from the on-selling of goods supplied to the buyer by the original supplier of the goods.

If a supplier has a Retention of Title right and registers it as a PMSI (see here) they get the opportunity to have their security interest extend to any money their customer receives from on-selling the supplier's unpaid-for goods.

While in most cases (unless they involve a motor vehicle identified by its VIN number, for example) the supplier's right to recover their unpaid goods ends with their buyer's on-sale of those goods, the PPSA allows a supplier's PMSI security interest to 'automatically' transfer to the proceeds of on-sale of those goods as soon as their secured 'grip' over the original goods is lost.

While this can be a useful ‘added extra’, proceeds claims can be messy and, typically, will only be successful when the proceeds monies are received AFTER a liquidator has been appointed to the customer’s business.

I've yet to see rights over proceeds used in a defence against a liquidator's preference claim and, whilst I can envisage some scope for success, I can also imagine that such a defence would not be particularly well received by said liquidator.

PPSR - Ticking the Inventory Box

Should I designate my goods as ‘Inventory’ or not?

The correct answer depends upon how your customer will be dealing with the goods being supplied.

It is a common misunderstanding that whether the goods are 'inventory' or not depends upon how they are treated by the supplier.  I've heard suppliers, when asked why they didn't designate their goods as inventory, say, "Because they weren't inventory items, we had to make them specially".

Under the PPSA, an item of property can be inventory if sold to one business or non-inventory when sold to another - it all depends upon the use to which the buyer will put the property in question:

• If the goods are for on-sale, 

• for inclusion into an end-product that will be on-sold, or

• consumed as part of the customer’s business (eg, fuel for a transport company, or disinfectant for hospital), 

then they should be designated as ‘Inventory’.  Otherwise, the inventory designation should be left blank.  

While the official review of the PPSR recommended doing away with the 'inventory question' because of the confusion it causes, for the time being, it is still required as part of the registration process and, if you get it wrong, you will find it difficult to enforce your registration.

PPSA Clauses in Terms & Conditions

Firstly, it needs to be said that you do not need specific PPSA clauses in your Terms & Conditions of trade in order to lodge a registration on the PPSR, only the presence of a security right.  For most trade credit suppliers, this security right will be a Retention of Title clause – if you have one of these in your T&Cs and those T&Cs have been accepted by your customer, you can go ahead and register that security right on the PPSR.

This often prompts the question, if all that is needed is a one-sentence Retention of Title clause, why have multiple paragraphs of PPSA related text been included in the T&Cs?

Although not an unreasonable question, this is a little like hearing that you only need to drink water to avoid dying of thirst, and then asking, why bother with beer, wine and coffee?

So, in what way do PPSA specific clauses help us survive our mundane existences and allow us a temporary respite from the ever-present agonies of life?  Or, to put it another way, how do PPSA specific clauses make things a little easier for us?

Their first purpose is one of transparency and understanding.  Clauses will often start off by saying something along the lines of:

“You hereby acknowledge that these Terms and Conditions of Trade constitute a Security Agreement which creates a Security Interest in favour of [the supplier]…”

It has only been since the introduction of the PPSA that Retention of Title rights have been properly deemed to represent a form of security and it is helpful to draw a customer’s attention to this, particularly when the supplier goes on to add that, as a security right, they intend registering it on the PPSR.

A lot of terms then go on to suggest that the buyer/customer should sign documents or pay costs facilitating the supplier’s PPSR registration.  I don’t know if I’ve led an unduly sheltered life, but I’ve not come across any instance where any action has been required of a trade credit buyer in this regard and certainly haven’t heard of any additional fees being passed on, but, apparently lawyers think suppliers will feel comforted by having that option.

While there might be a little more repetition, the next purpose of the PPSA specific clauses will be the ‘waivers’.

The PPSA places a surprisingly large number of obligations on the ‘secured party’ to keep their customers advised of any actions they take.  I have this idea that the drafters of the Act had a visual image of the supplier being a huge unfeeling multinational bureaucracy and their customer being a little old lady with cats. 

In its vanilla form, the Act requires the supplier to keep their customer advised of anything and everything relating to the security interest – letting them know of the registration (and any amendments to it), giving notice of any intention to recover unpaid-for goods, advising of plans to dispose of any recovered goods, sending statements detailing whatever payments they might have received from on-selling the recovered goods, sending statements for anything they’ve recovered that hasn’t been disposed of, and providing the customer with an opportunity to object (!).

Fortunately, most obligations of this nature can be contracted out of and including clauses in T&Cs is probably the most effective way for a supplier to dodge these administrative bullets.  Hence clauses along the following lines:

“The Purchaser and the Supplier agree that the following provisions of the PPSA do not apply to the enforcement by the Supplier of its security interest in the Goods: sections 95, 118, 121(4), 130, 132(3)(d), 132(4), 135, 142 and 143.”

While I won’t go into each potential waiver/exclusion in detail (and can’t guarantee that I’ve spotted them all), the following table should help as a quick guide to what aspects of the Act are addressed in each of the ‘avoidable’ or ‘enhanceable’ sections of the Act.

Section	Issue addressed	Comment
95	Secured party must give notice of removal of accession	http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com/2014/06/ppsa-accessions.html
118	Enforcing security interests in accordance with land law decisions	A waiver of the Secured Party’s obligations to provide notice to the grantor.
121	Enforcement of security interests in liquid assets	A waiver of the Secured Party’s obligations to give notice to the grantor of their intention to enforce their security interest.
123	Secured party may seize collateral	There’s a requirement here for the Secured Party to give notice to the grantor of their intention to seize.
129/130	Notice of disposal of collateral	Waiver of the Secured Party’s obligations to advise the grantor of their plans to dispose of collateral in their possession if a default has occurred.
132	Secured party to give statement of account	Waiver of the Secured Party’s obligation to provide a statement regarding any collateral they have disposed of as a result of default.
135	Notice of retention of collateral	Waiver of the Secured Party’s obligation to notify the grantor that they will be retaining collateral in their possession.
137	Persons entitled to notice may object to proposal	Removing the grantor’s right to object to any intended disposal of recovered collateral.
142	Entitled persons may redeem collateral	Waiver of the grantor’s right to priority when it comes to redeeming recovered collateral from the Secured Party.
143	Entitled persons may reinstate security agreement	Withdrawal of the grantor’s rights to reinstate a ‘broken’ security agreement.
157	Verification statements—secured parties to give notice to grantors	Removal of the Secured Party’s obligations to send the grantor a copy of the PPSR Verification Statement every time a registration event occurs.  See also http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com/2014/05/notifying-grantor-what-are-your.html
275	Secured party to provide certain information relating to a security interest	The ‘vanilla’ PPSA requires the Secured Party to divulge relevant information about their security interest to any interested 3rd party unless the Secured Party and grantor have agreed they will keep such matters confidential.

PPSR Registration vs Credit Insurance

I’m finding myself increasingly being asked to address questions along the lines of: 

If I have a PMSI registered on the PPSR do I really need to worry about credit insurance?; 

and, its alternative:

If I have credit insurance in place, do I really need to worry about registering my PMSI?

In return for payment of premium, credit insurance can provide trade credit suppliers with protection of around 90% of any loss suffered should their buyer go insolvent, or otherwise default on their payment obligations.

However, if you have sold your goods subject to a Retention of Title clause and your customer collapses before they can make payment, a timely $6.00 registration on the PPSR of that ROT will ensure the return of your goods (or their cash equivalent).  

If this is the case, do you really need to pay substantially more in credit insurance premiums for bad debt protection?

Unfortunately, registration of a ROT will NOT ensure the return of your goods (or their cash equivalent).  Registration might result in the return of goods, and registration certainly won’t hurt recovery prospects, but it isn’t a miracle cure.  Unpaid for goods may have been on-sold, consumed or ‘mislaid’ by the time a liquidator is appointed and what goods can be recovered may no longer be worth their original invoice value, either through use, damage, or merely by the passage of time.

Because the PPSA focuses on property being used as collateral in a security interest, its effectiveness is wholly dependent upon the continued presence of that particular property and the value of the property continuing to be sufficient to cover the value of the outstanding debt for which it acts as security.

Credit insurance, however, focuses on what is actually owed, what has been invoiced and what remains outstanding.  It doesn’t concern itself with any fluctuating value relating to the goods supplied nor with their continued presence post-delivery, only with what is owed under the invoices issued.

If someone goes bust owing you money, a credit insurance policy will, invariably, pay you the lion’s share of your loss, regardless of what happened to the goods you supplied.
Does this mean that credit insurance is the miracle cure and PPSR registration of ROT/PMSI rights is not necessary?

Well… 

While I’m an enthusiastic advocate for trade credit insurance, it is nonsense to suggest that other risk mitigation strategies should be ignored merely because there’s an insurance policy in place.  You wouldn’t start leaving your house unlocked when you left to go to the shops just because you have a home & contents insurance policy, nor would you be casual with your car’s security because it’s insured against theft.  

Not only do credit insurers require that the policyholder (the ‘supplier’ in our context) maintain a financial interest in the underlying transaction (the supplier will usually have to bear at least 10% of any loss), they also set their premium rates based (in large part) on the supplier’s past history of bad debts and the claims they’ve already had to pay.  

Just as a car insurer will take note of whether the insured vehicle is garaged overnight or parked on the street, so a credit insurer will look at the extent to which suppliers mitigate the potential for losses by including security rights in their trading terms and perfecting those rights by registration on the PPSR.

Who would a credit insurer be happier with as a policyholder? a supplier who suffers a loss but is able to recover half its value by exercising their PPSR registered security rights, or a supplier who is unable to offset any of their loss because they weren’t prepared to spend $6.00 on a PPSR registration?  

While both suppliers will get their claims paid, one will likely find their premium rates ‘adjusted’ far more than the other.

So while a credit insurance policy is more likely to keep your business afloat when beset by bad debts, a PPSR registration will likely help keep the cost of that insurance policy as low as possible.

Retention of Title Clauses - Where Less is More

At least once a week I’m asked to review a set of Terms & Conditions for ‘compliance’ with the PPSA.

I’ve always been a little amused by this idea given that much of the manner of the PPSA’s introduction was based on reflecting how creditors had, in practice, been securitising the payment obligations of their debtors rather than dictating how this should be done going forward.

Generally, in view of the nature of my client base, I’d need to do little more than check to make sure there was a half decent Retention of Title (ROT) clause present and, if they hadn’t already been added, suggest a few waivers of some of the obligations that the PPSA might otherwise require of creditors.

However, this morning I came across an ROT clause where PPSA compliance clearly was an issue.

The clause in question read as follows:

The Supplier and the Buyer agree that ownership of the Goods shall not pass until:

(a)   The Buyer has paid the Supplier all amounts owing to the Supplier; and

(b)   The Buyer has met all of its other obligations to the Supplier.

Aside from a touch of redundancy with (a) being pretty much covered off by (b), my main concern was over the wording at (a).

The PPSA gives suppliers the opportunity to take a Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) ‘super priority’ where their interest is over collateral that secures its own purchase price. The alternative to collateral securing its own purchase price would be for the identified collateral to be taken as security for a broader description of amounts owing – such a broader description would not necessarily qualify for the PPSA’s super priority treatment.

Unfortunately, the wording used at (a) above states that the Supplier is treating the goods they are selling as collateral against “all amounts” they may be owed and therefore offers up a ‘broader’ description of what is being secured than would arguably qualify for PMSI super priority.  I am acutely familiar with circumstances where insolvency practitioners have successfully argued this specific issue!

Given that there is remarkably little difference between (a) and (b), I suggested that (a) be rephrased along the following lines:

The Supplier and the Buyer agree that ownership of the Goods shall not pass until:

(a)   The Buyer has paid the Supplier the full purchase price for those Goods; and

(b)   The Buyer has met all of its other obligations to the Supplier.

While it might be a natural reaction on the part of suppliers to attempt to make their security interests as all-embracing as possible, when it comes to the PPSA and its PMSI super priority, it could be said that ‘less is more’.  Or, at least, that a narrower, more focused interest is likely to be more effective.