Proposed Fee Changes

On the 11^th April the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA), which operates the PPSR, issued a consultation document regarding changes to the PPSR’s fees intended to take effect from 1^st July 2018.

With the PPSR having, effectively, earned back its own development costs in its first 3 years of operation, its fees are now, pretty much, only there to ensure it covers its own running costs.  Given a steady growth in registration activity, AFSA believes that it can reduce its fees and yet still cover its own costs for the next few years and has thus proposed the following reductions:

Activity	Current	Proposed
7 year registration	$6.80	$6.00
7 to 25 year registration	$34.00	$25.00
Indefinite registration	$119.00	$115.00
Searches	$3.40	$2.00

The consultation document is silent on the matter of fees for ‘Minor Amendments’ and the reissue of Verification Statements.

Minor amendments include changes to:

• Free text description (collateral description)
• Subordination Indicator
• Giving of notice identifier
• Proceeds Indicator and description
• Vehicle Registration Number (i.e. the number plate of the vehicle)
• Aircraft Nationality
• Aircraft nationality code and registration marks assigned pursuant to the Chicago Convention (where not used as a serial number)

Minor amendments and the reissue of Verification Statements are currently charged at $3.40 each.  I’ve written to AFSA querying these omissions.

The consultation document can be found at https://www.ppsr.gov.au/cost-recovery-implementation-statement with any comments required to be forwarded to stakeholders@afsa.gov.au by 6pm on Friday 4^th May.

UPDATE: AFSA has now advised that 'Minor Amendments' such as changing Collateral Descriptions will (should the proposed new charges be accepted) no longer attract a charge from the PPSR.  Similarly, if the proposed new fees are accepted, the reissue of Verification Statements will also not attract a fee.

UPDATE #2: AFSA has issued a notice advising that the planned implementation of the fee reductions will need to be delayed in order to give certain stakeholder groups longer to prepare for the fee reduction.  I don't pretend to understand why it would need to take more than 2 months to prepare for a small fee reduction but, nevertheless, there will be a delay.  No fresh implementation date has been given at this point but I will update again when this is announced.


UPDATE #3: We've now had confirmation that the new fees will be implemented on 1st August 2018 following approval from the Attorney-General.

When does the Grantor take possession?

I recently had cause to read a helpful summary of a decision by the South Australian Supreme Court in the matter of Allied Distribution Finance Pty Ltd v Samwise Holdings Pty Ltd [2017] SASC 163.  While much of the background to the case is a little fiddly, I’ll give a short ‘broad strokes’ summary in order to help demonstrate why this might be a very useful decision for the hire industry.

For those wanting a more detailed look, I recommend the summary HERE  or, for those that want a real thrill, the full text of the judgment can be found HERE.

The case concerned Bill’s Motorcycles – a dealer, selling and servicing Kawasaki motorcycles.  Bill’s had been financing its floor stock with one financier but then struck an agreement with another (Allied Distribution Finance – ADF).  Bill’s stock of 40 motorcycles (secured by the original financier) was bought out by Kawasaki and, effectively, sold to ADF.  Bill’s maintained possession of the motorcycles and ADF lodged a PMSI registration on the PPSR to perfect its security interest over them.

When Bill’s went into administration a couple of months later, there was a dispute concerning those 40 motorcycles between Samwise, the holder of a General Security Interest (AllPAAP) over all Bill’s assets and ADF as a PMSI holder.

While a PMSI will usually take priority over an AllPAAP, in this case, Samwise argued that because Bill’s was already in possession of the motorcycles at the time ADF lodged their PMSI registration,  ADF had failed to meet the time-scale requirements of section 62 of the PPSA.

Section 62, effectively, states that, in order to achieve PMSI priority over inventory items, a registration must be lodged before the grantor obtains possession of the property.

Samwise argued that, as Bill’s had already been in possession of the motorcycles for some time before ADF lodged their registration, ADF was not entitled to PMSI priority.

In his judgment, Justice Blue determined that, in the overall context, the implication of section 62 should be taken to mean that the registration must be lodged before the grantor obtains the type of possession that would entitle them to grant a PMSI interest in the property.

Thus it is the grantor’s possession in the role of PMSI grantor that matters, rather than their mere physical possession of the property.

While this is unlikely to be of any assistance to trade credit suppliers forgetting to perfect their Retention of Title rights in time, it may have implications for the long-term hire industry.

Last year, the Government made changes to the manner in which hires and leases were caught up by the PPSA.  In short, the changes involved leases for less than 2 years no longer needing to be registered on the PPSR.  Where a lease was established for an indefinite period that may or may not extend beyond 2 years, the new legislation only required a registration to be put in place once that 2-year limit was breached.

When I posted about the new legislation, I wrote:

In order to be eligible for PMSI super priority where the collateral being used is designated as a non-inventory item, the perfecting registration must be lodged within 15 business days of the lessee taking possession of the property.

 However, where an indefinite lease is concerned and the lessor doesn’t lodge their registration until it becomes clear the lease may extend beyond the new 2 year qualifying period, that 15 business days period may long since have passed leaving the lessor’s claim to their equipment to fall behind those of other general security holders with registrations already in place.

Justice Blue’s decision in the Bill’s Motorcycles case suggests that, while a lessee may have been in physical possession of property for 729 days, it will only be at the 2 year mark they have possession in the capacity of a grantor of a PMSI right and it should, therefore, be at that 2 year point when the PPSA’s 15 business days countdown for a PMSI eligible registration should commence.

Whether this interpretation is sufficient to also satisfy the Corporations Act’s dreaded section 588FL is another matter! 

PPSR Registration vs Credit Insurance

I’m finding myself increasingly being asked to address questions along the lines of: 

If I have a PMSI registered on the PPSR do I really need to worry about credit insurance?; 

and, its alternative:

If I have credit insurance in place, do I really need to worry about registering my PMSI?

In return for payment of premium, credit insurance can provide trade credit suppliers with protection of around 90% of any loss suffered should their buyer go insolvent, or otherwise default on their payment obligations.

However, if you have sold your goods subject to a Retention of Title clause and your customer collapses before they can make payment, a timely $6.00 registration on the PPSR of that ROT will ensure the return of your goods (or their cash equivalent).  

If this is the case, do you really need to pay substantially more in credit insurance premiums for bad debt protection?

Unfortunately, registration of a ROT will NOT ensure the return of your goods (or their cash equivalent).  Registration might result in the return of goods, and registration certainly won’t hurt recovery prospects, but it isn’t a miracle cure.  Unpaid for goods may have been on-sold, consumed or ‘mislaid’ by the time a liquidator is appointed and what goods can be recovered may no longer be worth their original invoice value, either through use, damage, or merely by the passage of time.

Because the PPSA focuses on property being used as collateral in a security interest, its effectiveness is wholly dependent upon the continued presence of that particular property and the value of the property continuing to be sufficient to cover the value of the outstanding debt for which it acts as security.

Credit insurance, however, focuses on what is actually owed, what has been invoiced and what remains outstanding.  It doesn’t concern itself with any fluctuating value relating to the goods supplied nor with their continued presence post-delivery, only with what is owed under the invoices issued.

If someone goes bust owing you money, a credit insurance policy will, invariably, pay you the lion’s share of your loss, regardless of what happened to the goods you supplied.
Does this mean that credit insurance is the miracle cure and PPSR registration of ROT/PMSI rights is not necessary?

Well… 

While I’m an enthusiastic advocate for trade credit insurance, it is nonsense to suggest that other risk mitigation strategies should be ignored merely because there’s an insurance policy in place.  You wouldn’t start leaving your house unlocked when you left to go to the shops just because you have a home & contents insurance policy, nor would you be casual with your car’s security because it’s insured against theft.  

Not only do credit insurers require that the policyholder (the ‘supplier’ in our context) maintain a financial interest in the underlying transaction (the supplier will usually have to bear at least 10% of any loss), they also set their premium rates based (in large part) on the supplier’s past history of bad debts and the claims they’ve already had to pay.  

Just as a car insurer will take note of whether the insured vehicle is garaged overnight or parked on the street, so a credit insurer will look at the extent to which suppliers mitigate the potential for losses by including security rights in their trading terms and perfecting those rights by registration on the PPSR.

Who would a credit insurer be happier with as a policyholder? a supplier who suffers a loss but is able to recover half its value by exercising their PPSR registered security rights, or a supplier who is unable to offset any of their loss because they weren’t prepared to spend $6.00 on a PPSR registration?  

While both suppliers will get their claims paid, one will likely find their premium rates ‘adjusted’ far more than the other.

So while a credit insurance policy is more likely to keep your business afloat when beset by bad debts, a PPSR registration will likely help keep the cost of that insurance policy as low as possible.