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.

Correct Identification of the Grantor

The end of January saw the NSW Supreme Court hand down a stark reminder that failing to correctly identify a Grantor when lodging a registration on the PPSR will have serious (and potentially very expensive) repercussions.

The case concerned the lease of some $23 million or so worth of equipment from Alleasing Pty Ltd to OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd. The leases in question satisfied the PPSA's definition of PPS Leases (s13 of the Act) and were duly registered on the PPSR in order to protect Alleasing's continued interest in the equipment.  Unfortunately for Alleasing, the registrations identified OneSteel as the Grantor by reference to OneSteel's ABN, whereas the PPS Regulations (via some rather convoluted wording) required that the registration identify OneSteel by their ACN.

Although it might be argued (and to some extent it was) that there was no misunderstanding concerning the legal entity that was acting as Grantor - both ABN and ACN clearly identified OneSteel Manufacturing - the issue was more focused upon the extent to which a failure to strictly adhere to the Regulations' identification rules was sufficient to render the registration ineffective.

Because a legally effective search for registrations lodged against OneSteel would need to be conducted on the PPSR against OneSteel's ACN (and thus would not reveal registrations lodged against its ABN) the court found that Alleasing's registrations were ineffective and not sufficient to prevent Alleasing's equipment from vesting in OneSteel and its administrators.

Alleasing claimed that administrators would customarily conduct searches against both ACN and ABN of a Grantor company, and would thus not have been misled by their ABN-based registration; however, this appeared to carry little weight with the court and failed to carry the day.

In this case the letter of the law clearly won out over its, alleged, spirit.

While reports of this action appear to have generated quite a bit of interest judging by blog posts and emailed newsletters, there really isn't anything particularly surprising here.  The PPSA doesn't require a great deal of information to be supplied in a registration but what is supplied must be accurate and in strict accordance with the PPSA's rules.

Although there were a couple of other issues raised in this case, it is perhaps timely for me to provide, at this point, a rough summary of the PPS Regulations' rules for identifying Grantors:

Grantor Type	Grantor Details Required
Sole Trader	Full Name (as per drivers licence) and date of birth
Sole Trader acting as Trustee	Trust ABN (if the Trust does not have an ABN, as per ‘normal’ Sole Trader)
Partnership	ABN
Partnership acting as Trustee	Trust ABN (if the Trust does not have an ABN, as per ‘normal’ Partnership)
Partnership without an ABN	Full name and DOB of each partner (or ACN’s of each if a corporate partnership)
Company with an ACN and no Trust involved	ACN
Company with an ACN acting as Trustee	Trust ABN (if the Trust does not have an ABN, as per ‘normal’ Company)
Corporate entity without an ACN	Full name of the business as per articles of association
Government Entity	ABN
Trust	Trust ABN (if no ABN, use rules as per the trustee)

As I've said and written in other places, 'close enough is good enough' and 'she'll be right' are expressions that should never be uttered in the context of a PPSA registration.

GE vs Forge Group (aka APR Energy vs KordaMentha)

The 11^th February saw a decision handed down in the NSW Supreme Court in the battle between the receivers of the Forge Group (KordaMentha) and the US-based, General Electric International Inc over KordaMentha’s claim to gas turbines totalling $50 million.

I've already written here concerning the outcry from US business and politics regarding the matter, now we get to hear the court's view.

In case you haven’t already read elsewhere, I won’t keep you on tenterhooks, the decision represented a victory for KordaMentha. 

Justice Hammerschlag ruled that the absence of a PPSA registration in respect of turbines leased by GE to Forge Group under an agreement in March 2013 meant that title to those turbines vested in Forge Group upon their insolvency the following March. Put simply, a win for the receivers, who get an extra $50 million in assets to play with, and a loss for the American company that actual holds (held) title to the property.

While there will no doubt be more than a few headlines hailing this as a ‘victory for the PPSA’, the legal argument was a little more nuanced.

The issue before the court concerned some technicalities of the PPSA, and the right provided by the Act for PPSA security interests to be vested in the insolvent company was never actually in dispute.

GE instead chose a two-pronged argument:

• That the goods represented fixtures (the PPSA explicitly does not apply to fixtures); and
• That GE, while having leased the turbines, was a company not regularly engaged in the business of leasing goods (the PPSA also does not apply to leases in such circumstances).

On the matter of fixtures, J Hammerschlag found that the weight of evidence made it clear that, not only was there no intention that the turbines become fixtures but, their very nature (designed to be demobilised and moved to another site, quickly and in a short time, there was an obligation for the turbines to be returned at the end of the lease period, that the turbines could be removed at a relatively low cost without damage to either the land or the turbines themselves etc) meant that they should not be deemed fixtures for the purposes of the Act.

As to whether GE was regularly engaged in the business of leasing, this was relatively easily confirmed by a simple review of GE’s leasing history.  This confirmed that from 2003 to the present time GE had been no stranger to leasing its equipment, that it was a “proper component” of their business and conducted with sufficient repetitiveness to satisfy the court that their leasing arrangement with Forge fell under the auspices of the PPSA.

Therefore, not so much a victory for the PPSA as much as it is a victory for the PPSA’s definitions.

Those wanting to read up on the case in detail can find the full judgement at this link.

Clive Palmer vs the PPSA

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

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

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

The article goes on to say that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.