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.

PPSR - Requesting an Amendment or Discharge

Recent posts have concerned themselves with how to conduct searches of the PPSR and how to set up an alert to be notified when a new registration has been lodged against you.

It seems a natural follow on to now look at your options should you find that someone has lodged a registration against you that you don’t believe should be there.

The most likely scenarios are where:

• Trading that had given rise to a security interest has been fully concluded with no reasonable expectation of further trading in the foreseeable future; or
• A trading partner (or indeed, anyone) is asserting a security right to which you have never agreed.

While a registration without a solid underlying security interest is, effectively, worthless it nevertheless has the potential to cause problems – particularly should you find yourself having to negotiate a loan with a fussy financier or deal with an overly cautious conveyancer when trying to sell some property. 

Your first course of action should be to write to the Secured Party that lodged the registration. 

While, for the sake of the legislation, you need to write to the person/contact point identified in the registration as the Address for Service, there is no harm in also involving a more familiar contact in the correspondence if you feel that might be helpful to your cause.

However, I would strongly discourage adopting an overly aggressive stance and threats of legal action and penalties should definitely be avoided.  I’ve had a number of such approaches referred to me and have found that, rather than intimidate the recipient, they have invariably provoked a desire on their part to dig their heels in and devote unnecessary time and effort into trying to find fault with the demand!

All that is needed is a short, polite letter, referencing the registration number in question, suggesting that the registration is no longer required/valid and requesting its discharge.  Importantly, the letter should also add that it is being sent in accordance with section 178 of the PPSA.

Something along the following lines should suffice:

Dear Sirs,

REQUEST TO DISCHARGE REGISTRATION 201401010007553

It has come to our attention that you have lodged the above registration against us on the Personal Property Securities Register.

We have reviewed our dealings with you and find them to have been fully concluded with no outstanding obligations; consequently we request that you effect the discharge of this registration at your earliest convenience.

We will review the situation in 5 business days’ time.

Please note that this letter has been sent in accordance with section 178 of the Personal Property Securities Act.

Yours faithfully… etc

Or, depending on the circumstances, the red text could be replaced with something along the following lines:

We have reviewed our dealings with you and find that no security interest of the nature described in your registration has been agreed by us

If your section 178 request to the Secured Party fails to elicit a satisfactory response, your next step is a section 180 request to the PPSR.

While the PPSA does not stipulate the length of time that should be available to a Secured Party to attend to your request, taking the next step of approaching the PPSR directly requires that they have had at least 5 business days to deal with your request.

To assist you in making your s180 request, the PPSR has a specially designed form for you to complete.  This can be found at:

Amendment Statement download

The form is comparatively straightforward although I’ll quickly run through the essentials.

All this information can be taken from the details of the registration itself.  If more than one Secured Party was listed on the registration (as may often be the case), you’ll need to complete one of these forms for each.

The form is asking for your details here – you are the applicant and, certainly in the context of this post, you are the ‘person’ identified as the Grantor in the registration.

Depending upon the circumstances, the response to the final question in this section:

Will depend upon whether you still have ownership of the goods in question or have used them up or on-sold them.

• If you still have ownership then your interest is an ‘Other Interest’,
• if you have on-sold them on terms that mean you still have a right to them in the event of non-payment then you have a ‘Security Interest’,
• but if you have used them up or on-sold them and have been paid in full, you have neither a ‘Security Interest’ nor ‘Other Interest’.

The amendment demand to which the first tick box refers will be the letter you sent to the secured party asking for the discharge – as you can gather, this box should be ticked and you should attach a copy of the letter.

In the circumstances we’ve been looking at in this post, box (a) should be ticked.  However, if you are seeking an amendment to a registration in respect of a legitimate security interest and merely wish to ensure certain specific collateral is excluded from its terms then (b) would be more appropriate.

The amendment demanded will, invariably, be the discharge of the registration.

Following the relatively self-explanatory declaration on the final page(s) the completed form should be sent to forms@ppsr.gov.au.

Once the form is processed by the PPSR, it will write to the Secured Party inviting them to comment on your demand.  The Secured Party has 5 business days to comment and, in the absence of any response, the PPSR will discharge the registration (or amend it) as per your request.

If the Secured Party responds, within the 5 business days permitted, to the effect that the registration should stay in place as per its current terms then, unless the Secured Party’s explanation is transparently spurious to the PPSR Registrar, your only remaining recourse will be to the Courts (section 182) – it would be exceedingly unusual if this became necessary.  But if it did, you’ll need to get professional legal assistance.

UPDATE 30th July 2021: The PPSR has revised its Amendment Demand form and issued its own guidance as to the amendment demand process.  Please see my more recent post HERE.

Progress of the PPSR Review Report

It's been around 18 months since Bruce Whittaker's final report of the Review of the Personal Property Securities Act was tabled in parliament.  The report made a little under 400 recommendations concerning ways in which the PPSR could be improved - many of which involved substantial simplifications to the registration process.

So, in the absence of any update as to progress in following up the report's recommendations I decided to write to the Attorney General's Department to ask how things were progressing.  In truth, I had almost forgotten I'd done so, but, this afternoon, I received a reply.

I reproduce the body of the reply, in full, below (drafting errors included), but first I'll show you my original request, and leave it to you to judge to what extent the response addresses the request.

My request:

It's been about 18 months since Bruce Whittaker's Final Report of the Review of the Personal Property Securities Act was tabled in Parliament.   

I'd like to know what progress has been made since that time in moving to implement its recommendations, both legislatively and operationally.  I'd also appreciate an indication as to the timetable for implementation.

The AGD's response:

Dear Mr Miller,
  

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the progress of the independent statutory review (the Review) of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (the Act). The Review makes 394 recommendations aimed at reducing complexity and improving the accessibility of both the Act and the Personal Property Securities Register and includes number of recommendations which would reduce the regulatory burden on the equipment hire industry.
  

The Government is working towards implementation of these reforms while ensuring that the rights and interests of all parties are given due consideration. Reform to the Act will have an economy-wide impact and must be executed with due care and diligence. The Act carefully balances the rights of secured parties, lessors and financiers on the one hand, against those of grantors, lessees and borrowers on the other. The response to the Review must be progressed as a comprehensive package rather than in an ad hoc fashion, if it is to achieve the aim of reductions in complexity and regulatory burden without prejudicing the interests of any party.
  

The Attorney-General’s Department hopes to be in a position to provide information about implementation time frames in the near future.

 Thank you again for your enquiry.

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.

Clive Palmer vs the PPSA

I’ve just read an 'excited' article by The Australian, entitled “Clive Palmer firms jump queue of creditors for Queensland Nickel” which you can read here (although you may get caught out by The Australian’s paywall).

The meat of the article concerns the ‘last minute’ registration on the PPSR of security interests against Queensland Nickel by companies in which Clive Palmer has an interest.

“Four days before Clive Palmer’s Queensland Nickel Industries collapsed into voluntary administration, two of his companies staked a claim on all of the refinery’s assets in an apparent attempt to squeeze out redundant workers and other creditors.”

The article goes on to say that,

“Legal experts said the manoeuvre could disadvantage sacked workers, already furious at being denied access to their redundancy entitlements.”

Apparently, The Australian and its ‘legal experts’ are not especially familiar with the workings of the PPSA or the Corporations Act once insolvency practitioners become involved.

Firstly, any creditor who had lodged a security interest on the PPSR prior to Palmer’s recent registrations will benefit from greater priority under the PPSA (at least a dozen of which were registered under the facilities that I personally oversee).

But, perhaps more importantly, in the context of The Australian’s article, are the implications of the Corporations Act for security interests registered within 6 months of a company failure.

While I’ve previously explored this at some length in my post ‘The PPSA vs The Corporations Act’, the short version is that 588FL of the Corporations Act provides a very clear deadline by which a registration needs to be lodged in order to be effective against a liquidator.

If a registration was not lodged within 20 business days of the security interest coming into force or was lodged during the 6 months leading up to the liquidator’s appointment, then “The PPSA security interest vests in the company” and the creditor’s security rights are effectively lost.

So, while opportunistic, last minute registrations may make for a relatively entertaining news story, they don’t make for very effective security.

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.

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’?

PPSA Statutory Review - Interim Report

Under the terms of the Personal Property Securities Act (2009) a review of the performance of the act is required to be completed by the end of January 2015.

That review has already started and, following an initial consultation exercise completed in July, an interim report has been issued.  

The review is being conducted by Bruce Whittaker, a lawyer specialising in financial services and commercial financing arrangements.  His interim report runs for 53 pages and says:

• Not enough people are aware of the PPSA; and
• Those that are aware of it tend not to understand it.

Radical stuff!

Mr Whittaker also advises that he is "not minded at this stage to recommend any specific amendments to the Act, the Regulations or the operation of the register." Instead, he wants to focus on further consultations that, in addition to representing a continued information gathering exercise, would also serve to further spread understanding and enlightenment on the subject of the PPSA and increase industry's sense of ownership of the Act.

So, instead of suggesting taking a scalpel (knife, axe, bludgeon) to those parts of the Act responsible for generating so much confusion in the trade credit and finance industry and debate between opposing teams of lawyers, we will be treated to some questionnaires?

If you want your own copy of the interim report it can be found at the Attorney General's website at:

http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/StatutoryreviewofthePersonalPropertySecuritiesAct2009.aspx