Simplifying the Registration Process - Review Recommendations

When the results of the official Review of the PPSA were released earlier this year, I was tempted to hurriedly put out a number of posts describing its recommendations.  However, this temptation was tempered somewhat by the realisation that, not only was it something of a major job trying to sort through 394 recommendations in a 542 page report, it was highly unlikely that any of the report’s recommendations were likely to be implemented in the very near future.  

This was not from of any lack of confidence in the quality of the recommendations but merely because of the sheer number of recommendations being made and the fact that it took well over a year for the last PPSR amendment Bill to be passed addressing only a single issue (not counting the time taken to decide that a Bill was appropriate in the first place!).

Now that I’ve stuck my toe in the water of the Report’s recommendations in my last, catchily titled, post on the Cross-Collateralisationof PMSIs, I thought I’d draw attention to some of the Report’s recommendations aimed at simplifying the registration experience.

 Consumer property or commercial property?  - Recommendations 86 and 87 propose doing away with the distinction entirely.  No more confusion caused by the uninitiated thinking that ‘commercial property’ means the same thing as commercial premises.

Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) applies? - The PPSR’s ‘PMSI Box’ is widely misunderstood with many registrations rendered largely ineffective because a secured party didn’t understand what was meant by a Purchase Money Security Interest.  In both Canada & NZ there is no requirement to ‘flag’ a registration as a PMSI but, instead, PMSI priority will be determined by the nature of the security interest itself whenever competing security interests need to be assessed.  Where ROT suppliers are concerned, recommendation 241 proposing the removal of the PMSI Box is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) recommendations contained in the report.

The collateral is inventory? -  Recommendation 88 proposes doing away with the question, finding that it added little value and merely served to create confusion and uncertainty – as well as an opportunity for liquidators to dismiss an otherwise correct registration.

Current assets are subject to control? – On of the least understood of the questions facing anyone trying to lodge a registration against inventory, the Report’s recommendation 89 also proposes removing this question, again finding that it added little value and that it’s absence would be less confusing.

This registration is subordinate to another? – Again, this is found to be merely confusing and absent of value, thus recommendation 90 advocates its deletion.

Proceeds to be claimed? – Recommendation 180 seeks to make it clear that if a security interest over goods supplied is properly perfected by registration then it should automatically apply to any proceeds from those goods, thus recommendation 98 proposes the removal of the proceeds question when lodging a registration.

Giving of Notice Identifier (GONI) – Recommendation 122 suggests doing away with the expression “GONI” on the register and replacing it with a term that more clearly indicates its purpose as the supplier’s internal client reference number.  GONI was always a ridiculous and misleading term for something that was otherwise so straightforward.

In conclusion, should the Report’s recommendations be adopted, lodging a registration in the future will be simply a matter of identifying the grantor/buyer, choosing a collateral class, entering a brief (but suitably vague) description, choosing a registration period and pressing submit. Too easy!!

But, as I said at the outset, don’t expect much to happen in the short term.

Cross-Collateralisation of PMSIs

One of the more easily missed of the PPSA Review Report recommendations compiled by Bruce Whittaker concerns the ‘cross-collateralisation of PMSIs’.

For trade credit suppliers still coming to terms with the concept of PMSIs, the idea that these can be cross-collateralised might be a step too far too soon.  However, rather than simply causing eyes to glaze over this could well be very good news for trade credit suppliers who simply want to make their Retention of Title (ROT) clauses as effective as possible.

In order to put the recommendation in its proper context we’ll need to briefly revisit the ROT in a pre-PPSA environment.

At its simplest the ROT will be a provision in a supplier’s terms of trade that states that their buyer won’t get title to the goods being supplied until those goods have been fully paid for.

Over time the ‘simple’ ROT was gradually enhanced to allow for on-sale and for on-sale receipts to be ring-fenced for the suppliers benefit; to allow the supplier rights to enter the buyer’s premises to recover goods etc; and, eventually, to provide that, not only would title remain with the supplier until those goods were paid for but also that title would remain with the supplier until all monies owed by the buyer to the supplier had been paid regardless of how those outstandings had arisen.  Thus was born the All Monies Clause.

The All Monies Clause would allow a supplier, with outstanding debt, to recover their product from an insolvent buyer regardless as to whether that specific product had been paid for or not.

Fast forward to the introduction of the PPSA and its priority rules. The PPSA determined that priority of competing security interests should be decided by the date that security interest was registered on the PPSR – the earlier the registration the higher the priority. The exception to this was the creation of the Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) which, effectively, created a super priority in cases where the collateral being used as security was securing its own purchase price. In other words, an ROT arrangement would be given a super priority over other competing security interests regardless as to how much earlier those other interests might have been registered.

However, although a ‘simple’ ROT clause would meet the criteria for PMSI treatment, what about the All Monies clause?  Under the All Monies clause the goods delivered by the supplier were not just being used as security for their own purchase price they were also being used as security for any other outstanding debt the buyer owed to the supplier!  So while a security interest could be registered for the All Monies clause it would not merit the PPSA’s PMSI/super priority status and would have to ‘fight it out’ with competing security interests held by other creditors, many of whom may well have registered earlier.

The situation is further complicated where the supplier’s product is such that paid-for goods delivered last month might be completely indistinguishable from unpaid-for goods delivered last week – while the security over the unpaid-for goods has super priority, the All Monies interest over the paid-for goods does not. Do the few remaining goods on the buyer’s warehouse floor represent goods that had been paid for or goods that had not?  Unless the supplier is able to demonstrate that those specific goods had not been paid for they are likely to lose their super priority claim over them.

This is the scenario that the Review Report’s recommendation addresses – why should an unpaid supplier fail in their bid to exercise their properly registered and perfected security interest simply because paid-for goods and unpaid-for goods are indistinguishable?  This is the concept behind the ‘cross-collateralisation of PMSIs’ and although it isn’t intended to apply where there are no problems in distinguishing paid-for goods from unpaid-for goods it will make a big difference to suppliers of a more homogenous product or where serial numbers do not appear in invoices/delivery notes etc.

While there is no indication of any timetable for even discussing Bruce Whittaker's report recommendations let alone implementing them, delving into his proposals is an excellent way of getting a better understanding of the current operation/interpretation of the PPSA.

PPSA Amendment Finally Passes! [UPDATED]

Back in March 2014, I wrote about a Bill being put before Parliament to do away with the two tier system the PPSA had introduced whereby leasing arrangements were treated differently depending upon whether they involved serial numbered equipment (eg, motor vehicles and watercraft) or non-serial numbered equipment (eg, everything else).

That article, giving some background to the Bill and its implications, can be found here.

Finally, towards the end of last month, that Bill, the Personal Property Securities Amendment (Deregulatory Measures) Bill 2014, was passed.  While the approximately 15 months wait to get this approved won't be good news for those looking for swift implementation of any of the 394 recommendations included in the recently completed review of the PPSA, it will be good news for those businesses regularly engaged in the of hiring vehicles for periods of less than a year.

The Government has estimated that bringing the hiring of motor vehicles into line with the hiring of any other piece of equipment will save business over $11 million a year - whether that is based purely on the saving of registration fees or also includes the administrative costs involved in preparing and lodging a registration is not clear.

The good news, however, won't be felt just yet.  The Act needs to receive Royal Assent before it can be introduced and such introduction may take up to a further 6 months from that point.  

[UPDATE: An announcement by the PPSR today (28/08/15) advises that "The Government is working toward commencement of the amendment on 1 October 2015."]

Any leasing arrangements entered into before the, yet to be announced, amendment commencement date will still need to be registered in accordance with the 'old' rules but after that date, a great many small and medium sized businesses will have found themselves released from an annoying strand of red tape.

Just to reiterate - at present, if you are leasing a motor vehicle (or equipment that might fall under the Act's rather broad definition of motor vehicle) where the period of the lease falls into one of the following categories:

a) a term of more than 90 days; 
b) for an undefined period that may be construed as allowing for a hire extending beyond 90 days; or 
c) for any other period that allows, via automatic or optional renewal, extension to a total period exceeding 90 days.

A PPSR registration is necessary to prevent your property being taken as part of your customer's estate in the event a liquidator is appointed.

After the new amendment comes into force, the rules for motor vehicles will be just the same as for any other hired equipment:

a) a term of more than 12 months; 
b) for an undefined period that may be construed as allowing for a hire extending beyond 12 months; or 
c) for any other period that allows, via automatic or optional renewal, extension to a total period exceeding 12 months.

Any standard leasing arrangement that falls outside of any of the above situations need not register and need not run the risk of a liquidator taking possession of your equipment.

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.

Forthcoming PPSR Fee Changes

Just to give you the heads up on a forthcoming change to the PPSR’s registration fees.

The scheduled change is still subject to sign off by the Government but, given that the formal Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS) produced by AFSA has been made publicly available, I’d suggest that sign off will be little more than a rubber stamping of the CRIS proposals.

From 1/07/2015 the following fee changes are proposed:

Activity	Proposed Fee	Current Fee
Registration up to 7 years	$6.80	$8.00
Registration 7 to 25 years	$34.00	$40.00
Registration – Indefinite	$119.00	$140.00
Minor Amendment	$3.40	$4.00
Search	$3.40	$4.00
Discharge	$0.00	$0.00

For major amendments the fee will continue to reflect the equivalent new registration charge for the duration of the registration.

Why the proposed reduction?

So far, the fees charged by the PPSR have included a component to finance a repayment of the Government's start up investment in the Register.  This repayment is scheduled to be completed by 30th June 2015 thus charging beyond that date may be reduced proportionately - this amounts to a 15% reduction across the board.

As I have previously written on the importance of timely registration, it would be foolish to consider waiting until the new charges are introduced before lodging registrations!