Greater Clarification for Fixtures under the PPSA

No sooner has the first anniversary passed of the court's judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation (receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc & Ors (2016) than a judgment has been handed down on the first significant appeal against that decision.

I won't go into any great detail concerning the original judgment (particularly because I've already written on the subject here) but, suffice to say, it involved a lot of money ($50 million) and whether or not the leased property in question should be treated as a fixture.

The latest judgment in Power Rental Op Co Australia, LLC v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) [2017] saw the Court of Appeal being asked to reconsider whether the turbines in the original case really were the non-fixtures the court found them to be.

The appellants' argument was (largely) that the PPSA did not use common law concepts regarding fixtures but instead created its own definition (effectively, property affixed to land) and because the turbines in question were substantially 'bolted' to the ground, they had become fixtures and thus fell outside the auspices of the PPSA.

The argument, however, appeared to carry little weight with the Court of Appeal which, in dismissing the appellants' case, held that:

The definition of ‘fixtures’ in the PPSA was intended to import the common law notions of affixation that ‘a fixture is an item of tangible personal property that is annexed to real property in such as way as to become a part of the real property and that whether an item is a fixture “depends on the degree and purpose of annexation of the item as well as the rebuttable presumption that what is fixed to land is a fixture and that which is not remains a chattel”’ is the relevant test (not a bespoke test such as a fixture is a ‘non-trivial attachment’),

In short, merely being attached to land (or a building built on the land) doesn't necessarily render an item of property a fixture - it actually has to become part of the fabric of the real estate in question in order to be considered a fixture.

Although much will depend upon the purpose the property is intended to serve by being attached to a building this should still be something of an alert to suppliers who might otherwise have been too quick to assume the PPSA would not apply to goods they were supplying.

GE vs Forge Group (aka APR Energy vs KordaMentha)

The 11^th February saw a decision handed down in the NSW Supreme Court in the battle between the receivers of the Forge Group (KordaMentha) and the US-based, General Electric International Inc over KordaMentha’s claim to gas turbines totalling $50 million.

I've already written here concerning the outcry from US business and politics regarding the matter, now we get to hear the court's view.

In case you haven’t already read elsewhere, I won’t keep you on tenterhooks, the decision represented a victory for KordaMentha. 

Justice Hammerschlag ruled that the absence of a PPSA registration in respect of turbines leased by GE to Forge Group under an agreement in March 2013 meant that title to those turbines vested in Forge Group upon their insolvency the following March. Put simply, a win for the receivers, who get an extra $50 million in assets to play with, and a loss for the American company that actual holds (held) title to the property.

While there will no doubt be more than a few headlines hailing this as a ‘victory for the PPSA’, the legal argument was a little more nuanced.

The issue before the court concerned some technicalities of the PPSA, and the right provided by the Act for PPSA security interests to be vested in the insolvent company was never actually in dispute.

GE instead chose a two-pronged argument:

• That the goods represented fixtures (the PPSA explicitly does not apply to fixtures); and
• That GE, while having leased the turbines, was a company not regularly engaged in the business of leasing goods (the PPSA also does not apply to leases in such circumstances).

On the matter of fixtures, J Hammerschlag found that the weight of evidence made it clear that, not only was there no intention that the turbines become fixtures but, their very nature (designed to be demobilised and moved to another site, quickly and in a short time, there was an obligation for the turbines to be returned at the end of the lease period, that the turbines could be removed at a relatively low cost without damage to either the land or the turbines themselves etc) meant that they should not be deemed fixtures for the purposes of the Act.

As to whether GE was regularly engaged in the business of leasing, this was relatively easily confirmed by a simple review of GE’s leasing history.  This confirmed that from 2003 to the present time GE had been no stranger to leasing its equipment, that it was a “proper component” of their business and conducted with sufficient repetitiveness to satisfy the court that their leasing arrangement with Forge fell under the auspices of the PPSA.

Therefore, not so much a victory for the PPSA as much as it is a victory for the PPSA’s definitions.

Those wanting to read up on the case in detail can find the full judgement at this link.

PPSA – The Americans don’t like it!

Many will have heard by now of the action being taken by KordaMentha, as receivers of Forge Group, against the US Company, APR Energy. 

The Forge Group had been leasing two power generators worth $50 million from APR Energy on a long-term basis.  Once Forge went into administration, this lease was deemed to be a security interest under the PPSA and, because it had not been registered on the PPSR, considered vested in Forge for the administrators to do with as they will.  APR is, understandably, not best pleased with this prospect and the argument is going to be heard in court.

However, my interest in this article is not so much with the ins and outs of the legal case so much as it is with the extent to which US interests, supportive of APR’s position, have been so prominent in the submissions given to Bruce Whittaker’s statutory review of the PPS Act.  The following are a few choice extracts from some of the contributions:

APR is currently being caused severe economic hardship as a result of an illegal seizure of its property by a major Australian financial institution and the liquidators for an Australian power generation company. …

At the heart of the dispute is a most unfortunate claim under color of the PPS Act by Forge and ANZ Bank to possess and take title to APR’s Gas Turbines, valued at US$64 million, without due process of law and without compensation of any kind to APR…

Forge’s largest creditor, ANZ Bank, through its appointed managers and receivers, is seeking to illegally convert APR’s Gas Turbines as payment for a substantial debt owed by Forge to ANZ Bank. 

Former member of the US Congress, Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

I have recently learned about your review of the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) and would like to urge you to take into consideration the devastating effects of Section 13 of the PPSA for American companies doing business in Australia.

As you know, Section 13 allows certain entities to make false claims against property that is owned by American companies and being leased to Australian individuals and businesses. Under this law, American companies can loose hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment to the Australian government in the event of bankruptcy. This is extremely troubling and Section 13 should be modified to prevent this.

The City of South Houston Chamber of Commerce. (Note: Section 13 of the Act provides a definition of what constitutes a PPS Lease).

We are consistently looking to expand into new markets where there is stability and opportunity.

I am, therefore, concerned about what I have learned about Australia's recent Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPS Act). As I understand it, Australia's PPS Act is being used by unscrupulous entities to illegally seize American-owned property and hold it for ransom. Failure by the owner to record its ownership interest can lead to the loss of everything from

vehicles and plant machinery to shares, intellectual property and contractual rights. 

For small businesses like mine, the loss of even one machine under such a scenario could be catastrophic. You tack on subsequent legal fees and companies like mine can find themselves in a hole from which they cannot remove themselves. In short, the PPS Act has turned the idea of doing business in Australia from an appealing to a dangerous gamble.

Barbara Woerner, Vice President of James Woerner Inc, New York.

Section 13 of the PPS Act will allow unscrupulous entities to register bogus security interests in leased property owned by companies doing business with BD Global. Treatment of lease agreements as security interests under the PPS Act allows Australian companies to improperly list leased property as security for a commercial loan. If the loan is in default, the lessor, which is often an American company has lost all rights to the property.

Blaine D. Hone, CEO of BD Global, Utah.

The PPSA has created an opportunity for dishonest entities in Australia to seize American-owned property and hold it hostage. By registering bogus "security interests" in property that is owned by American companies and leased in Australia, these entities are attempting to secure the property and quash the ownership rights of American companies. This has created a very dangerous and unstable situation for local companies that export valuable equipment to Australia pursuant to short-term lease agreements.

Thaddeus M Jones, Illinois House of Representatives, 29^th District.

Needless to say, these submissions all include a reminder of the important contribution US companies make to Australia and the extent to which that will be jeopardised without some special treatment being extended to US/foreign companies under the PPSA.

The full text of these submissions can be found at the following link: http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/StatutoryreviewofthePersonalPropertySecuritiesAct2009-SecondRound.aspx

While it would be easy to be snide about the characterisation of what is happening in the APR Energy case as ‘dishonest’, ‘bogus, ‘improper’, ‘illegally seize’, ‘hold for ransom’ etc, and to be cynical about what could be interpreted as veiled threats, there is, nonetheless, the very real issue that the Australian Government introduced the PPSA and then kept (relatively) quiet about its implications. 

Where were the press, TV, and radio advertisements announcing that if you didn’t register your credit sale or lease of goods you ran the risk of losing your property?  Where were the massive billboards saying ‘register it or lose it’?