Protecting Your Gear On Site

February saw the collapse of WA based builder Cooper & Oxley accompanied by scenes of subcontractors climbing over fences and evading security guards in order to attempt to recover tools and equipment that they had left on project sites.  You can find an example here.

Since then, there has been an understandable increase in advice being offered to subcontractors as to how they might be able to protect themselves.  What has been less understandable, however, is the oft-repeated suggestion that a registration on the PPSR might act as some sort of golden ticket allowing a subcontractor to recover any of their gear they might have had stored on site.

If you are selling goods subject to a right to recover those goods if you’re not paid for them, then a registration on the PPSR is essential if you want to be able to exercise that right against a liquidator or administrator etc.  Similarly, if you are engaged in a long-term hire of goods (and by long, I mean at least 2 years) then, again, registration is essential to protect those goods from falling into the hands of an Insolvency Practitioner. 

However, such leasing arrangements and conditional sale agreements are specifically deemed to create security interests under the PPSA; simply storing your tools on a building site overnight is not.

When a company goes into liquidation, the liquidator is entitled to treat any property that is used as collateral in a security interest as having vested in the insolvent company and thus available to be liquidated for the benefit of creditors.  The only real exception to this is where that collateral/security interest has been registered on the PPSR.

 

Because a subcontractor’s tools are not the subject of a sale (conditional or otherwise) to the insolvent company and are not being leased to them, the liquidator has no right to treat them as if they were the property of the main contractor. If they're not collateral in a security interest, there's no danger of them vesting in the insolvent company.

If that is the case, why do we read about subcontractors and tradies being locked out of sites, unable to recover their tools?

One of the first jobs a liquidator needs to do, on arrival, is to take stock and evaluate what assets the company might hold.  They can’t do this effectively (or fairly) if there is a steady stream of people marching onto the site and walking off with whatever property they can lay their hands on – some of it may well be their own but some of it may be the company’s and some may actually belong to other subcontractors.

In this sense, the liquidator is a little like the coroner arriving at the site of a freshly discovered body in popular American TV shows.  Their first job is to protect the integrity of the crime scene and then, gradually, determine to what extent the items found in and around that scene were relevant to the body and the means by which it came to be dead.  If you happen to have lost your car keys in that area, it will be understandable if you have to wait a while before you can get them back!

And so it is with a liquidator, they’ll need to ensure they can identify what goods belonged to the company and what belonged to subcontractors and then they’ll need to ensure that the right gear is made available to the right subcontractor.  To do this properly will, unfortunately, take time.  

From subcontractors I’ve spoken to, while the delay in getting their gear back is extremely frustrating, they do eventually get their stuff back and, if they don’t, it’s invariably because it had been taken by another subcontractor trying to grab what they could, presumably, in an attempt to offset money owed to them by the company.

Not only is a registration on the PPSR not necessary and will do nothing for the rights of the subcontractor in recovering their tools, it may even create confusion, leading to further delays in the subcontractor being reunited with their gear.

There’s been a suggestion that, while it won’t be perfecting a security interest, a PPSR registration might nevertheless serve as some sort of ownership document ‘proving’ that certain tools belong to the particular subcontractor.

Given that a PPSR registration can be lodged by anyone, for anything against anybody so long as they have a credit card with an available balance of at least $6.80 and that there’s no checking or verification that its details bear any relationship to reality, there is absolutely no way that a liquidator is going to accept a PPSR registration along these lines at face value.

Liquidators spend large amounts of their time picking holes in, and generally finding fault in, PPSR registrations and will not be convinced by a registration that, effectively, says that “a box of spanners and a hammer with a red handle” are owned by a particular tradie.  Even being able to identify tools by serial numbers won’t be treated as any evidence of ownership.

If proving ownership is the issue, it will be far more effective simply to have your name inscribed/labelled on the tool than to have it registered on the PPSR.

In short, while suppliers selling goods on Retention of Title terms, and hire companies, hiring goods on a long-term basis would be foolish not to register their interests on the PPSR, it would be foolish for subcontractors and tradies, looking to protect their tools, to think that a PPSR registration would be of any help.

PPS Leases – Extended to 2 years

I wrote on this issue in March when the Government’s Bill to extend the qualifying period for PPS Leases to 2 years passed its first reading.  I was sceptical at the time as to how swiftly we could expect the Bill to be enacted and come into effect but clearly, those lobbying for the changes carry some serious clout because Royal Assent took place on 19^th May and the terms of the Act are now in force.

While, superficially, the Act has merely served to double the qualifying period for leases to get caught up by the PPSA, more tellingly, the Act also keeps indefinite leases out of the PPSA’s claws until such time as the lessee’s actual possession of the leased property passes the 2 year mark. 

This is, by far, the more meaningful change and it will almost certainly be welcomed by all the small hire operations that don’t expect to hire their goods out for much more than a few days or weeks yet fail to put an expiry period on the lease. 

However, the relief that no doubt comes from not having to worry about the administrative burden of the PPSA may be offset by the corresponding loss of protection that having their leasing arrangement treated as a security interest allowed. 

Loss of protection from Preference demands

Under the PPSA, property being leased is treated as collateral in a security interest that would allow the lessor to recover their property in the event the lessee failed to continue making payments under the lease.  Up until now, a lessor will have been able to use the presence of this ‘security interest’ (provided it was properly registered) as a defence against any claim from a liquidator that monies paid under the lease should be returned as preferential payments. Under this new Act, it is difficult to see how a lessor (for an indefinite lease that has yet to run for 2 years) would be able to use that defence.

Loss of PMSI ‘super priority’

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.

I notice that the Hire and Rental Industry Association (HRIA) has, rather dangerously, advised its members that registration within the PPSA designated timescale won’t be necessary in order to get PMSI priority; unfortunately, its explanation as to why this might be isn’t especially convincing.

It would have been far better for the new Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Act to have also adjusted the PMSI designation timescales to accommodate these changes and remove any doubt.

Vesting under the Corporations Act

Regardless as to how the PPSA might be interpreted, the Corporations Act, at s588FL, clearly states that…

If a registration has been lodged during the 6 months leading up to the appointment of a liquidator, it must have been lodged within 20 business days of the security agreement coming into force in order to avoid the collateral in question being vested with the liquidator.

Basically, if a registration isn’t lodged within 20 business days of the leasing agreement being entered into, the lessor has to keep their fingers crossed that a liquidator doesn’t get appointed to the lessee during the 6 months following their eventual registration.

If anyone gets a little lost at this point, I have a visual here that should help.

The PPSR, in explaining the implications of the new Act, suggests registering at 22 or 23 months into the leasing period, but this clearly won’t help lessors avoid falling foul of s588FL.

Fortunately, the HRIA recognises the danger that those at the PPSR clearly don’t and recommend that registrations be lodged before 18 months have passed if it looks as though the lease might go on for longer than expected.  Where there is already an expectation that the lease could last longer than 2 years, they recommend registering at the outset.

This seems a sensible workaround but, with proper prior public consultation and better thought out legislation, there should be no need for ‘workarounds’!

Summary

Leases and bailments entered into after 20 May 2017 will be subject to the new definition of PPS Leases and such leases will not need to be registered on the PPSR unless they are to run for longer than 2 years.

Agreements entered into before 20 May 2017 will remain subject to the previous definition of a PPS Lease and should still be the subject of a PPSR registration if they are due to run for longer than a year, allow for extensions taking the agreement beyond a year, or are for an indefinite period.

Update: Please see my post on "When does a Grantor take possession?" for some fresh thinking on some of the issues/concerns raised in this post.

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.

How much is your security worth?

There has been much talk regarding the opportunities presented by a PPSR registration to mount a defence against a preference claim from a liquidator.

While I’ve already written on this here, something that I had not previously considered a contentious issue seems to have become one.

First a quick recap…

A trade credit supplier, with a PPSR registration perfecting a retention of title over unpaid-for goods, will be deemed to be a secured creditor to the value of those unpaid-for goods that remain in the possession of the buyer. 

Thus, if I supply $10,000 worth of widgets to my buyer today, my security will be worth $10,000 (presumably a figure equivalent to what I am owed).  However, by next week when my buyer has on-sold $2,000 of those widgets, my available security will only be worth $8,000, regardless as to how much I am actually still owed.  If, by the time I eventually get paid the $10,000 my buyer owes me, he only has, say, $1,000 worth of my stock in his possession then a liquidator, pursuing a preferential payment claim, might argue that, at the time I received the $10,000 payment, I received 90% of that payment as an unsecured creditor. 

Under the Corporations Act, unsecured creditors in receipt of payments made during the 6 months prior to the relevant date of insolvency may be obliged to return that money to the liquidator.  The value of my security at the time I received my payment is therefore of paramount importance.

However, while calculating the value of security at the time a payment was made may not always be easy, I thought it was nevertheless relatively uncontentious that the appropriate time to assess the value of the security was, indeed at the time the alleged preferential payment was made.

Last year, a South Australian District Court, in the case of Matthews v The Tap Inn P/L, was asked to rule upon whether the value of a security should be assessed at the time the security interest was created or at the time winding up commenced.  No obvious consideration appears to have been directed at whether such an assessment should take place at the time disputed payments were actually made!

In July 2015 Justice Chivell handed down his ruling that the appropriate time for determining the value of a security was at the winding up stage – largely on the basis that this would bring about a semblance of parity with the plight of other creditors.

While this may have been good news for liquidators it created a ludicrous scenario for trade credit suppliers and we all looked with some trepidation to the inevitable appeal.

Well, the result of the appeal is now available and some semblance of sanity has been restored.

The appeal court, while overturning Justice Chivell’s ruling, nevertheless did so without actually saying that His Honour was incorrect but rather it determined that, with other facts in the case being disputed by the parties, it was inappropriate for the judge to have ruled on what would therefore have amounted to a hypothetical question. Ruling on hypotheticals is, apparently, a bit of a 'no no'.

So, we are effectively back to where we started before the original court decision, with no legal precedent established as to when an appropriate point in time might be to calculate the value of a security interest supporting an alleged preferential payment.  The only difference being, I suppose, is that liquidators have now had the opportunity to read up on an argument that was sufficient to sway a judge in South Australia – and that argument has yet to be effectively countered.

I’d be surprised if this is the last we hear on this issue.

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.

Cross-Collateralisation of PMSIs

One of the more easily missed of the PPSA Review Report recommendations compiled by Bruce Whittaker concerns the ‘cross-collateralisation of PMSIs’.

For trade credit suppliers still coming to terms with the concept of PMSIs, the idea that these can be cross-collateralised might be a step too far too soon.  However, rather than simply causing eyes to glaze over this could well be very good news for trade credit suppliers who simply want to make their Retention of Title (ROT) clauses as effective as possible.

In order to put the recommendation in its proper context we’ll need to briefly revisit the ROT in a pre-PPSA environment.

At its simplest the ROT will be a provision in a supplier’s terms of trade that states that their buyer won’t get title to the goods being supplied until those goods have been fully paid for.

Over time the ‘simple’ ROT was gradually enhanced to allow for on-sale and for on-sale receipts to be ring-fenced for the suppliers benefit; to allow the supplier rights to enter the buyer’s premises to recover goods etc; and, eventually, to provide that, not only would title remain with the supplier until those goods were paid for but also that title would remain with the supplier until all monies owed by the buyer to the supplier had been paid regardless of how those outstandings had arisen.  Thus was born the All Monies Clause.

The All Monies Clause would allow a supplier, with outstanding debt, to recover their product from an insolvent buyer regardless as to whether that specific product had been paid for or not.

Fast forward to the introduction of the PPSA and its priority rules. The PPSA determined that priority of competing security interests should be decided by the date that security interest was registered on the PPSR – the earlier the registration the higher the priority. The exception to this was the creation of the Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) which, effectively, created a super priority in cases where the collateral being used as security was securing its own purchase price. In other words, an ROT arrangement would be given a super priority over other competing security interests regardless as to how much earlier those other interests might have been registered.

However, although a ‘simple’ ROT clause would meet the criteria for PMSI treatment, what about the All Monies clause?  Under the All Monies clause the goods delivered by the supplier were not just being used as security for their own purchase price they were also being used as security for any other outstanding debt the buyer owed to the supplier!  So while a security interest could be registered for the All Monies clause it would not merit the PPSA’s PMSI/super priority status and would have to ‘fight it out’ with competing security interests held by other creditors, many of whom may well have registered earlier.

The situation is further complicated where the supplier’s product is such that paid-for goods delivered last month might be completely indistinguishable from unpaid-for goods delivered last week – while the security over the unpaid-for goods has super priority, the All Monies interest over the paid-for goods does not. Do the few remaining goods on the buyer’s warehouse floor represent goods that had been paid for or goods that had not?  Unless the supplier is able to demonstrate that those specific goods had not been paid for they are likely to lose their super priority claim over them.

This is the scenario that the Review Report’s recommendation addresses – why should an unpaid supplier fail in their bid to exercise their properly registered and perfected security interest simply because paid-for goods and unpaid-for goods are indistinguishable?  This is the concept behind the ‘cross-collateralisation of PMSIs’ and although it isn’t intended to apply where there are no problems in distinguishing paid-for goods from unpaid-for goods it will make a big difference to suppliers of a more homogenous product or where serial numbers do not appear in invoices/delivery notes etc.

While there is no indication of any timetable for even discussing Bruce Whittaker's report recommendations let alone implementing them, delving into his proposals is an excellent way of getting a better understanding of the current operation/interpretation of the PPSA.

The PPSA vs The Corporations Act

September’s court judgement in Pozzebon (Trustee) v Australian Gaming and Entertainment Ltd (in liq) has brought to the fore a butting of heads between the Personal Property Securities Act and the Corporations Act.

Much of our concern with the PPSA has been to do with interpreting it in such a way as to ensure that our security interests are as effective as possible.  The issue can be seen as twofold:

• Ensuring our security interests benefit from as high a ranking as possible when compared with those interests of other creditors; and
• Protecting ourselves against the risk that an unperfected security interest will vest in our debtor’s insolvent estate.

Part 2.6 of the PPSA (sections 54 to 77) concerns itself with addressing the various scenarios that might rank one creditor’s interest above another’s while section 267 provides liquidators with the incentive to try to invalidate your registration by allowing them to take ‘ownership’ of any security interests that have not been properly perfected.

For now, we’re going to look a little more closely at section 267.

Section 267 effectively states that, when an ‘external administration event’ takes place, any security interest that has not been perfected at that point will vest in the grantor.  In other words, if an insolvency practitioner is appointed to your debtor before you’ve had the opportunity to register your security interest on the PPSR, you will lose your rights to whatever collateral you had under that interest.  In fact, the PPSA appears, almost, to be supporting a ‘nick of time’ registration approach.  Providing you get your registration lodged before the administrator is appointed (or the application for winding up submitted, or the sequestration order given etc) your interest should be perfected and thus protected from the nasty section 267.

Unfortunately, buried within s267 is a little bit of small print as follows:

Note 2:   See also Division 2A of Part 5.7B of the Corporations Act 2001.

Surely that’s not going to be too important?  After all, Note 1 was pretty innocuous (Note 1: For the meaning of company, see section 10).  How bad could Division 2A of Part 5.7B of the Corporations Act be?

Well, it turns out that Division 2A can be pretty bad!

The meat of Division 2A is in section 588FL, entitled “Vesting of PPSA security interests if collateral not registered within time”.  It turns out that, contrary to the apparent ‘nick of time’ support of the PPSA, there is, in fact, a much more tangible deadline by which a registration needs to be lodged in order to keep your collateral out of the hands of a liquidator.

If your registration was not lodged within 20 business days of your security interest coming into force and was lodged during the 6 months leading up to the liquidator’s appointment, then “The PPSA security interest vests in the company” and you lose your collateral to the liquidator!

So, even though you have a properly perfected security interest, registered correctly, within the deadlines set under the PPSA, the liquidator may still be able to ignore that registration and take your goods anyway by virtue of the Corporations Act.

And if, for a moment, you are thinking that this must just be a theoretical argument that wouldn’t apply in real life, then let me remind you that this piece started with reference to Pozzebon (Trustee) v Australian Gaming and Entertainment Ltd (in liq).

• In December 2013 the Pozzebons loaned Australian Gaming and Entertainment Ltd (AGEL) $250,000 with the loan secured against AGEL’s personal property.
• On 19 May 2014 the Pozzebons registered their security interest on the PPSR.
• On 26 May 2014 Administrators were appointed to AGEL with liquidators following some 2 weeks later.

While the Pozzebons may have beaten the clock in terms of the PPSA they fell foul of the Corporations Act and breached the 20 business days’ time limit under 588FL as well as the registration being within 6 months of the external administration ‘event’.  Such was the judgement of Justice Collier towards the end of September in rejecting the Pozzebon claim that their security interest be honoured.

By way of summary, I've drawn up the following flow chart to show how important the timing of a PPSR registration will be under the Corporations Act:

Someone else has possession of my goods; do I need to lodge a PPSR registration against them?

Given the number of statements we’ve seen suggesting that the PPSA ‘completely changes our concept of ownership’ and the horror stories revolving around legal owners losing their property, it is quite natural to explore all the possibilities when it comes to protecting your property under the PPSA.  Should I be lodging a PPSA registration each time my property leaves my possession?

If you are renting warehouse space, if you are having your goods transported by an independent haulier, if you are locating your IT infrastructure off-site, should you be lodging a registration?

The PPSA lists a number of circumstances that may give rise to a security interest where one would not otherwise think in terms of traditional ‘security interests’.  The most common examples for us are, of course, retention of title clauses, consignment stock arrangements and leases; however, under this last category, the PPSA actually uses the term PPS Lease.

A PPS Lease may be a lease or bailment of goods for a year or more or for an indefinite period (section 13 of the Act refers).

Bailment is a common law concept where possession of personal property is transferred from one person (the bailor) to another person (the bailee) for purposes other than the transfer of ownership.  The example often given is where a restaurant or theatre (the bailee) provides an attended cloakroom free of charge to its customer (the bailor) for the safekeeping of their hats and coats.

While there are similarities with Leasing, leasing typically involves the lessee not merely taking possession of the lessor’s property but also making use of it and putting it to the lessee’s own purpose.  The concept behind bailments is more geared to safekeeping.

If we take the example of a business looking to locate their computer servers off-site at a third party’s premises, they are the bailor, placing their intellectual (and physical) property in the possession of another party, the bailee, for their safekeeping.  The arrangement is, presumably intended to be comparatively long term and thus there is, prima facie, a good case for it being treated as a PPS Lease.

However, at s13(2)(b) of the Act we are advised that a PPS Lease does not include a bailment by a bailor who is not regularly engaged in the business of bailing goods.

Our example business is a company engaged in the business of selling widgets thus ‘bailing’ its intellectual property would probably not be an activity associated with its main business.  I’d like to think that such an interpretation would stand up in court but, in the absence of legal precedent in Australia, we have to resort to querying NZ legal cases.  The closest we get in NZ seems to be the case of Rabobank New Zealand v McAnulty in 2011 where it was determined that the owners of a racehorse put out to stud with the bailee were regularly engaged in the business of profiting from their horse rather than engaged in bailments.

The final criteria for a bailment being a PPS Lease occurs at s13(3) wherein it is stated that a bailment will only be a PPS Lease where “the bailee provides value”.

While the computer storage facility will certainly be providing a valued service (that of hosting our business’s servers) I suspect that the Act is intending a much more narrow definition of ‘value’, specifically monetary payment or similar.

So, to summarise:

Our business is likely to be engaged in what might be considered, under common law, as a bailment of their intellectual property to the third party’s off-site computer facility.

This bailment would be deemed under the PPSA as a PPS Lease and thus be registrable on the PPSR provided:

1.            It is for a year or more, or for an indefinite period; and

2.            Our business is regularly engaged in bailing their property; and

3.            The off-site hosting company is providing ‘value’ (possibly payment) in their role as bailee.

While (1) above is probably satisfied, (2) and (3) are probably not, therefore, such an arrangement is unlikely to be registrable under the PPSA.  

It then follows that, if the bailment arrangement does not meet the full criteria for being a PPS Lease, a liquidator attached to the bailee would not be able to vest the bailor’s property as part of the bailee’s assets.

UPDATE: Since May 2017 the eligibility period for a lease or bailment being considered a PPS Lease has increased from 1 to 2 years.  For an indefinite lease or bailment, the PPSA will only apply once the 2 year period has elapsed.

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.

PPSR & Unfair Preferences

It has always seemed a considerable unfairness that the more efficient your credit team is at collecting outstanding monies from delinquent debtors the more likely you are to fall foul of a liquidator’s unfair preference claims and be required to pay back whatever money you’d been able to recover.

Fortunately, it is likely that the introduction of the PPSA will bring with it some significant improvements in this regard.

But first, let’s recap the unfair preferences situation as it applied in the pre-PPSA environment.

After checking to ensure there is enough money in the company to enable them to recoup their fees, one of the first things a liquidator will do is draw up a list of all the suppliers the company paid money to within the last six months (the precise period may extend further but the six months example is sufficient for our purposes).  Once that list is compiled they will then remove all the suppliers who had registered charges against the company, ie, the secured creditors, and write to all the others asking for the money back.

The theory being that the company would already have been spiralling down into insolvency at the time the payments were made and that it would be unfair on all the other creditors of the company who had not been paid to deny them a share of any monies that the company may have been making available during that downward spiral.  [See Section 588F of the Corporations Act 2001]

One of the key criteria for the liquidator to make such a claim is that the creditor receiving the payment was not a secured creditor, with a large part of the definition of a secured creditor resting on whether the creditor’s security had been registered.  Generally, the security would be in the form of a fixed or fixed and floating charge registered with ASIC.

Our ‘typical’ supplier trading under a Retention of Title clause would find that whilst the intention of their reservation of ownership might have been to secure payment its form was not that of a security interest and, in any event, it wasn’t registered anywhere.  Thus while our supplier may be able to get any unpaid for goods returned to them they would be expected to return any monies paid to them during the 6 months prior to the liquidator being appointed.

The introduction of the PPSA, however, changes matters considerably. 

1. Retention of Title arrangements are now recognised as security interests; and
2. The Personal Property Securities Register provides a place for such a security interest to be registered.

Technically, the PPSA recognises Retention of Title arrangements as representing a security interest in substance (even though its form might not express it as such) and the Corporations Act has been amended [Section 51E] to define a ‘secured creditor’ as being one whose debt is the subject of a security interest under the PPSA.

Therefore, provided that your Retention of Title security interest is properly registered with the PPSR you should now find that your new status as a secured creditor will protect you against claims of receiving unfair preference payments.

Those of you who like their happy endings neat and tidy feel free to stop reading now, while any amongst you who tend to stay at a movie after the credits roll just in case there‘s one final twist can have another paragraph.

Under Section 588FA(2) of the Corporations Act, a debt will be secured only to the value of the security. 

This basically means that to defend against a claim of unfair preference a supplier will need to be able to show that a payment of, say, $20,000 received four months earlier was supported by at least $20,000 worth of ROT secured stock held at that time.  In the case of one or two isolated deliveries and payments this should not be too much of a problem but it could be a little more difficult in the case of more frequent deliveries and payments of irregular values, particularly if there has also been trading taking place that did not involve the use of ROT terms.

At the end of the day it will almost certainly be up to the supplier to demonstrate that sufficient security was in place to support the value of payments received.