Section 64 and Maintaining Access to Finance

What is a Section 64 letter?

Note: It is important to have an understanding of a supplier's right to 'proceeds' in order to properly appreciate the role of Section 64 of the PPSA.  You can get a quick briefing on proceeds here.

Section 64 letters are designed to fix the problem caused when a supplier’s claim to proceeds of on-sale conflicts with a financier trying to get ‘clean’ security for an accounts receivables package (also known as debtor financing).

If a financier is being asked to finance a business’s on-sale of goods it is reasonable for them to want to take security over the money the business will receive from that on-sale.  However, where the original supplier of those goods has a Retention of Title clause and has registered it correctly as a PMSI, they are entitled to the first ranking security right over monies received from the on-sale of their unpaid-for goods.

Unless a compromise is reached the buyer may have his access to finance curtailed and the supplier will possibly run a greater risk of late payment or even non-payment.

The compromise included in Section 64 of the PPSA, involves the financier giving the supplier 3 weeks’ notice of their intention to lodge a registration over their customer’s proceeds from sales.  The registration they lodge at that time will take precedence over the supplier’s – BUT ONLY FOR THE PROCEEDS ELEMENT – and, in return, the supplier’s security rights will transfer from the proceeds of on-sale to the proceeds from the financier’s finance package.

Sometimes the 3 week wait is too much for the financier and their customer and, as a result, the supplier will be urged to discharge their registration, allow the financier time to lodge their registration, then put their registration back in place.  This is NOT beneficial to the supplier and would mean that they would be sacrificing their right to proceeds without any commensurate right to a share in the finance to show for it.

When do I have an interest over 'Proceeds'?

What does ‘Proceeds’ mean?

The term 'proceeds', in this context, refers to money that comes to a buyer from the on-selling of goods supplied to the buyer by the original supplier of the goods.

If a supplier has a Retention of Title right and registers it as a PMSI (see here) they get the opportunity to have their security interest extend to any money their customer receives from on-selling the supplier's unpaid-for goods.

While in most cases (unless they involve a motor vehicle identified by its VIN number, for example) the supplier's right to recover their unpaid goods ends with their buyer's on-sale of those goods, the PPSA allows a supplier's PMSI security interest to 'automatically' transfer to the proceeds of on-sale of those goods as soon as their secured 'grip' over the original goods is lost.

While this can be a useful ‘added extra’, proceeds claims can be messy and, typically, will only be successful when the proceeds monies are received AFTER a liquidator has been appointed to the customer’s business.

I've yet to see rights over proceeds used in a defence against a liquidator's preference claim and, whilst I can envisage some scope for success, I can also imagine that such a defence would not be particularly well received by said liquidator.

PPSR - Ticking the Inventory Box

Should I designate my goods as ‘Inventory’ or not?

The correct answer depends upon how your customer will be dealing with the goods being supplied.

It is a common misunderstanding that whether the goods are 'inventory' or not depends upon how they are treated by the supplier.  I've heard suppliers, when asked why they didn't designate their goods as inventory, say, "Because they weren't inventory items, we had to make them specially".

Under the PPSA, an item of property can be inventory if sold to one business or non-inventory when sold to another - it all depends upon the use to which the buyer will put the property in question:

• If the goods are for on-sale, 

• for inclusion into an end-product that will be on-sold, or

• consumed as part of the customer’s business (eg, fuel for a transport company, or disinfectant for hospital), 

then they should be designated as ‘Inventory’.  Otherwise, the inventory designation should be left blank.  

While the official review of the PPSR recommended doing away with the 'inventory question' because of the confusion it causes, for the time being, it is still required as part of the registration process and, if you get it wrong, you will find it difficult to enforce your registration.

What is a PMSI?

What is a Purchase Money Security Interest?

A Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) is defined by the PPSA as occurring where ‘collateral secures its own purchase price’.

This happens when a supplier sells their goods subject to a Retention of Title right – it also happens when goods are sold out of a Consignment Stock arrangement or Leased.

The PMSI designation is important because it allows the supplier to enjoy a ‘super priority’ over the goods they are selling that will rank higher than any bank’s general security interest even when the bank’s interest was lodged earlier.

However, the security interest is ONLY over the supplier’s unpaid stock as long as it is in their customer’s possession.  

A PMSI security right MUST be identified on the supplier’s PPSR registration if it is to achieve its maximum potential effectiveness.

PMSI registrations over goods that will form part of the buyer's inventory (eg, for on-sale, or inclusion in a product for eventual on-sale) must be lodged before the goods are delivered to the buyer although the PPSA allows an additional 14 days' grace for any other goods.

Note: Suppliers should only 'tick the PMSI box' if they have been granted PMSI rights (eg, they have a Retention of Title over their goods) - ticking the box when a PMSI right has not been granted may invalidate an otherwise effective registration.

Spike in PPSR Registrations due to Expire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPSA Clauses in Terms & Conditions

Firstly, it needs to be said that you do not need specific PPSA clauses in your Terms & Conditions of trade in order to lodge a registration on the PPSR, only the presence of a security right.  For most trade credit suppliers, this security right will be a Retention of Title clause – if you have one of these in your T&Cs and those T&Cs have been accepted by your customer, you can go ahead and register that security right on the PPSR.

This often prompts the question, if all that is needed is a one-sentence Retention of Title clause, why have multiple paragraphs of PPSA related text been included in the T&Cs?

Although not an unreasonable question, this is a little like hearing that you only need to drink water to avoid dying of thirst, and then asking, why bother with beer, wine and coffee?

So, in what way do PPSA specific clauses help us survive our mundane existences and allow us a temporary respite from the ever-present agonies of life?  Or, to put it another way, how do PPSA specific clauses make things a little easier for us?

Their first purpose is one of transparency and understanding.  Clauses will often start off by saying something along the lines of:

“You hereby acknowledge that these Terms and Conditions of Trade constitute a Security Agreement which creates a Security Interest in favour of [the supplier]…”

It has only been since the introduction of the PPSA that Retention of Title rights have been properly deemed to represent a form of security and it is helpful to draw a customer’s attention to this, particularly when the supplier goes on to add that, as a security right, they intend registering it on the PPSR.

A lot of terms then go on to suggest that the buyer/customer should sign documents or pay costs facilitating the supplier’s PPSR registration.  I don’t know if I’ve led an unduly sheltered life, but I’ve not come across any instance where any action has been required of a trade credit buyer in this regard and certainly haven’t heard of any additional fees being passed on, but, apparently lawyers think suppliers will feel comforted by having that option.

While there might be a little more repetition, the next purpose of the PPSA specific clauses will be the ‘waivers’.

The PPSA places a surprisingly large number of obligations on the ‘secured party’ to keep their customers advised of any actions they take.  I have this idea that the drafters of the Act had a visual image of the supplier being a huge unfeeling multinational bureaucracy and their customer being a little old lady with cats. 

In its vanilla form, the Act requires the supplier to keep their customer advised of anything and everything relating to the security interest – letting them know of the registration (and any amendments to it), giving notice of any intention to recover unpaid-for goods, advising of plans to dispose of any recovered goods, sending statements detailing whatever payments they might have received from on-selling the recovered goods, sending statements for anything they’ve recovered that hasn’t been disposed of, and providing the customer with an opportunity to object (!).

Fortunately, most obligations of this nature can be contracted out of and including clauses in T&Cs is probably the most effective way for a supplier to dodge these administrative bullets.  Hence clauses along the following lines:

“The Purchaser and the Supplier agree that the following provisions of the PPSA do not apply to the enforcement by the Supplier of its security interest in the Goods: sections 95, 118, 121(4), 130, 132(3)(d), 132(4), 135, 142 and 143.”

While I won’t go into each potential waiver/exclusion in detail (and can’t guarantee that I’ve spotted them all), the following table should help as a quick guide to what aspects of the Act are addressed in each of the ‘avoidable’ or ‘enhanceable’ sections of the Act.

Section	Issue addressed	Comment
95	Secured party must give notice of removal of accession	http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com/2014/06/ppsa-accessions.html
118	Enforcing security interests in accordance with land law decisions	A waiver of the Secured Party’s obligations to provide notice to the grantor.
121	Enforcement of security interests in liquid assets	A waiver of the Secured Party’s obligations to give notice to the grantor of their intention to enforce their security interest.
123	Secured party may seize collateral	There’s a requirement here for the Secured Party to give notice to the grantor of their intention to seize.
129/130	Notice of disposal of collateral	Waiver of the Secured Party’s obligations to advise the grantor of their plans to dispose of collateral in their possession if a default has occurred.
132	Secured party to give statement of account	Waiver of the Secured Party’s obligation to provide a statement regarding any collateral they have disposed of as a result of default.
135	Notice of retention of collateral	Waiver of the Secured Party’s obligation to notify the grantor that they will be retaining collateral in their possession.
137	Persons entitled to notice may object to proposal	Removing the grantor’s right to object to any intended disposal of recovered collateral.
142	Entitled persons may redeem collateral	Waiver of the grantor’s right to priority when it comes to redeeming recovered collateral from the Secured Party.
143	Entitled persons may reinstate security agreement	Withdrawal of the grantor’s rights to reinstate a ‘broken’ security agreement.
157	Verification statements—secured parties to give notice to grantors	Removal of the Secured Party’s obligations to send the grantor a copy of the PPSR Verification Statement every time a registration event occurs.  See also http://ppsr-blog.blogspot.com/2014/05/notifying-grantor-what-are-your.html
275	Secured party to provide certain information relating to a security interest	The ‘vanilla’ PPSA requires the Secured Party to divulge relevant information about their security interest to any interested 3rd party unless the Secured Party and grantor have agreed they will keep such matters confidential.

PPSR Statistics & the Rise of 'Other Goods'

The Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) – perhaps better known as the people that run the PPSR – released, earlier this month, PPSR related statistics for the July-September quarter.

I’ve included a link here.

As at the end of September, there had been a total of 19,265,693 registrations, of which marginally under half were still current.

The largest single collateral class overall was, unsurprisingly, Motor Vehicles, accounting for 49% of all current registrations (although if you take Consumer related transactions out of the picture this drops to 34%).

However, what caught my eye this time around was the extent to which Other Goods registrations have come to dominate over the last 5 years.

5 years ago, All Present & After-Acquired Property registrations (AllPAAPs) accounted for a little over 2 million registrations while Other Goods registrations made up less than a million (944k).

This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise; AllPAAPs are primarily the preserve of banks and financiers who would have been all over the PPSR upon its introduction, ensuring their security interests were properly protected from the outset.  Other Goods registrations, on the other hand, are very much the tool of the trade credit supplier with Retention of Title rights and, as we know, this disparate group is not always the most organised or receptive when it comes to ‘Government Red Tape’.

However, things have changed considerably over the last 5 years with AllPAAP registrations remaining pretty static (even declining slightly) and Other Goods registrations steaming ahead as trade credit suppliers get the message that PPSR registration represents one bit of Red Tape they need to adopt if they are to protect their rights over their unpaid goods and give themselves a better chance of fending off liquidators’ preference claim clawbacks.

With over 2.6 million current registrations, Other Goods now represents the largest collateral class for non-consumer registrations.

There is every indication that this trend will continue as trade credit suppliers come to terms with the fact that the PPSR isn’t going anywhere and failing to embrace it will only contribute to them suffering larger losses than they need to.

Perfection by Possession or Control

For ease of communication and in service of providing the degree of emphasis required, it’s quite common for me to say that

“If you don’t register your security interest on the PPSR, you might as well not have one”.

However, it’s easy to forget that there are other means by which a security interest might be perfected.  In addition to Perfection by Registration, there is also Perfection by Control and Perfection by Possession.

Perfection by Control is the sort of thing usually only available to Banks, where they are able to treat a Grantor’s bank account with them as collateral under a security agreement – although the Grantor may own the contents of that account, the Bank will have day to day control. 

Another variation might possibly involve a Grantor’s Stockbroker who is able to exercise controlling rights over their client’s portfolio.  If the client had granted their stockbroker a security interest over their securities account, then, by virtue of their day to day control of those securities, the stockbroker would not need to register that security interest in order for it to be effective.

It is also been adjudged possible for those exercising control over satellites or other space objects from a ground station to be able to use that control to perfect a relevant security interest.

While this form of perfection is not likely to be available to a trade credit supplier, they would nevertheless do well to note that Perfection by Control trumps any other form of perfection.

Thus, if you supply a space satellite subject to a Retention of Title clause, your PMSI super-priority, perfected by registration, will be outranked by any general security interest that might be held over that satellite by whichever third party happens to be flicking the switches and pressing the buttons controlling that satellite.

Satellites aside, Perfection by Control primarily applies to intangible forms of collateral – ones where it is not possible to perfect over them by possession and the ability to exercise control is used as the functional equivalent of possession.

The issue of Perfection by Possession is fairly topical given a recent court judgement in the case of Knauf Plasterboard versus the liquidators of Plasterboard West P/L trading as Retroflex.

Retroflex had granted Knauf a general security interest in all their present and future property via a security deed.  Unfortunately, Knauf omitted to register that deed on the PPSR and it was only some 20 months later, when it became obvious that Retroflex may have been struggling, that Knauf finally got around to lodging their registration.  Barely a week then passed before Retroflex defaulted under the deed and Knauf appointed Receivers to protect their interests. This was followed a couple of days later by Retroflex appointing liquidators.

The liquidators took the view that because Knauf’s security deed had been lodged within 6 months of their appointment and not within 20 days of the security deed being entered into, section 588FL of the Corporations Act allowed the collateral subject to that deed to vest with Retroflex.

I’ve written previously on the subject of the dreaded section 588FL and its implications at PPSA vs The Corporations Act (which also includes a brightly coloured chart!).

While on the face of it the liquidators were correct, Knauf argued that in addition to the registration, they had also achieved perfection of their security interest by possession – such possession taking place with their appointment of the Receivers.

While there were other issues at play, not least the dubious process Retroflex used to appoint liquidators, the court determined that:

• Merely appointing receivers is not sufficient to constitute ‘possession’ if the property in question appears to remain in the possession of the grantor/debtor; and
  
• When the receivers took steps to exercise their rights under the security deed, their actions would be taken as equivalent to a seizure of the property.

Under section 21 of the PPSA, possession as a result of seizure (or repossession) is explicitly excluded as a form of possession sufficient to achieve perfection under the Act.

PPSR - Requesting an Amendment or Discharge

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

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

The most likely scenarios are where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something along the following lines should suffice:

Dear Sirs,

REQUEST TO DISCHARGE REGISTRATION 201401010007553

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully… etc

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment Statement download

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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