Government's Response to the PPSR Review

Bruce Whittaker completed his formal review of the PPSR in March 2015 and his report, containing 394 recommendations, was put to Parliament at that time.  I first wrote to the Attorney Generals' Department in September 2016 asking what progress had been made in assessing the review's recommendations and have begun making something of an annual habit of it ever since.

The request for information and the formal response from the AGD after 18 months consideration can be found HERE, and the response after 30 months can be found HERE.  Some 44 months on from the PPSR Review's release I've received the following response to my latest enquiry requesting an update on the progress of its consideration:

Thank you for your email about the Government’s response to the Review of the Personal Property Securities Act. I am sorry for the delay in responding to you.

Regarding timelines, while the department has made considerable progress on the response to the Review, we are currently consulting with a range of industries and stakeholders regarding a number of the more complex recommendations in the Review.  Following the conclusion of this consultation, the Government intends to release its response to the Review. This is to provide stakeholders with notice of the Government’s position on the review as soon as possible. Following this, the department will undertake broader consultation on the corresponding exposure draft legislation. We are not in a position to provide a release date at this time, but will keep you updated.

With all due respect to the AGD, this doesn't represent any advance on their update last year in which they advised:

The Government intends to release an Exposure Draft of a Bill to amend the Act and a prototype PPS Register, for public consultation. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comment on the Bill and the Register before the Government takes further action to implement the recommendations of the Review.

The Government will make further announcements about the timing of public consultation on the Bill and Register.

If anything, the latest response seems to represent something of a step backwards.

At this stage, it might be worth pointing out that it 'only' took around 2 years from the passing of the 2009 Act to commencement of the Register in the first place (not that anyone considered that to be particularly quick) and we are now approaching 4 years from the presentation of the Review's findings without the Government having even released a response for consultation let alone an implementation strategy.

With so many finding the registration of their security interests on the PPSR an overly complicated exercise fraught with the possibility of error, it is disappointing that there is such delay in implementing recommendations designed to simplify the process and remove many of the Act's pitfalls.

How to Renew a PPSR Registration

As seen in my last post, we're rapidly approaching the time where many suppliers will be needing to renew registrations they put in place shortly after the start of the PPSR in 2012.

Renewal should be a straightforward process. 

Individual PPSR Brokers will probably have different approaches to the activity but the following shows the step by step process involved in renewing your registrations directly on the PPSR website.

In order to attempt this, you will need to have already established an account with the PPSR – this is a requirement for setting up an SPG but might have been avoided if the supplier’s SPG was set up for them by an intermediary that already had a PPSR account.

The following steps show the process once you have navigated to the PPSR and logged into your account.

Access your Secured Party Group (SPG) and click on the Group Registrations tab:

Use the 'Other filter options' to select a suitable range of expiry dates:

This will generate a screen showing all registrations due to expire within the selected time frame.

Select the registration you want to renew and click on the renew button:

Unfortunately, for reasons that are not entirely clear, if you make multiple selections, ie, you have a number of registrations that need to be renewed, the ‘Renew’ button becomes greyed out and unavailable!  In other words, registrations can only be renewed one-by-one, so it could be a bit of a slog if you have a lot of registrations expiring at the same time.

Once the Renew button is clicked you’ll be asked to choose a new expiry date and be given the opportunity to review the details of the registration being renewed:

It’s a little annoying that while the PPSR allows for simple selections for 25 year and indefinite registrations, it doesn’t allow for a simple 7-year registration – instead, the PPSR requires the user to manually enter a 7-year expiry.

You should also note that, when setting the expiry date for, say, 7 years, the 7 year period counts from the current day’s date and NOT the original expiry date. 

After that, it’s a simple matter of confirming the renewal and paying the renewal fee (which will be exactly the same as if a new registration were being lodged):

While it should only take a minute to renew a registration, make sure you don’t cut things too fine and miss the expiry date.  Registrations that have already expired cannot be renewed!

Obviously, a third party PPSR Services provider should be able to provide bulk renewal facilities along with an alert process warning of impending expiries and their own renewal processes are likely to work quite differently.

UPDATE: AFSA has now told me that, following my whinge suggestion that a simple 7-year expiry selection should be available for renewals, they have implemented that change.  Renewals will now be a little bit easier... which is nice.

Spike in PPSR Registrations due to Expire

Earlier this week, AFSA released their PPSR statistics for the 2018 June quarter.

While there’s not much that’s particularly surprising in the statistics (which you can find here) there is a new addition to the format, in that AFSA has now provided information regarding the number of registrations due to expire in the next 18 months.

I’ve drawn up a quick chart based on the figures, in as much as they relate to ‘Other Goods’ registrations (the type of registration most appropriate to the majority of trade credit suppliers):

While the picture from March 2019 onwards looks as we might have expected, this is preceded by a huge spike in expiries in January 2019, surrounded by high levels of expiring registrations from October to February.

While the last two days of January 2012 saw the start of the Register (and the previous three months a few waves of advanced registrations and migrations from other registers) I’m surprised that the registration activity that took place at those times didn’t concern itself, almost exclusively, with transitional registrations with an indefinite expiry.  As someone very closely involved with thousands of bulk registrations in those early weeks of the register, virtually all were lodged as indefinite transitional registrations.

However, clearly there were a great many registrations being lodged for only 7 years and these are now coming up for renewal.

I'll shortly be following up this post with a step by step guide to renewing registrations on the PPSR.

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.

The PPSR doesn’t understand Retention of Title!

On 23/07/2018 AFSA, the operators of the PPSR, issued a news briefing regarding how the PPSR could assist a building developer in “using the PPSR to secure its retention of title in the material it supplies”.

Given that it would be unusual for a building developer to be doing the ‘supplying’ when it comes to materials, I thought I’d get a copy of the information sheet AFSA were promoting.

Sure enough the PPSR Case Study 11/V1, started with:

“Scenario – building developer uses the PPSR to secure its retention of title in the materials it supplies ...”

The information sheet goes on to elaborate as follows:

“Developer Sceneview owns land on which it has permission to build a warehouse.

It contracts with Projex to build the warehouse. The contract provides that Projex sources the material needed for the build process.

Projex will submit invoices to Sceneview for works and materials, whether the materials are on-site or off-site.

Sceneview has a security interest, under the contract, in all building materials in the possession of Projex, to secure performance of Projex’s obligations under the warehouse contract.

Sceneview registers that security interest against Projex on the PPSR.”

I don’t know about you, but the first thing that struck me was that it was Projex, as the supplier, that was most likely to hold a Retention of Title over the goods they were supplying.  While Sceneview may be contractually granted a security interest over goods in the possession of one of their contractors, such a right would not be a Retention of Title right.

The information sheet then hints that it knows that what it is describing is not really a Retention of Title right, because it goes on to suggest that ‘Sceneview’s’ registration will only defeat a competing registration by a bank by virtue of having been lodged earlier.  If the registration concerned a true Retention of Title right it would have been eligible for PMSI treatment and the relative timing with a bank registration would have been irrelevant.

I wrote to AFSA drawing their attention to their description of an ROT interest, not actually being an ROT interest and, a couple of days later, got a phone call from quite a pleasant lady who explained that they already had concerns internally over the information sheet in question and had been reviewing it even while it was being actively promoted as part of an email campaign. 

As anyone who has had dealings with civil servants will appreciate, there was no admission that an error might have taken place, nor any explanation as to why a misleading information sheet not only remained as part of the PPSR’s help documents (it’s still there at the time of writing by the way) but was then selected for specific dissemination to a wider audience. They were gracious enough, however, to acknowledge that, I was ‘not necessarily wrong’ in the error I had pointed out. 

Bless them.

Is a PPSR registration still necessary to defend against Preference claims?

In June 2016, I posted an article discussing, among other things, Justice Edelman’s ruling in Hussain v CSR Building products Limited concerning alleged preference payments made by FPJ Group Pty Ltd. 

The Corporations Act allows liquidators to claim back payments made by the insolvent company during the 6 months prior to their appointment – provided that those payments were in respect of an unsecured debt.

In Hussein v CSR,  Justice Edelman found that there were sufficient references in the Corporations Act to a Retention of Title right being, in substance, a form of security that, while in the circumstances CSR may not satisfy the definition of a ‘secured creditor’, their Retention of Title right was sufficient to render the debt they were owed ‘not unsecured’.  This, against the background of CSR not having registered their ROT on the PPSR!

This was a pretty controversial decision at the time but, two years later, we’ve finally got ourselves another judgment effectively reinforcing the idea that a Retention of Title right (whether registered on the PPSR or not) represents sufficient security to ensure that payments made against that security right are not treated as unsecured for the purposes of the Corporations Act.

Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107 wasn’t an entire success for the supplier, however, because even though their ROT was sufficient to make payments eligible for consideration as being ‘not unsecured’, the question as to how much value in payments those ROT rights actually supported needed to be addressed. 

If a supplier sends goods worth $10,000 and invoices accordingly, at ‘day 1’ the supplier (assuming an ROT) will be secured for the full amount owed, however, if, by the time payment falls due $8,000 of those goods have been on-sold, then the supplier will only be a secured creditor for $2,000 of the money owed and an unsecured creditor for the balance. (Note: there's an earlier post looking at the 'value' of security here.)

Using this approach, the Court found that $473,291 of the $696,298.72 of payments received were paid in relation to an unsecured debt and thus were recoverable by the liquidators as the fruits of an unfair preference.

With both legal precedents involving ROTs that were not perfected under the PPSA’s rules, there is a lifeline for suppliers who either haven’t registered on the PPSR or lodged too late or with serious errors – at least as far as defending against preference claims is concerned. 

When it comes to attempting to recover unpaid for goods or their equivalent value from administrators and liquidators, suppliers had best make sure they have a valid PPSR registration in place (lodged in good time) because claiming that their ROT makes them ‘not unsecured’ will not cut it!

When should a PPSR registration be lodged?

In general terms, the answer is ‘as soon as possible’ and, in this context, that means, as soon as the supplier has a reasonable belief that they may be doing business with the grantor in question and that such business will involve the granting of a security interest.

In order to avoid falling foul of the Corporations Act, the supplier’s registration should be lodged within 20 business days of their security agreement being formed. For trade credit suppliers, that security agreement will usually be represented by the signing of the initial credit application by which the supplier’s Terms & Conditions of trade are accepted (provided, of course, that those T&Cs contain the supplier’s security rights – usually in the form of a Retention of Title clause).

If the registration is not lodged within that 20 business day period, the supplier runs the risk that, if their customer falls insolvent in the next 6 months, a liquidator will be able to use section 588FL of the Corporations Act to, effectively, ignore the registration.

I’ve written at greater length on the implications of section 588FL HERE.

Obviously, if the supplier misses that 20 business days window, they should still go ahead and register on the PPSR as soon as possible, it just means that they’ll need to keep their fingers crossed that a liquidator doesn’t get appointed during the next 6 months – once 6 months have elapsed with no liquidator in sight, the supplier can relax.

If we put aside for one moment the Corporations Act provisions, the other key timing issue concerns the effectiveness of your Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) rights.

As we know, Retention of Title suppliers, those providing goods on a Consignment Stock basis, and long-term leasers of equipment automatically qualify for having the security arrangements that those trading practices represent designated as PMSIs, thus entitling them to a super-priority over any earlier (or later) registered general security interests.

However, in order to ensure their PMSI right is effective, the registration must be lodged within specific time frames:

Where the Collateral is Inventory	Before the grantor takes possession of the goods
Where the Collateral is not Inventory	Within 15 business days of the grantor taking possession of the goods

Any registration lodged outside of those time frames will still be valid, but it won’t benefit from the super-priority that the PMSI designation would otherwise afford.

If repeat supplies are involved, suppliers should remember that even though they may have registered too late for the first few deliveries, a registration will still be effective over later deliveries.

Protecting Your Gear On Site

February saw the collapse of WA based builder Cooper & Oxley accompanied by scenes of subcontractors climbing over fences and evading security guards in order to attempt to recover tools and equipment that they had left on project sites.  You can find an example here.

Since then, there has been an understandable increase in advice being offered to subcontractors as to how they might be able to protect themselves.  What has been less understandable, however, is the oft-repeated suggestion that a registration on the PPSR might act as some sort of golden ticket allowing a subcontractor to recover any of their gear they might have had stored on site.

If you are selling goods subject to a right to recover those goods if you’re not paid for them, then a registration on the PPSR is essential if you want to be able to exercise that right against a liquidator or administrator etc.  Similarly, if you are engaged in a long-term hire of goods (and by long, I mean at least 2 years) then, again, registration is essential to protect those goods from falling into the hands of an Insolvency Practitioner. 

However, such leasing arrangements and conditional sale agreements are specifically deemed to create security interests under the PPSA; simply storing your tools on a building site overnight is not.

When a company goes into liquidation, the liquidator is entitled to treat any property that is used as collateral in a security interest as having vested in the insolvent company and thus available to be liquidated for the benefit of creditors.  The only real exception to this is where that collateral/security interest has been registered on the PPSR.

 

Because a subcontractor’s tools are not the subject of a sale (conditional or otherwise) to the insolvent company and are not being leased to them, the liquidator has no right to treat them as if they were the property of the main contractor. If they're not collateral in a security interest, there's no danger of them vesting in the insolvent company.

If that is the case, why do we read about subcontractors and tradies being locked out of sites, unable to recover their tools?

One of the first jobs a liquidator needs to do, on arrival, is to take stock and evaluate what assets the company might hold.  They can’t do this effectively (or fairly) if there is a steady stream of people marching onto the site and walking off with whatever property they can lay their hands on – some of it may well be their own but some of it may be the company’s and some may actually belong to other subcontractors.

In this sense, the liquidator is a little like the coroner arriving at the site of a freshly discovered body in popular American TV shows.  Their first job is to protect the integrity of the crime scene and then, gradually, determine to what extent the items found in and around that scene were relevant to the body and the means by which it came to be dead.  If you happen to have lost your car keys in that area, it will be understandable if you have to wait a while before you can get them back!

And so it is with a liquidator, they’ll need to ensure they can identify what goods belonged to the company and what belonged to subcontractors and then they’ll need to ensure that the right gear is made available to the right subcontractor.  To do this properly will, unfortunately, take time.  

From subcontractors I’ve spoken to, while the delay in getting their gear back is extremely frustrating, they do eventually get their stuff back and, if they don’t, it’s invariably because it had been taken by another subcontractor trying to grab what they could, presumably, in an attempt to offset money owed to them by the company.

Not only is a registration on the PPSR not necessary and will do nothing for the rights of the subcontractor in recovering their tools, it may even create confusion, leading to further delays in the subcontractor being reunited with their gear.

There’s been a suggestion that, while it won’t be perfecting a security interest, a PPSR registration might nevertheless serve as some sort of ownership document ‘proving’ that certain tools belong to the particular subcontractor.

Given that a PPSR registration can be lodged by anyone, for anything against anybody so long as they have a credit card with an available balance of at least $6.80 and that there’s no checking or verification that its details bear any relationship to reality, there is absolutely no way that a liquidator is going to accept a PPSR registration along these lines at face value.

Liquidators spend large amounts of their time picking holes in, and generally finding fault in, PPSR registrations and will not be convinced by a registration that, effectively, says that “a box of spanners and a hammer with a red handle” are owned by a particular tradie.  Even being able to identify tools by serial numbers won’t be treated as any evidence of ownership.

If proving ownership is the issue, it will be far more effective simply to have your name inscribed/labelled on the tool than to have it registered on the PPSR.

In short, while suppliers selling goods on Retention of Title terms, and hire companies, hiring goods on a long-term basis would be foolish not to register their interests on the PPSR, it would be foolish for subcontractors and tradies, looking to protect their tools, to think that a PPSR registration would be of any help.

Proposed Fee Changes

On the 11^th April the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA), which operates the PPSR, issued a consultation document regarding changes to the PPSR’s fees intended to take effect from 1^st July 2018.

With the PPSR having, effectively, earned back its own development costs in its first 3 years of operation, its fees are now, pretty much, only there to ensure it covers its own running costs.  Given a steady growth in registration activity, AFSA believes that it can reduce its fees and yet still cover its own costs for the next few years and has thus proposed the following reductions:

Activity	Current	Proposed
7 year registration	$6.80	$6.00
7 to 25 year registration	$34.00	$25.00
Indefinite registration	$119.00	$115.00
Searches	$3.40	$2.00

The consultation document is silent on the matter of fees for ‘Minor Amendments’ and the reissue of Verification Statements.

Minor amendments include changes to:

• Free text description (collateral description)
• Subordination Indicator
• Giving of notice identifier
• Proceeds Indicator and description
• Vehicle Registration Number (i.e. the number plate of the vehicle)
• Aircraft Nationality
• Aircraft nationality code and registration marks assigned pursuant to the Chicago Convention (where not used as a serial number)

Minor amendments and the reissue of Verification Statements are currently charged at $3.40 each.  I’ve written to AFSA querying these omissions.

The consultation document can be found at https://www.ppsr.gov.au/cost-recovery-implementation-statement with any comments required to be forwarded to stakeholders@afsa.gov.au by 6pm on Friday 4^th May.

UPDATE: AFSA has now advised that 'Minor Amendments' such as changing Collateral Descriptions will (should the proposed new charges be accepted) no longer attract a charge from the PPSR.  Similarly, if the proposed new fees are accepted, the reissue of Verification Statements will also not attract a fee.

UPDATE #2: AFSA has issued a notice advising that the planned implementation of the fee reductions will need to be delayed in order to give certain stakeholder groups longer to prepare for the fee reduction.  I don't pretend to understand why it would need to take more than 2 months to prepare for a small fee reduction but, nevertheless, there will be a delay.  No fresh implementation date has been given at this point but I will update again when this is announced.


UPDATE #3: We've now had confirmation that the new fees will be implemented on 1st August 2018 following approval from the Attorney-General.

When does the Grantor take possession?

I recently had cause to read a helpful summary of a decision by the South Australian Supreme Court in the matter of Allied Distribution Finance Pty Ltd v Samwise Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] SASC 163.  While much of the background to the case is a little fiddly, I’ll give a short ‘broad strokes’ summary in order to help demonstrate why this might be a very useful decision for the hire industry.

For those wanting a more detailed look, I recommend the summary HERE  or, for those that want a real thrill, the full text of the judgment can be found HERE.

The case concerned Bill’s Motorcycles – a dealer, selling and servicing Kawasaki motorcycles.  Bill’s had been financing its floor stock with one financier but then struck an agreement with another (Allied Distribution Finance – ADF).  Bill’s stock of 40 motorcycles (secured by the original financier) was bought out by Kawasaki and, effectively, sold to ADF.  Bill’s maintained possession of the motorcycles and ADF lodged a PMSI registration on the PPSR to perfect its security interest over them.

When Bill’s went into administration a couple of months later, there was a dispute concerning those 40 motorcycles between Samwise, the holder of a General Security Interest (AllPAAP) over all Bill’s assets and ADF as a PMSI holder.

While a PMSI will usually take priority over an AllPAAP, in this case, Samwise argued that because Bill’s was already in possession of the motorcycles at the time ADF lodged their PMSI registration,  ADF had failed to meet the time-scale requirements of section 62 of the PPSA.

Section 62, effectively, states that, in order to achieve PMSI priority over inventory items, a registration must be lodged before the grantor obtains possession of the property.

Samwise argued that, as Bill’s had already been in possession of the motorcycles for some time before ADF lodged their registration, ADF was not entitled to PMSI priority.

In his judgment, Justice Blue determined that, in the overall context, the implication of section 62 should be taken to mean that the registration must be lodged before the grantor obtains the type of possession that would entitle them to grant a PMSI interest in the property.

Thus it is the grantor’s possession in the role of PMSI grantor that matters, rather than their mere physical possession of the property.

While this is unlikely to be of any assistance to trade credit suppliers forgetting to perfect their Retention of Title rights in time, it may have implications for the long-term hire industry.

Last year, the Government made changes to the manner in which hires and leases were caught up by the PPSA.  In short, the changes involved leases for less than 2 years no longer needing to be registered on the PPSR.  Where a lease was established for an indefinite period that may or may not extend beyond 2 years, the new legislation only required a registration to be put in place once that 2-year limit was breached.

When I posted about the new legislation, I wrote:

In order to be eligible for PMSI super priority where the collateral being used is designated as a non-inventory item, the perfecting registration must be lodged within 15 business days of the lessee taking possession of the property.

 However, where an indefinite lease is concerned and the lessor doesn’t lodge their registration until it becomes clear the lease may extend beyond the new 2 year qualifying period, that 15 business days period may long since have passed leaving the lessor’s claim to their equipment to fall behind those of other general security holders with registrations already in place.

Justice Blue’s decision in the Bill’s Motorcycles case suggests that, while a lessee may have been in physical possession of property for 729 days, it will only be at the 2 year mark they have possession in the capacity of a grantor of a PMSI right and it should, therefore, be at that 2 year point when the PPSA’s 15 business days countdown for a PMSI eligible registration should commence.

Whether this interpretation is sufficient to also satisfy the Corporations Act’s dreaded section 588FL is another matter! 

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 $6.80 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 $6.80 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.