What to do when your customer goes bust!

While it would be great if lodging a registration on the PPSR actually stopped your customer from going insolvent, that’s probably a little too much to expect from a $6 registration.  However, your registration will give you an important leg up in trying to recover something from the inevitable mess caused by the insolvency – specifically, any money you are owed for unpaid for goods.

Your first action (after putting a hold on any future deliveries) should be to write to the insolvency practitioner.  If you haven’t already got it, you can find contact information for the liquidators via ASIC .  Although you can write a letter, it is probably best if you use email.

Your email needs to put the liquidator on notice that you are owed money and that you want your recovery rights to be respected.  You will also want to start the process of gathering information to ensure any value you are able to recover is maximised.

You will, therefore, need to include:

·         A statement of account showing what is owed and/or outstanding.

·         A listing/description of what goods have been supplied (including any information that might help the liquidator identify the goods on a factory/warehouse floor).

·         A copy of your Terms & Conditions clearly showing your security rights (usually a Retention of Title clause) and some indication that the insolvent company actually accepted those terms – most commonly a copy of the Credit Application completed by the company.

·         A copy of your PPSR registration (the Verification Statement) – the registration number would probably be sufficient as the liquidator will, as a matter of course, obtain details of all the registrations lodged against the insolvent company.

·         A request for an urgent stocktake of your goods held at the insolvent company’s premises (or anywhere else where they may be being held on the company’s behalf).

·         A request for access to the company’s premises to identify any goods you have supplied. And

·         A demand that the liquidator ensure that any sales of your goods be put on hold and not go ahead without your express consent in writing.

It is important to remember that, even though you may not want your goods back – perhaps they have been specially made or adapted for this one customer – you still need to assert your right to recover them so as to maintain leverage over a liquidator who may well want to sell them as part of an end product to maximise income from the company’s assets. Unless you wash your hands of them, the liquidator will need your permission to deal with those goods and therein lies the opportunity for a deal to be made.

Have you sold tyres to a trucking company?  Getting used tyres back may not be a particularly attractive idea for you, but a liquidator will have a much better chance of making a profitable sale of vehicles with tyres than without.  If the liquidator wants to sell trucks with your tyres on them, your registration gives you the opportunity to insist that the liquidator pays you what you are owed out of the sale proceeds.

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!

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.

Top 5 Registration Errors

I came across an article in ‘Lawyers Weekly’ a couple of days ago, suggesting that more than 80% of businesses listing on the PPSR have made errors that may limit or invalidate their rights.

While this doesn’t really give much idea of the scale of the problem – it certainly isn’t intended to mean that 80% of all registrations are somehow wrong – it clearly reinforces the idea that the PPSR is far more demanding than it should be for a public register.

So, what are the most common errors that businesses are making?

Based, purely on my own observations, the following are the top 5 key problem areas.

Identifying the Grantor – Businesses seem much more comfortable using ABNs than ACNs and attempt to stick them in wherever possible. To the extent that they will treat an ABN and ARBN as one and the same, shoehorning a version of the ABN into a field designed to identify (primarily) overseas companies registered in Australia.

PTY LTD and PTY companies will have an ACN and failing to use that ACN when lodging a registration against them will have serious consequences.

When it comes to the PPSR, there is no such thing as ‘close enough is good enough’.  Grantors must be identified strictly in accordance with the PPSA’s rules.  When a third party wants to find out what security interests exist against a given company, they are guided by the PPSR to search by ACN.  If a search under that company’s ACN does not reveal your security interest it will almost certainly be considered invalid.

Forgetting about the Trust – Unfortunately for those who like simple rules such as “always use a company’s ACN to lodge a registration”, there is an exception where Trusts are involved. 

Where a company is acting as trustee of a trust (and that trust holds an ABN) the registration should be lodged against the ABN of the Trust.  Given that it is possible for a company to purchase both in its own right and in its capacity as a trustee, I tend to advocate lodging a registration against both.

“I don’t understand the question so I’ll leave it blank” – I’m positive that lack of customer reference numbers (or similar) included in registrations has a lot to do with the fact that the PPSR’s chosen term for this is ‘Giving of Notice Identifier’.  It is hard to think of a more awkward, less user-friendly term.  However, while failing to make an entry in GONI won’t cause too much of a problem, leaving the ‘Purchase Money Security Interest’ option blank for the same reason will be a lot more problematic!

Anyone selling subject to a Retention of Title clause, under a consignment stock arrangement, or leasing goods will lose virtually all their much deserved priority should they fail to tick this box.  

Don’t understand the definition of a PMSI?  No worries just tick the box anyway when you’ve got a Retention of Title clause in your terms.

Not taking stock – Even when the terms should be relatively familiar, such as in the case of “Is the collateral Inventory?” we see frequent problems. When asking why a supplier didn’t designate their interest as being over inventory, answers have included, “but it wasn’t inventory, we had to cut it to shape for them”, “we had to order it in specially”, or simply, “I didn’t think it was important”.

Firstly, everything in a PPSR registration is important.  Secondly, if you are selling goods that your buyer is going to be on-selling, using as part of their own end-product for on-sale, or using up in a production process or similar, it will be inventory. Failure to identify it as such could easily mislead a debtor financier or factor into thinking they can take clear title to accounts receivables, for example.  And, under the PPSA, if an error in registration can mislead it will, more than likely, be deemed ineffective.

Processing Proceeds – ROT suppliers are leaving the ‘Are proceeds to be claimed?’ question blank far too frequently.  While they may know what proceeds are, what they may not be aware of is their entitlement to claim proceeds for the on-sale of the goods they have supplied.

As a general rule, if you tick the PMSI box, you should also tick the Proceeds box.

While there are plenty of other opportunities for mistakes to be made (claiming a control of assets you don’t have, poorly thought out collateral descriptions etc), the above certainly represent the conjunction of the most common and most impactful.

Of course, the biggest error would be not to lodge a registration at all!

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.

PPSA & Commingling

Before the PPSA came in, if a supplier with a Retention of Title (ROT) had their goods mixed in with other indistinguishable product from other suppliers (as might be the case with fuel, sand, lumber, grain etc.) they would immediately lose those ROT rights.  However, the PPSA’s commingling provisions allow for a supplier’s rights to continue even when the goods that they have supplied can’t be told apart from goods supplied from other sources (Section 99 refers).

If we take the following scenario involving three suppliers, all delivering grain to the same buyer:

Supplier A has supplied $10,000 of grain,

Supplier B has supplied $15,000 of grain, and

Supplier C has supplied $5,000 of grain.

Each supplier is still owed the full amount for the grain they supplied. Each supplier has lodged a valid registration of their ROT rights on the PPSR.

However, when the liquidators performs their stock-take, they find that the buyer only has $18,000 worth of grain in his silo with no records to identify whether that grain was received from Supplier A, B, C or any combination of the three.

Section 102 (2) of the PPSA states that, in such circumstances:

If more than one perfected security interest continues in the same product or mass, each perfected security interest is entitled to share in the product or mass according to the ratio that the obligation secured by the perfected security interest bears to the sum of the obligations secured by all perfected security interests in the same product or mass.

While the above sentence starts off appearing to make sense, by the end of the third line you know it’s going to take multiple readings to get the sense of it! 

Essentially, what the PPSA is saying is that because Supplier A was responsible for a third of the overall supply of grain they should be considered a secured creditor in respect of a third of the grain still left in possession of the buyer (ie, $6,000); Supplier B would benefit from half ($9,000); with Supplier C getting the remaining sixth ($3,000).

If any of the suppliers had failed to lodge a valid registration on the PPSR then they don’t get to be party to the division of spoils.  Even where a supplier has lodged a valid registration but other suppliers have not, that supplier would not be allowed to benefit by more than the value of goods they supplied and which remain unpaid-for.

Transitional or Non-Transitional - the short & shiny version

When the PPSR was introduced on 30/01/2012 the legislation effectively stated that any new security/credit agreements you entered into after that date would only be fully effective if they were promptly registered on the PPSR and that their effective date would be deemed to be the date of that registration.

However, where you already had an existing security/credit agreement in place before that 30/01/2012 start date, the PPSA’s transitional rules would deem any security interests arising from that agreement to have been rendered fully effective (without the need for registration) for a period of up to 2 years.  To be effective for more than 2 years, registration would be required.  

During that 2 year period these pre-existing security agreements would be deemed to have an effective start date of just before the PPSR’s 30/01/2012 commencement date.  Any of these transitional agreements that were registered on the PPSR during the 2 year period between 30/01/2012 and 31/01/2014 would also be allowed to ‘count’ their effective date back to before the start of the PPSR rather than the date of the registration itself.

Now that the 2 year window for keeping the pre-30/01/2012 ‘count-back’ has closed, all registrations being lodged on the PPSR have an effective date aligned to the date of registration.

The only real difference now between designating a registration as a transitional as opposed to a non-transitional security interest is that the PPSR does not levy a charge ($8.00) for registering transitional security interests.

UPDATE: The PPSR now charges exactly the same for lodging a Transitional registration as it does for a non-transitional registration.

Over the past 2 years or so we have seen many instances of insolvency practitioners attempting to invalidate or otherwise discredit security interests on the basis that they had been designated as transitional rather than non-transitional.  I have never come across an instance where the reverse has been the case.

• If the agreement signed between you and your customer is dated after 30/01/2012 then you should register as non-transitional.
• If your applicable terms and conditions have been amended since 30/01/2012 you should register as non-transitional.
• If you can’t find a copy of your agreement with your customer then you should look to get a fresh one signed and register as non-transitional.
• If your signed agreement doesn't incorporate your security agreement and your retention of title clause only appears on your invoice then you should register as non-transitional.
• If you're in doubt register as non-transitional.

More information (and my personal contribution to the war on insomnia) can be found at:

http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-end-of-transitional-period-what-did.html

http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/a-long-standing-credit-agreement-is-not.html

http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/the-dangers-of-amended-terms-conditions.html

http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/transitional-rules-revisited.html

http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/registering-transitional-security.html

http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/challenges-to-ppsas-transitional-rules.html

PPSA & Accessions

To start with, let’s just clarify the applicable definition. 

Where a supplier supplies goods that are installed as part of a building, they become fixtures and, just as would have been the case in pre-PPSA days, the supplier’s retention of title security interest over those goods is, effectively, lost.  However, where a supplier supplies goods that are installed in, or fitted to, a non-real estate piece of property they become accessions. 

In pre-PPSA days, as soon as goods were incorporated into another product they were deemed to have lost their individual identity and the supplier’s security interest over those goods was lost; however, since PPSA the supplier’s security interest can continue in the finished product (section 88 of the PPSA refers).

Moreover, the PPSA’s default priority rules state that the security interest a supplier maintains over their accession takes priority over any claim any other security holder might have to the finished product (section 89).

Now, while section 123 of the PPSA states that a secured party may seize collateral by any lawful method if the debtor is in default under their security agreement, in the case of accessions, the secured party is required to give at least 10 business days’ notice of their intention to remove their product (section 95) and then must ensure that the goods are removed in such a manner as to not cause additional damage to the product in which it is installed (section 92). 

The grantor may apply to the courts for an order postponing the removal of the accession or determining a value to be paid by the grantor to the secured party to allow them to keep the accession in place (section 97).

However, the PPSA is not the only Act that necessarily applies!  In the event an administrator is appointed then the Corporations Act (2001) comes into play.  Once an administrator has been appointed, suppliers/creditors are unable to make claims for property held by their buyer unless they have the administrator’s consent or permission from the court (s440B of the Corporations Act).

Regardless of the super-priority a properly perfected PMSI might give to a supplier of retention of title secured goods, the provisions of the Corporations Act will prevent them from recovering any of their goods without the consent of the administrator.

Although the supplier may not be able to claim back their property immediately, neither is the administrator generally able to sell or dispose of it (s442C of the Corporations Act).  Because the goods are the subject of a perfected PPSA security interest, the administrator must act in the interests of the secured party and not sell or dispose of the goods without either the permission of the secured party or of the courts.

Unfortunately, there is one rather significant exception to this restriction on the administrator on-selling ROT secured property – that is where such an on-sale is in the ‘ordinary course of the company’s business’.

Thus, if you have supplied shafts to an assembler and wholesaler of hammers then the administrator would be perfectly within their rights to sell the completed hammers even though you may have demanded the return of your goods under your perfected PMSI (s442C(2) and (8) of the Corporations Act refer).

The administrator is, however, required to act ‘reasonably’ in exercising their power of sale (s442B) and has some fairly strict rules to follow regarding the manner in which they must deal with the proceeds from such sale (s442CC(2) of the Corporations Act refers).  These boil down to ensuring that the proceeds are applied proportionately to those creditors that hold a priority security interest in those goods.

For example, if you have supplied $10,000 worth of hammer shafts and I have supplied $20,000 of hammer heads and the administrator disposes of the finished product for, say, $24,000 then you will benefit from $8,000 of the proceeds and I will benefit from $16,000 – ie, proportionate to the value of our contribution to the finished product comprising our respective accessions.

To the extent that we are still owed money (your outstanding $2,000 and my outstanding $4,000) we will have to deal with the administrator as unsecured creditors.

Amendment Demands - Section 178

In an earlier article, I discussed the importance of Section 151 of the PPSA and the requirement that there be a reasonable belief that the security interest being registered on the PPSR either exists or is likely to exist.  Click here for that article. 

So while that article addressed a supplier’s right to lodge a registration, this article will consider the buyer’s rights when it comes to demanding that it be removed.

Section 178 of the PPSA is the most immediately relevant here and sets out two key criteria for a buyer to demand that a registration lodged against them be removed:

(a)          The obligation owed by a debtor to the secured party is not secured by collateral described in the registration; or

          (b)          The particular collateral in which the person has an interest does not secure any obligation owed by a debtor to the secured party.

These criteria are very similar to each other and, in exploring a variety of scenarios there is certainly some cross-over between the two.

Essentially, a buyer/debtor may demand that a registration be discharged if there is no collateral as described in the supplier’s registration or if there are no monies owed by them to the supplier that are secured by the described collateral.

Scenarios

Probably, the most common situation where such criteria would apply is where a supplier has supplied goods subject to a retention of title clause and was subsequently paid in full.  The supplier has either simply overlooked their obligation to remove their PPSA registration or legitimately believed there was a likelihood of repeat business in the near future.  While a supplier may have the right to lodge/maintain a registration in the reasonable expectation that trading might take place, a buyer has a superior right to demand the removal of such a registration.

Fortunately, a little less common, s178 criteria could also apply where a supplier has incorrectly described their collateral in their PPSA registration as constituting an item of inventory whereas the goods in question are clearly non-inventory items.  In such a scenario, even though there may be monies owed by the buyer to the supplier, it is not technically secured by the collateral as per the registration’s description.

We could also have a situation where the registration has been lodged correctly and there is money owed by the buyer to the supplier in respect of collateral delivered by the supplier but the collateral has been on-sold or otherwise ‘used up’ – there is therefore no collateral against which the supplier’s security interest can ‘bite’.  What about the supplier’s claim to proceeds?  Well a pre-condition for a proceeds claim is that the proceeds be directly or indirectly attributable to the sale of the supplier’s collateral and washing around in a busy bank account will tend to disguise any attribution quite effectively.  We may also have a supplier selling something like bleach or disinfectant that has been used up by the buyer generating no tangible proceeds.

So if there are no monies outstanding on the account or there is no collateral against which a supplier’s security interest can attach then the buyer is well within their rights to request that the supplier’s registration be discharged.

So how should the buyer go about getting the registration discharged?

In an ideal world the buyer would phone or email their supplier, gently point out that the registration against them appears to be serving no purpose and politely ask that it be removed at the supplier’s earliest convenience.  Unfortunately, what seems to be a lot more common are  strident demands, indignant protestations, and veiled threats of legal action and fines.

Under section 178 the buyer/grantor should address an amendment demand to the secured party’s address for service (found on their registration) outlining their reasons for the registration to be discharged or otherwise amended.

While section 178 provides no timescale for the discharge/amendment to take place, section 179 allows for escalation to the PPSR Registrar if the secured party has not responded appropriately within 5 business days.

Once the Registrar becomes involved they will issue the secured party with an amendment notice.  That amendment notice will reiterate the amendment demanded and invite a written response by the end of a further 5 business days.

Should the Registrar not receive any response from the secured party during this time-frame they will either amend or discharge the registration in line with the grantor’s amendment demand.

Where the secured party does respond in good time with an argument against discharging or amending the registration, the Registrar will make their decision based on the information provided by the secured party and ‘any other relevant information’.

Reference to the PPSR Registrar is, however, not the grantor’s only recourse should the secured party fail to respond satisfactorily to their initial amendment demand.  The grantor may choose, instead, to take the matter to court.

The PPSA is understandably silent on timescales once the matter has entered the court system but, as with similar legal processes, both grantor and secured party will have the opportunity to argue their positions before the court and should a decision be rendered in favour of the grantor then it will take the form of an instruction to the PPSR Registrar to effect the requested amendment/discharge.

So what about the threats of fines?

That part of the PPSA that concerns itself with Amendment Demands (part 5.6) is quite silent on the matter of penalties although there may be some application of section 151 that can be brought into play where the grantor suggests that there was no justification for the original registration in the first place.  While I’m not aware of any penalties having been applied for frivolous or unjustified registrations, section 151 certainly provides for civil penalties of up to 250 penalty points (equivalent to $42,500 at time of writing).

So far I’ve seen a lot more bluff & bluster and overly aggressive demands than I have civil and politely composed requests – possibly because the polite requests get acted upon straightaway whereas the aggressive ones tend to get referred to people like me for their advice – but the rules and timescales for action are clearly laid out and are unaffected by the tone chosen by the grantor.

Transitional Rules Revisited

It’s been over a year now since I described what I saw as the intent behind the PPSA’s Transitional arrangements and how a number of insolvency practitioners were seeking to negate that intent with their far more restrictive interpretations (click here for my original piece).

Since that time we have remained without any legal precedent that could be used to determine the issue once and for all.  However, as the 17^th month of the PPSR’s operation drew to a close (the end of June 2013 for those not wanting to count), Justice Beech and the Supreme Court of Western Australia stepped up to the crease and took a pretty healthy swing at the issue.

The Case

In 1998, Supplier Pty Ltd and Buyer Pty Ltd entered into a credit agreement containing a Retention of Title clause intended to provide terms and conditions applicable to future deliveries made by Supplier to Buyer.  Supplier was also the beneficiary of a guarantee from Mr Guarantor committing Mr Guarantor to making good any shortfall in monies owing to Supplier in the event of Buyer’s non-payment.

Back to the present day and the issue being considered is the extent to which Supplier Pty Ltd is able to maintain a caveat over real estate property held by Mr Guarantor by way of protecting the effectiveness of his guarantee.  Mr Guarantor has argued that Supplier’s failure to register their ROT security interest against Buyer Pty Ltd increases the likelihood of a higher value claim against Mr Guarantor’s property and thus maintaining the caveat would be unfair.

Supplier Pty Ltd argues that their ROT interest over Buyer Pty Ltd has been perfected by the PPSA’s Transitional provisions and does not need to be specifically registered in order to be effective.

The Judgement

Unfortunately for us, Justice Beech was not required to rule on whether Supplier’s ROT security interest was, in fact, perfected under the Transitional rules but merely to adjudge whether Supplier Pty Ltd had a ‘seriously arguable’ case.  

Fortunately for us, His Honour considered that Supplier had indeed demonstrated a seriously arguable case that:

• The 1998 document constituted an agreement that would govern future deliveries;
• The 1998 agreement gives retention of title rights in respect of each delivery;
• The 1998 agreement is a security agreement as defined in the PPSA;
• As the 1998 agreement was in force and ‘active’ at the time the PPSR went live, it constitutes a transitional security agreement (s307); and
• As the 1998 agreement provides for the granting of security interests, any security interest associated with deliveries made subject to the terms of that agreement will be transitional security interests (s308).

So while WA’s Supreme Court decision may not have been decisive for our purposes it gives a clear indication that our views as to the intention of the PPSA’s Transitional arrangements are likely to be upheld should they be presented in court and must seriously dent the confidence of those IPs attempting to argue differently.

Remember, however, that all terms & conditions, all credit agreements and all ROT clauses are not created equal and much will depend upon how each have been drafted and to what extent and in what manner they may have been amended or updated since the PPSA came into effect. 

For those who want to investigate this particular case more closely, the decision to which I refer was in relation to Industrial Progress v Wilson and others.  Don’t bother trying to look up Supplier Pty Ltd v Mr Guarantor.

PPSA & Real Estate (more fun!)

The approaches from the solicitors of prospective purchasers of real estate to have unrelated PPSR registrations lifted show no sign of abating.  

Scenario

Eyes & Ears Pty Ltd sells and installs audio visual equipment; a portion of their stock is bought from Sight n Sound Ltd.

Sight n Sound sell to Eyes & Ears on credit terms subject to a Retention of Title clause.  While this clause allows for Eyes & Ears to on-sell the goods that Sight n Sound has supplied it also provides for Sight n Sound to be able to recover any unsold Sight n Sound sourced products for which Eyes & Ears have failed to make payment in a timely manner.

Under the Personal Property Securities Act Cth 2009 (PPSA), such a Retention of Title clause is treated as a security interest (Section 12(2)(d) refers) and, as such, Sight n Sound has registered that security interest on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR). 

In accordance with the PPSR’s rules Sight n Sound has registered their security interest as follows:

Collateral Type:      Commercial Property (as distinct from Consumer Property);

Collateral Class:      Other Goods (the PPSR does not provide for a more specific designation for tangible property that is not required under the Act to be identified by serial number);

Inventory:              Yes (to identify the use to which the goods being sold are put);

PMSI:                     Yes (designating the security interest as a Purchase Money Security Interest, this identifies that the goods/collateral in question are acting as security for their own purchase); and

Proceeds:               Yes – All present & after acquired property (recognising the rights of Eyes & Ears to on-sell their product, Sight n Sound’s security interest extends to any proceeds arising from such on-sale, regardless of the form such proceeds might take, as long as the original supply remains unpaid).

Eyes & Ears is in the process of selling real estate property and the solicitor acting on behalf of the prospective purchaser has asked that Sight n Sound release the real estate property in question from the charge they have registered on the PPSR as a condition to the real estate transaction progressing.

Opinion

1.    The PPSA does not apply to collateral in the form of real estate or to any fixtures   attached to such property.

Confirmation is available from the PPSR’s web site at www.ppsr.gov.au where it clearly states that:

Under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), personal property is defined as any form of property other than land, buildings or fixtures that form part of it or a right (such as water rights), entitlement or authority.

Reference may also be made to Section 8(1)(j) of the PPSA which specifically identifies fixtures as an item of property to which the Act does not apply and Section 10 which defines the Act’s use of the term fixtures.

          8  Interests to which this Act does not apply

(1)               This Act does not apply to any of the following:

(j)         an interest in a fixture;

and

10  The Dictionary

                        In this Act:

                        fixtures means goods, other than crops, that are affixed to land.

2.    Sight n Sound’s security interest resides solely in goods supplied by Sight n Sound to Eyes & Ears as well as to any proceeds arising from the sale or disposal of those goods for as long as monies remain outstanding to Sight n Sound for the sale of those goods.  Sight n Sound’s registration does not perfect any security interest in any other property or assets held by Eyes & Ears.

3.    Even were there to be some hitherto unheard of interpretation of the PPSA which would allow that Act to apply to real estate property in this context and collateral from Sight n Sound was incorporated into that real estate property then Sight n Sound’s PPSR registration should still not be considered an obstacle to the sale of that property by virtue of Section 32 of the PPSA.

Section 32 effectively extinguishes Sight n Sound’s continued security interest in the goods themselves, once those goods have been on-sold, and transfers that interest to any proceeds arising from the on-sale.

32  Proceeds—attachment

            (1)        Subject to this Act, if collateral gives rise to proceeds (by being dealt with or otherwise), the security interest:

            (a)        continues in the collateral, unless:

            (i)         the secured party expressly or impliedly authorised a disposal giving rise to the proceeds; or

            (ii)        the secured party expressly or impliedly agreed that a dealing giving rise to the proceeds would extinguish the security interest; and

            (b)        attaches to the proceeds, unless the security agreement provides otherwise.

The nature of Sight n Sound’s Terms and Conditions of Sale (in which their Retention of Title clause is to be found) and Sight n Sound’s designation in their PPSR registration of their security interest residing in Inventory both expressly and impliedly authorise the disposal of their goods by Eyes & Ears thus enabling the purchaser of their on-sale to take those goods free of any continuing security interest.

While there may be exceptions to such a situation should the collateral in question be described by serial number in Sight n Sound’s registration that is clearly not the case in this instance.

Had the sale of real estate been a normal part of the business of Eyes & Ears it would have also been relevant to have quoted Section 46 of the PPSA which allows for purchasers of the on-sale to take such property free of any security interest where the on-sale would constitute an action “in the ordinary course of the seller’s business”.

46  Taking personal property free of security interest in ordinary course of business

(1)        A buyer or lessee of personal property takes the personal property free of a security interest given by the seller or lessor, or that arises under section 32 (proceeds—attachment), if the personal property was sold or leased in the ordinary course of the seller’s or lessor’s business of selling or leasing personal property of that kind.

Conclusion

Not only is there no justification for Sight n Sound to discharge their correctly registered security interest but to do so would seriously impact upon the effectiveness of Sight n Sound’s security interest in respect of its on-going trading with Eyes & Ears.

Similarly, there is no justification/need for Sight n Sound to make any amendments to their existing registration.

While it is not considered at all necessary and would only serve a ‘cosmetic’ purpose it would not prejudice the effectiveness of Sight n Sound’s security interests were Sight n Sound to execute a Deed of Release along the lines of the draft shown after the following disclaimer.

Disclaimer

Please note that nothing in this document should be taken as formal legal advice and neither the author nor his employer accept any liability for any negative outcome that may arise from actions taken after it has been read.

Deed of Release

Addressee:                   [the entity seeking the release]

Secured Party:             [your company – as per your PPSR registration]

Grantor:                       [the debtor – as per your PPSR registration]

Security Interest: Any security interest (including a “security interest” as defined under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Commonwealth)) held by the Secured Party in respect of the Released Property.

Date:                            [date this release is intended to take effect]

Released Property:       [description of the property for which the release is required]

The Released Property is released from the Security Interest on the date of this deed.  Nothing in this deed releases, terminates or otherwise affects any debts or liabilities of the Grantor or any other person secured by any Security Interest to the extent such debts or liabilities remain outstanding at the date of this deed or arise after the date of this deed.

This document is governed by the law in [insert relevant State of jurisdiction] and the Secured Party submits to the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that place.

Executed by the Secured Party as a deed poll

EXECUTED AS A DEED by

as attorney for   ………………………….     under power of attorney dated  ……………….

in the presence of: ........................................................

Signature of witness: ........................................................

Name of witness (block letters): ........................................................

By executing this deed the attorney states that the attorney has received no notice of revocation of the power of attorney.

PPSA & Real Estate

There seems to have been a flurry of activity over the last month with a number of our clients being pestered to discharge PPSR registrations on the basis that they are impeding the sale of real estate property.

While this is an obvious nonsense it is, unfortunately, being propagated by a number of legal professionals and is becoming such a nuisance that I was asked to draft up a letter on behalf of a client which they could then send to their customers.  

Our client sells building materials which go to form an integral part of the structure of a building and their immediate customers are usually builders who will then be selling the resulting building.

The draft went as follows:

The Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) was passed by Government in an attempt to simplify and clarify how security interests are treated across the whole of Australia. 

One of its key elements has been the creation of a national register (the PPSR) where the holders of security interests are encouraged to register the existence of those interests.  As a matter of company policy, we have decided that we will register all our security interests on the PPSR.

Our registration is strictly in relation to a security interest we maintain over the goods we supply in the form of a Retention of Title clause enshrined in our standard Terms & Conditions of Sale.

Our registration on the PPSR is purely a means to safeguard our position against any competing claims from other creditors and should not, as a matter of practicality, change our normal trading relationship with you nor indicate any concerns regarding your value to us as a trading partner.

However, the PPSA is still relatively new to everyone and misunderstandings abound – particularly with organisations which you might think would know better such as banks and solicitors. 

One such misunderstanding may arise when you are attempting to sell real estate property. 

During the sale process, someone (usually a conveyancer) will discover that [Client Name] holds a PPSA security interest against your business and will decide that the real estate sale cannot be concluded until [Client Name] has released and/or discharged its security interest.

If this occurs you should point out to whoever draws this to your attention that the PPSA does not apply to the sale of real estate or to any fixtures attached to such property.

For further confirmation you may direct interested parties to the PPSR’s web site at www.ppsr.gov.au where it clearly states that:

Under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth), personal property is defined as any form of property other than land, buildings or fixtures that form part of it or a right (such as water rights), entitlement or authority.

You may also make reference to Section 8(1)(j) of the PPSA which specifically identifies fixtures as an item of property to which the Act does not apply and Section 10 of the same Act which defines the Act’s use of the term fixtures.

Our registered security interest applies to rights we hold to recover unpaid goods that we have supplied up until the point those goods are incorporated into a building and become fixtures. 

After that point our security interest transfers to a portion of any proceeds that may arise from the sale of that property but no longer applies to the property itself.

Please feel free to send a copy of this letter to anyone requiring the release of our PPSA registered security interests as a pre-condition to allowing the sale of real estate to go ahead.  When presented with a request based upon a misunderstanding our inclination is to dispel the misunderstanding rather than perpetuate it by humouring the request.

I have a particular fondness for the last line although I don't doubt that this would be one of the more likely elements to be edited out by anyone choosing to base their own letter on this draft.

Feel free to use the draft as you see fit (although if you want to publish a version on your own website I'd appreciate the credit).

P