PPSR & COVID-19

There is no shortage of articles being published concerning the impacts of the current Coronavirus pandemic but the following extract concerning PPSR registration from the law firm of Cooper Grace Ward serves as a timely reminder:

Are your security interests registered?

There is a heightened risk of insolvency occurring in respect of all businesses over the next six months. If you are lending money, trading on retention-of-title terms, leasing goods or taking security over personal property in any way, it has never been more important to ensure that you have correctly registered security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register.

There may be a small window to act. The Corporations Act provides that a security interest that is registered in respect of a corporation more than 20 days after the security interest is perfected will vest in the company on winding up or administration. Even less time may apply for certain security interests. An out-of-time security interest that is registered today will only be enforceable if the grantor-company survives the next six months.

We recommend that you act quickly to register any unregistered security interests.

You can still enforce security interests and guarantees

Notwithstanding the Federal Government’s amendments to insolvency laws, parties can still enforce security interests and personal guarantees.

Personal guarantees may be more difficult to enforce due to the effect that the pandemic is having on the courts around the country – though, theoretically, nothing is stopping the enforcement of a guarantee. Security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA), on the other hand, do not require a judgement before a secured party can take enforcement action. The PPSA provides secured parties with powers of seizure and disposal. Of course there would be significant reputation risk around enforcement of securities under the current environment that would need to be carefully considered.

The full article can be found here.

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.

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! 

New PPSA Amendment passes its first reading

The first day of the new season saw the Government introduce the Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017.

As the element in parentheses indicates, the Bill concerns an amendment to the manner in which the PPSA deals with leasing arrangements.

At present the PPSA only applies to leases that run for longer than one year, are for a shorter period but allow for extensions that would take them beyond one year, or are for an indefinite period.

The new Bill basically takes that one year qualifying period and extends it to two years.

But before anyone suggests holding off on lodging that backlog of registrations you’ve got piling up, the Bill (if enacted) isn’t intended to apply retrospectively and it’s anybody’s guess as to when it will actually come into effect given that the last amendment of this nature took 15 months to pass and another 3 months to get Royal Assent!

Clearly a lot of lobbying has been taking place behind the scenes because, at least from my point of view, this Bill is something of a surprise – there was certainly no recommendation in the official review of the PPSR to extend the PPS Lease period.

However, the Bill does incorporate an element of one of the Review’s recommendations where indefinite leases are concerned.  If passed, indefinite leases will only require registration once the goods being leased have actually been in the possession of the Grantor for the two year period. 

While this will obviously be a substantial relaxation of the rules for businesses that essentially deal in short term hires but don’t explicitly identify a maximum end date, it will be interesting to see how this ties in to the Corporations Act - s588FL of which pretty much requires registration within 20 business days of the leasing agreement being signed to avoid risking losing hired goods to any liquidator appointed within 6 months of the actual registration date.

UPDATE: This Bill was formally passed on Thursday 11th May and will come into effect as soon as it has Royal Assent.

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!

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.

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’?

The Dangers of Amended Terms & Conditions

For us simple folk, the basic difference between ‘transitional’ and ‘non-transitional’ under the PPSA boils down to the simple question – is this a long-standing customer or a new account?

If a supplier’s trading account was in place prior to the PPSR’s start date on 30/01/2012 then any on-going security interests would be dealt with under the PPSA’s transitional rules, after that date and the transitional rules do not apply.

[My earlier post at http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/challenges-to-ppsas-transitional-rules.html should be referred to for an explanation for identifying a transitional security interest.]

Why is the transitional/non-transitional designation so important?

Well, for one thing, the PPSA provides for a 2 year period during which transitional security interests are deemed to have been perfected without needing to be registered.  This is designed to give trade credit suppliers plenty of time to get around to putting all their long-standing accounts on the register before the end of January 2014 deadline.

So a transitional security interest is basically an existing account that hasn’t yet been registered on the PPSR?

Well, not quite.  When you make a registration on the PPSR one of the first questions you get asked is whether the registration is for a transitional or non-transitional security interest.  So PPSR registered interests may also be ‘transitional’. This is because the rules for determining priority are applied differently depending upon the transitional status of the security interest.

Where you have two equivalent security interests competing for the same collateral, priority is given to the security interest that was registered first; UNLESS one or more of the security interests was a transitional security interest in which case those interests are deemed to have been perfected immediately before the PPSR came into effect.

Now it has been argued that, as the PPSR acts as a notice filing system rather than a transaction filing system, aside from those pesky priority issues, it shouldn’t really matter if a registration is designated as a transitional or non-transitional security interest, what really matters is that the presence of a security interest has been made public and interested parties can be made aware of its existence.  The extension of this argument is that if a security interest was wrongly identified as transitional then an Insolvency Practitioner (IP) could simply ignore its transitional designation and treat the security interest as if it were non-transitional. 

A little like a piece of children’s craft work having its age category mislabelled when being entered into a school craft fair, the piece of work should simply be re-allocated to the correct age category and judged accordingly.

Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any evidence of this argument gaining much in the way of traction and many IPs continue to be quick to pounce on any instance where they believe a registration was wrongly categorised as an opportunity to dismiss a supplier’s claim to secured creditor status.  IPs are effectively disqualifying the child’s craft work from the whole competition rather than assessing it in its correct category.

Ok, it sounds harsh but no-one really expected IPs to be the sort to go around kissing babies and patting puppy dogs and if a supplier can’t tell the difference between a long-standing account and a new account then surely they’ve got to take some responsibility for that?

If only it were that straightforward. 

The issue we are now seeing involves instances where suppliers have made changes to the terms & conditions of their original agreements with their long-standing customers, perhaps to make reference to the PPSA or to clarify how payments are to be allocated, or any of a myriad of sensible variations and amendments.

If any of those changes were introduced after the PPSR came into effect on 30/01/2012 then IPs are arguing that the transitional rules can no longer apply to any subsequent security interests.

That may be understandable if the changes to the initial agreement were done in such a way as to form a completely new agreement but most variations are done so as to maintain the integrity of the original agreement.

That may be so but that might not be good enough under the PPSA. 

Section 308(b) of the PPSA defines a transitional security interest as

…a security interest provided for by a transitional security agreement, if:

(b)  in the case of a security interest arising at or after the registration commencement time:

(i) the transitional security agreement as in force immediately before the registration commencement time [30/01/2012] provides for the granting of the security interest;

The specific wording at issue is the reference to the security agreement “as in force” prior to 30/01/2012.

If we assume that the PPSA’s drafters knew what they were doing (a bit of a stretch I know) then we must consider what inferences need to be drawn from their drafting choices. 

They could simply have referred to a transitional security interest as being one that arises from a security agreement “in force” before 30/01/2012 but instead they chose to refer to a security agreement “as in force” before that date.  While the former would not be without its ambiguities, the choice to include the additional two letters appears to lend support to the suggestion that it is not merely the agreement that needed to be in place before 30/01/2012 but that version of the agreement which gave rise to the security interest in question.

If a later version of the credit agreement was introduced after 30/01/2012 then it would be that later version, it is argued, which would be deemed to have created the security interest and thus the transitional rules would not apply.

That’s an awful lot to read into the inclusion of a single two letter word.

Indeed it is and there is no obvious clarification of intent in the original PPS Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum which simply states that:

“A security interest would be a transitional security interest ….. where the security agreement is entered into prior to the registration commencement time and allows for the creation of the security interest”.

However, if there is one thing we’ve learned since the PPSR began it is that IPs will be only too happy to exploit any chink in a supplier’s registration if it means they can increase the value of the grantor’s assets they get to play with.

Therefore, if a supplier’s Terms & Conditions were amended after 30/01/2012 and that supplier wants to avoid a long, drawn out (and potentially unsuccessful) argument with an IP, they should ensure they have a non-transitional registration in place in addition to any transitional registrations.

Hopefully legal precedent will be established that suggests such a belt and braces approach is unnecessary but, until then, this approach appears to be the best way to avoid the risk of losing security interests and/or priority.

This is almost certainly an issue where suppliers would be wise to obtain their own legal advice.

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 & Consignment Stock

Under a Consignment Stock arrangement Company A supplies goods to Company B without passing ownership until such time as those goods are used or sold by Company B – at that point in time a payment obligation between Company A and Company B is created.  Any unused/unsold goods will usually be returned to Company A.

The Personal Property Securities Act treats the structure of Consignment Stock arrangements as providing a security interest for Company A in the goods supplied (PPSA Sections 12(2)(h) and 12(3)(b) refer).

The PPSA goes on to allow for such a security interest to be designated a Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) thus allowing Company A a greater priority claim over the goods they  supplied than, say, the holder of a general security agreement over all the assets of Company B (PPSA Section 14(1)(d) refers).

So, as with Leasing arrangements and Retention of Title clauses, it is not necessary for the terms of a Consignment Stock arrangement to specifically describe the agreement as a form of security for it to nevertheless be considered as such in the event of an administrator being attached to Company B.

Unfortunately, this can be something of a double-edged sword. 

Whenever the PPSA provides for an arrangement/agreement to be treated as a security interest it also allows for an administrator to vest the goods/collateral in question along with the rest of the assets of the debtor company UNLESS that security interest has been correctly registered on the PPSR.

Bringing this home quite strikingly was the entry into liquidation last month of Jacksons Rare Guitars Pty Ltd in Annandale, in Sydney’s inner west.  At the time a voluntary administrator was first appointed, Jacksons had over 100 clients who were using Jacksons to sell their instruments on a consignment basis representing almost $850,000 of the total stock.

In a pre-PPSA world the individual consignors could have relied upon consignment notes to prove ownership and claim back their instruments but, since PPSA, if they failed to register their consignment on the PPSR (and I’m not aware of any who did) their precious guitars would be vested by the liquidator with the rest of Jacksons’ stock and sold off for the benefit of, primarily, other creditors.  Unfortunately, it is the post-PPSA scenario that is currently playing itself out in Annandale.

While we continue to bemoan the poor promotion the Federal Government has engaged in regarding letting small and medium sized businesses know about the implications and requirements of the PPSR let us spare a thought for the lack of promotion towards the general public who may first become aware of the Register at the same time as they’re being told that they can’t have their guitar back!

When Should a PPSA Registration be Discharged?

Section 151 of the PPSA allows for registration of a security interest where the Secured Party has a reasonable belief that the collateral identified in the registration will become the subject of a valid security interest in their favour.

Because of the requirement under the Act for security interests taken in inventory to be registered in advance of the debtor/grantor taking possession there will inevitably be circumstances where a registration is in place but not yet applying to specific collateral held by the debtor/grantor.

This is particularly the case in circumstances involving on-going supply, or the reasonable expectation of on-going supply.

If a supplier is approached to open a credit account for a new customer then, provided that credit account includes a provision for a security interest (such as a Retention of Title clause), the opening of that account should be deemed to create a sufficiently reasonable belief in the likelihood of a security interest attaching to collateral thus satisfying the requirements of Section 151.

Similarly, unless it has been specifically stated that the sole purpose of that new credit account is to accommodate a one-off purchase, it would not be unreasonable for that supplier to anticipate a measure of continued/repeat business once the initial purchase under the account has been completed.

However, where there are no longer any reasonable grounds for anticipating on-going business/orders (and there are no monies outstanding on the account) then the registration should be discharged within 5 business days from the point at which there stopped being reasonable grounds for anticipating on-going business.

A clear and unambiguous point at which it could be determined that ‘reasonable grounds’ ceased to exist would be the date the Secured Party received confirmation from the debtor/grantor that no further purchasing was anticipated, possibly accompanied by a request to discharge the registration.  At such point the Secured Party would have 5 business days to discharge the registration.

Unfortunately, real life often does not present us with ‘clear and unambiguous’ events and it is quite likely that many suppliers will have open credit accounts on their books that have been inactive for some time.  At what point does it no longer become reasonable to sustain a belief in the likelihood of further trade (and thus the imminent attachment of their security interest)?  Disappointingly, the PPSA provides no guidance in this and legal precedents have yet to be set so we may well be entering ‘how long is a piece of string’ territory.

However, before suppliers relax too much they should note that part 4 of Section 151 places the burden of proof firmly on the shoulders of the Secured Party (supplier) in establishing the reasonableness of maintaining a registration in the absence of any current trading!

While this shifting of the burden of proof to require the ‘accused’ to prove their ‘innocence’ may come as a rude awakening to those whose legal expertise comes from watching episodes of ‘Law & Order’, those who have to deal regularly with liquidators or the Taxman will simply see this as par for the course.

Although I appreciate that it is much more easily said than done, suppliers’ primary defence against claims of unreasonable registrations will be tight and efficient credit control procedures, regular monitoring of accounts and good communication with customers. 

At a bare minimum credit departments should make sure they have “Discharge PPSR Registration” as a priority item on their check-list whenever an account is closed.

The relevant portions of Section 151 referred to above are reproduced below:

151  Registration—belief about security interest

Requirements for collateral to secure obligation etc.

             (1)  A person must not apply to register a financing statement, or a financing change statement, that describes collateral, unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that the person described in the statement as the secured party is, or will become, a secured party in relation to the collateral (otherwise than by virtue of the registration itself).

Civil penalty:

                     (a)  for an individual—50 penalty units;

                     (b)  for a body corporate—250 penalty units.

             (2)  If a financing statement, or a financing change statement, that describes collateral has been registered on the application of a person, the person must, within the period covered by subsection (3), apply to register a financing change statement to amend the registration to end its effect with respect to the collateral, if:

                     (a)  the person described in the statement as the secured party has never, since the statement was registered, been a secured party in relation to the collateral (other than by virtue of the registration itself); and

                     (b)  there are no reasonable grounds (or there are no longer any reasonable grounds) for the belief mentioned in subsection (1).

Civil penalty:

                     (a)  for an individual—50 penalty units;

                     (b)  for a body corporate—250 penalty units.

             (3)  The period covered by this subsection is as soon as practicable, or 5 business days, whichever is earlier, after:

                     (a)  if there never have been, since the statement was registered, reasonable grounds for the belief mentioned in subsection (1)—the day of the registration time, or the amendment time, for the financing statement or financing change statement; or

                     (b)  if there are no longer any reasonable grounds for that belief—the day when there stopped being reasonable grounds for the belief.

             (4)  A person who wishes to establish that there were reasonable grounds for the belief mentioned in subsection (1) (at any particular time) bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter.

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.