1 Secured Transactions Outline I. Nature of the Security Interest a. Article 9 as an Assets Reservation System b. The Key Attributes of Security Interests i. Property rights good against the debtor ii. Priority rights good against third parties c. Article 9 as a Reified Priority System i. Not general priority, but priority as to designated assets d. The First-to-File Rule i. Priority is usually, but not always, tied to the date of filing of a financing statement e. Possible Distribution Rules for USC 1. Pro Rata - proportional 2. Equal Asset – assets paid out equally until debt is satisfied 3. Equal Loss – assets pd out to distribute losses as evenly as possible ii. Equal Asset and Equal Loss make both total other debts and distribution of those debts matter iii. Under Pro Rata, only total matters iv. EA or EL would increase monitoring: good if we want to, bad if we do not f. 9-322(a)(1) Priority Rule – i. (ignoring perfection through possession), the first to file a FS wins g. Ostensible Ownership Problem i. inference of ownership from possession h. Two Key Problems with Possession as perfection method 1. Loss of use of goods 2. Put goods in third-party hands and didn’t own, so no solution i. Perfection through Possession i. Holdover ii. Adds complexity to 9-322: early of first to file or perfect iii. Can create misleading record of priority in FS record II. Attachment Requirements a. Decription requirement - 9-203(b)(3)(A) b. Interest can be limited in scope- 1-201(37) says nothing about the scope of the positive rights that are required to have an interest in property c. After-Acquired Property: i. Clark (the wrong way) 1. Facts: At time of transaction license is NOT property, so debtor cannot grant SI. Instead signs acknowledgement to creditor that will not sell or transfer license. Subsequently state passes law that recognize rights in license as property. 2. Issue- Could acknowledgement suffice to create security interest. And if so, when did SI attach?
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Secured Transactions Outline
I. Nature of the Security Interest
a. Article 9 as an Assets Reservation System
b. The Key Attributes of Security Interests
i. Property rights good against the debtor
ii. Priority rights good against third parties
c. Article 9 as a Reified Priority System
i. Not general priority, but priority as to designated assets
d. The First-to-File Rule
i. Priority is usually, but not always, tied to the date of filing of a
financing statement
e. Possible Distribution Rules for USC
1. Pro Rata - proportional
2. Equal Asset – assets paid out equally until debt is satisfied
3. Equal Loss – assets pd out to distribute losses as evenly as
possible
ii. Equal Asset and Equal Loss make both total other debts and
distribution of those debts matter
iii. Under Pro Rata, only total matters
iv. EA or EL would increase monitoring: good if we want to, bad if
we do not
f. 9-322(a)(1) Priority Rule –
i. (ignoring perfection through possession), the first to file a FS wins
g. Ostensible Ownership Problem
i. inference of ownership from possession
h. Two Key Problems with Possession as perfection method
1. Loss of use of goods
2. Put goods in third-party hands and didn’t own, so no
solution
i. Perfection through Possession
i. Holdover
ii. Adds complexity to 9-322: early of first to file or perfect
iii. Can create misleading record of priority in FS record
II. Attachment Requirements
a. Decription requirement - 9-203(b)(3)(A)
b. Interest can be limited in scope- 1-201(37) says nothing about the scope of
the positive rights that are required to have an interest in property
c. After-Acquired Property:
i. Clark (the wrong way)
1. Facts: At time of transaction license is NOT property, so
debtor cannot grant SI. Instead signs acknowledgement to
creditor that will not sell or transfer license. Subsequently
state passes law that recognize rights in license as property.
2. Issue- Could acknowledgement suffice to create security
interest. And if so, when did SI attach?
2
3. Ct held SI failed -Court seems to suggest mere leverage not
enough
ii. The Right Way – creat interest in after-acquired property in the
SA.
1. SI attaches at the time property is received by the debtor,
not before.
iii. The Interest in Property Requirement
1. Organize cases along lines of positive rights v. negative
rights in property
a. Securing Payment or Performance
i. Court seems to suggest mere leverage not
enough
ii. Why not? Accomplishes goal; secured
creditor doesn’t want to grab the property
and often can’t
2. Top Down v. Bottom Up Approaches
a. Top down = Assume full rights then take
specifically enumerated rights away
b. Bottom up = specifically enumerate positive rights
c. Top down approach probably better, easier
3. Negative Pledges-
a. Do not grant SI, instead just contractual right
b. Why the NP? Debtor might prefer it, and if done
correctly, may serve as anti-later SI commitment
c. If allowed SI to be granted, possibility of
inconsistent priorities pairwise (crops up a lot)
4. Separating SA’s and FS’s
a. Key design feature
b. SA grants interest, FS reserves spot in line vis-à-vis
other creditors
c. consequences: file first before pursuing SA to
reserve place in line
iv. When is an interest granted?
a. Two approaches Bollinger and Martin Grinding
i. Bollinger says: Sort through all of the
relevant documentation and the course of
dealing between the parties to see if
something can be pieced together that will
satisfy the written security agreement
requirement
ii. Marting Grinding says:
1. Close to insisting that a single
document memorialize the secured
arrangements between the parties
2. Nothing in Article 9 supports this
3
iii. Martin Grinding is probably better because
easier for 3rd parties to know when there is
a security interest
1. But not clear because presumably the
debtor would internalize these costs
2. No real answer
d. Formalities and Descriptions
i. 9-203’s Description Requirement
1. Implements Article 9’s reified priority system
2. Defines the collateral between the parties
ii. 9-108 Description Rules
1. Must reasonably identify collateral
2. Revised statute blesses Article 9 categories
3. Supergenerics barred, but brick-by-brick SI in all assets is
OK
iii. Laminated Veneers and Worldwide Tracers
1. Lamintated Veneers – Oldsmobiles were not considered as
“equipment” pledged under SA’s omnibus clause. Ct.
found
a. cars not typically considered EQ
b. specific listing of truck implied exclusion of other
vehicles
2. Worldwide Tracers – creditor described property as “any
property”. Ct. held this did not perfect SI in intangible
property because
a. creditor should have said “any property, tangible or
intangible” and
b. description was found with list of tangible property
iv. 9-203 and Rights in the Collateral
1. Debtor cannot grant interest in rights it doesn’t have or
control – Monalisa hypo
a. The Whatley problem - In closed corp setting, need
to be sensitive to right way for creating and
perfecting SI in pledged assets of owner of corp
i. SA signed by individual as such
ii. FS filed against individual
III. Perfection
a. Creates independent second source of information about the underlying
transaction
b. Implementing Perfection
i. Three key methods:
1. file,
2. possess,
3. control
4
c. Must classify successfully – different classifications of collateral require
different methods of perfection
i. 9-310 – general rule is that a FS must be filed to perfect
ii. 9-312 – exceptions to 9-310 general filing requirement
Filing Possession Control
Goods Yes Yes No
Tangible Chattel
Paper
Yes Yes No
Negotiable Docs Yes Yes No
Instruments Yes Yes No
Investment Property Yes No Yes
Deposit Account No No Yes
Letter-Of-Credit No No Yes
Money No Yes No
General Intangible Yes No No
Electronic Chattel
Paper
Yes Yes
Certificated
Securities
Yes Yes No
iii. 9-313 – When Possession Perfects
iv. 9-314 – When Control Perfects
1. Newman – Ct. held annuity contract was not an
“instrument” under UCC, but a “general intangible”
creditors interest was NOT perfected through possession,
filing of FS was required.
a. Key defs:
i. 9-102(a)(47): Instrument
1. A negotiable instrument or any other
writing that evidences a right to the
payment of a monetary obligation, is
not itself a security agreement or
lease, and is of a type that in
ordinary course of business is
transferred by delivery with any
necessary endorsement or
assignment.
ii. 9-102(a)(42): General Intangible
1. any personal property, including
things in action, other than accounts,
chattel paper, commercial tort
claims, deposit accounts, documents,
goods, instruments, investment
property, letter-of-credit rights,
letters of credit, money, and oil, gas,
5
or other minerals before extraction.
The term includes payment
intangibles and software.
2. Vienna Park – Ct held Right to receive funds from escrow
was not “money” under UCC, but instead was a “general
intangible” creditor’s interest was not perfected through
possession, but required filing.
a. Key defs:
i. 1-201(24): Money
1. a medium of exchange authorized or
adopted by a domestic or foreign
government as a part of its currency.
d. Names:
i. Debtor’s Name
1. Financing statements are indexed in debtor’s name (9-
519(c)(1))
2. 9-506(a) – minor errors and omissions do not affect
sufficiency of FS, unless “seriously misleading”
3. 9-506(b) – An FS is seriously misleading if it does not
contain the debtor is not named in accordance with 9-
503(a)
4. 9-506(c) - If you can find the statement using the incorrect
name and the search system of the filing office, then the FS
is valid.
5. Comparing legal name and filed name irrelevant if you
would never find the statement in the first place
6. RA 9-503 ties down debtor name rules
a. No trade names (9-503(c))
b. Legal names for corporations (9-503(a)(1))
7. Clairmont- Correct name = Clairmont Pharmacy; FS under
Clairmont Skyline Pharmacy. Ct says ok b/c substantially
similar. Under new statute all that would matter is whether
you would find it under filing search.
ii. Secured Party’s Name
1. Not critical for finding financing statement
2. Should expect greater room for errors under 9-506(a) –
minor errors and omissions do not affect sufficiency of FS,
unless “seriously misleading”.
3. But little sympathy for getting own name wrong
4. Omitting the name is fatal
5. Chemical Bank and Copper King – both cases the secured
party’s name was not correct, but court held FS was valid.
[could fill in more detail here if time.
e. Description of Collateral
i. The Independent Importance of the Description in the Financing
Statement -Defines extent of priority over collateral
6
ii. Notice ala Thorp not particularly meaningful
1. Thorp – Ct held that description of collateral as
“assignment of accounts receivable” was sufficient to
include AR incurred after the date of the FS, because it put
future creditors on notice that they should inquire.
a. Ct rejected alternative theory that description should
be independently sufficient on its own terms
iii. Subsequent SP needs to negotiate to deal with scope of prior FS
f. Third-Party Possession 9-313(c)
i. Key change in 9-313(c): Move from possession occurring at time
bailee receives notice of SP’s interest under F9-305 to requiring an
acknowledgment by the bailee
ii. Coral Petroleum [complicated case. Ct held SI was not perfected.
Fill in detail later, if necessary]
g. Control as Third Method of Perfection
i. Relevant to
1. investment property,
2. deposit accounts,
3. electronic chattel paper and
4. letter-of-credit rights
ii. Exclusive means of perfection for deposit accounts (9-312(b)(1))
and letter-of-credit right (9-312(b)(2))
iii. Priority rules give better rights if you possess or control chattel
paper. See 9-330
iv. Control and Benedict v. Ratner
1. Court focuses on dominion debtor has over proceeds of
AR. Finds no SI because creditor was not policing the use
of funds in which it claimed an SI. This is not an ostensible
ownership theory; instead, this a control theory
2. Rejected by statute generally and but see esp. 9-104(b) on
deposit accounts.
IV. Priority
a. Theory: Modigliani-Miller - capital structure cannot influence firm value
i. MM Theory is wrong - Use of Assets Depends on Capital
Structure
1. Debtor will choose projects with debt that it would reject in
all-equity capital structure
a. Example each project requires $100 investment
Project 1
Good: 50%: worth $146
Bad: 50%:worth $84
Expected value = +15
Project 2
Good: 10%: worth $635
Bad: 90%: worth $40
Expected value = -.05
7
Society wants 1, but debtor will choose
2. Creditors need to police this.
b. Secured Credit and Monitoring
i. Can use security interest to allocate debtor monitoring burden
among creditors
ii. Need monitoring to control debtor, but fears of creditor grab may
lead to over-monitoring
iii. Instead, grab ex ante through security interest to reduce over-
monitoring incentive
iv. [bunch of stuff about the “monitoring game”, upshot is that the Art
9 system maximizes benefit. Put more in here if it looks like need
to know. See slides from Class 10].
c. The First-to-File Rule
i. Very strict. First to file wins even if SA came later. Pure Race
statute
ii. JI Case – Illustrates pure-race nature of priority rules
1. Facts: FS filed by Creditor in 1980. Creditor mistakenly
terminated FS 11/82. Bank secures same collateral with FS
in 12/82. There is evidence that Bank knew of the mistake.
Creditor discovers mistake and refiles in 1983.
2. Ct held: Bank wins, even if it knew about mistake. “In
short, this statute was intended to be and is a ‘pure race’
type statute. This means the secured creditor who wins the
‘race’ to the appropriate filing office has priority without
regard to the prevailing creditor’s state of mind and
knowledge.”
3. introducing knowledge into the equation could result in
inconsistent priorities between parties, because some
parties may have knowledge while other don’t A>B, B>C,
C>A
4. introducing knowledge into system would be expensive in
terms of litigation costs
d. Continuity of Perfection
i. General rule: SP must remain continuously perfected to keep place
in line.
ii. Continuation of Perfection by different methods – ok if no lapse.
1. 9-322(a)(1): Earlier of the time a filing covering the
collateral is first made or the security interest is first
perfected, if there is no period thereafter when there is
neither filing nor perfection
iii. Continuation of Financing Statements-
1. Relevant Statutory Framework
a. 9-515(a,c,d): (a) FS lapses after 5 years; (c) unless a
continuation statement is filed before the lapse; (d)
if FS lapses SI is no longer, and never was,
perfected
8
b. 9-308(a,c): (a) an SI is perfected if it has attached
and if all the requirements for perfection have been
met; (c) an SI is continuosly perfected if there has
been no lapse between periods of different methods
of perfection
c. 9-322(a)(1): conflicting SI’s rank according to time
of perfection, priority dates from the time of filing
or when SI was first perfected.
2. Hilyard –Facts: Instead of continuing FS, 1st creditor filed
a new FS before the old one lapsed. It also had received an
acknowledgement from the 2nd creditor that it’s lien was
junior.
a. Ct held that 1st creditor’s interest was not perfected
and thus 1st creditor lost to 2nd creditor
i. Contractual right via acknowledgement does
not = priority right via Art 9
ii. NBC lost because and FS did NOT refer to
first FS. Subsequent secured party couldn’t
look back and see chain. Failure to refer
back is core problem.
b. Idea behind 5-yr limit was to keep FS’s from
hanging around forever, but the downside is that
some creditors let them fall through the cracks or
don’t continue correctly as in this case.
e. Nature of Priority
i. First to File or Perfect wins
1. In filing situations, first to file
2. Attachment is bad option because is hard for third parties
to to see
3. Textured rules, contemplating facts such as knowledge,
introduce inconsistencies
f. Marshaling
i. Marshaling equitable doctrine. It may be invoked when
1. There are two or more creditors of the same debtor
2. There are two of more funds belonging to the same debtor
3. One of the creditors alone has right to resort to both (or
more) funds
ii. Marshaling doctrine = Senior creditor must exhaust fund, to which
junior creditor has no claim, before resorting to fund on which
junior creditor also has claim, so that junior creditor can collect
more of fund with overlapping claims. NB: senior creditor is only
required to marshal if it will not prejudice itself in so doing.
iii. Implicitly partially extends priority from one asset class to second
untaken asset class
iv. Computer Room- Ct answers whether Sr. Creditor must marshal.
1. Yes, as to Two Security Interests
9
a. Traditional doctrine applies in situation where one
secured creditor has access to only one fund, second
secured creditor has access to two
b. Done only if no harm to two-funds creditor
2. No, as to Guarantee:
a. Trustee in bankruptcy is looking to reduce claims
against bankruptcy estate
b. But guarantor may just substitute in for creditor
v. Delaware Truck – more complex marshaling case and a lot of
other issues. At issue was a settlement between two creditors
which effectively gave one creditor the opportunity to foreclose on
a mortgage granted the other creditor. Court though this might be
improper. [probably not worth the effort to fill in. See later]
g. Secured Creditors vs. Unsecured and Lien Creditors
i. The Lien Creditor:
1. 9-102(a)(52) “Lien creditor” means:
(A) a creditor that has acquired a lien on the property
involved by attachment, levy, or the like [i.e jump
through state hoops];
(B) an assignee for benefit of creditors from the time of
assignment;
(C) a trustee in bankruptcy from the date of the filing of the
petition; or
(D) a receiver in equity from the time of appointment.
ii. Priority of Lien Creditors vis-à-vis Secured Creditors
1. The statute 9-317(a)
(a) [Conflicting security interests and rights of
lien creditors.] An unperfected security interest
or agricultural lien is subordinate to the rights
of:
(1) a person entitled to priority under
Section 9-322; and
(2) except as otherwise provided in
subsection (e), a person that becomes a
lien creditor before the earlier of the
time:
(A) the security interest or
agricultural lien is perfected or a
financing statement covering the
collateral is filed; or
(B) one of the conditions specified
in Section 9-203(b)(3) is met
and a financing statement
covering the collateral is
filed.[this provision means that
an SA must be in place,
10
possession, or control of
certain types of collateral must
happen to keep a lien creditor
from jumping ahead of an SC.
A naked financing statement is
not enough
Unsecured
Creditor
Lien
Creditor
Unperfected
Secured
Creditor
UPSC wins
(9-201) (TRICKY
BOX) IS tricky box really
that important? No, if
parties are paying attention USC will turn
itself into a lien creditor,
or UPSC will try to perfect
LC wins (9-317)
Perfected
Creditor
PSC wins
(9-201)
1st wins (9-317)
iii. This is a little loose 9-317(a)(2)(B) gives priority even if not a PSC
but merely have SA and FS without value extension
1. Old statute a lot turned on whether perfected. Turned on
whether had lent a single dollar.
iv. PSC v. LC Future advances rule must be consulted; see 9-323
v. Particularly important given the hypothetical lien creditor power in
bankruptcy
vi. Unperfected Secured Creditor loses to Lien Creditor. Key way for
to for one-time USC to jump ahead of SC
h. Negative Pledges –
i. Under Art 9- no priority. Just a contractual issue.
ii. Mudge – Ct upheld verdict that Bank had tortiously interfered with
another creditor’s conduct by inducing debtor to breach negative
pledge.
iii. Rarely specifically enforce limitations on alienability;
1. compare 9-401(b) –[Agreement does not prevent
transfer] An agreement between the debtor and secured
party which prohibits a transfer of the debtor’s rights in
collateral or makes the transfer a default des not prevent the
transfer from taking effect.
iv. So should just be breach and issues is damages
v. Tortious interference action requires knowledge. Difficult to know.
Circular priority possibilities
vi. Requiring filing of neg pledge would be cleaner
i. Unjust enrichment
11
i. Where a USC can show unjust enrichment, SC may be obligated to
pay USC out of secured collateral.
ii. To show unjust enrichment USC must show that SC initiated or
encouraged the transaction, and that the SCs collateral was
enhanced by the transaction.
iii. Ninth District- SC had SI in AR. Debtor’s suppliers would present
invoices to SC for payment. Debtor’s customers would pay SC,
and SC would credit payments against debtor’s debt. USC supplier
brought action against SC for payment.
1. Ct. Held: “Where a secured creditor is benefited by a
transaction between its debtor and an unsecured creditor
that enhances the value of the secured collateral, and the
secured creditor initiates or encourages the transaction, the
secured creditor can be held liable to the unsecured creditor
on the theory of unjust enrichment.”
j. PMSI (Purchase Money Security Interests)
i. Definition basically when debtor is loaned $ to purchase collateral,
the entity that loaned debtor the money for the purchase receives
an SI in the collateral up to the price of the collateral
ii. Statute Definition– 9-103(a) [Definitions.] In this section:
(1) “purchase-money collateral” means goods or software that
secures a purchase-money obligation incurred with respect to
that collateral; and
(2) “purchase-money obligation” means an obligation of an
obligor incurred as all or part of the price of the collateral or
for value given to enable the debtor to acquire rights in or the
use of the collateral if the value is in fact so used.
iii. Application of pmt 9-103(e) [Don’t really understand this]
[Application of payment in non-consumer-goods transaction.]
In a transaction other than a consumer-goods transaction, if the
extent to which a security interest is a purchase-money security
interest depends on the application of a payment to a particular
obligation, the payment must be applied:
(1) in accordance with any reasonable method of
application to which the parties agree;
(2) in the absence of the parties’ agreement to a reasonable
method, in accordance with any intention of the obligor
manifested at or before the time of payment; or
(3) in the absence of an agreement to a reasonable method
and a timely manifestation of the obligor’s intention, in
the following order:
(A) to obligations that are not secured; and
(B) if more than one obligation is secured,
to obligations secured by purchase-
money security interests in the order in
which those obligations were incurred.
12
iv. Priority of PMSI over other secured interests. 9-324(a): Priority of
PMSI
(a) [General rule: purchase-money priority.] Except as
otherwise provided in subsection (g), a perfected purchase-
money security interest in goods other than inventory or
livestock has priority over a conflicting security interest in
the same goods, and, except as otherwise provided in
Section 9-327, a perfected security interest in its
identifiable proceeds also has priority, if the purchase-
money security interest is perfected when the debtor
receives possession of the collateral or within 20 days
thereafter.
v. Key timing and notification differences for inventory and goods
other than inventory under 9-324(a,b)
1. PMSI in Goods –
a. No notice required
b. Must be perfected [presumably through filing. Ask
– how perfect a PMSI?]
2. PMSI in Proceeds of goods
a. No Notice required
b. Must be perfected within 20 days after debtor
receives possession of goods
3. PMSI in Inventory
a. Notice to other SC required
i. Notice must be received by SC within 5
years before debtor receives possession of
INV
ii. Notice must state that sender expects PMSI
status
b. Must be perfected prior to debtor receiving
possession of inventory
4. PMSI in “identifiable cash proceeds” of INV if
a. Identifiable cash proceeds are received on or before
buyer takes delivery.
b. All above requirements for INV
c. NB: “identifiable cash proceeds” DO NOT EQUAL
Accounts Receivable. See MBank Alamo
vi. PMSI and multiple debts (such as interest and attorney’s fees that
are included in price)
1. New statute is clear that all of these charges are part of the
purchase-money obligation under 9-103(a)(2); see
comment 3
vii. Time of possession of collateral important and can matter in
sequential lease/sale deal
13
1. If collateral is leased first, “Possession of collateral” for
purposes of PMSI status does not occur until the purchase
agreement is completed.
viii. Notice scheme for INV introduces chance of circular priority
ix. MBank Alamo- Three key take-away points
1. priority in inventory does not extend to priority in the AR
as proceeds of the inventory (9-324(b))
2. Need to track the progress of the collateral and possible
changes in priority
3. Alt agency structure suggested by the court would undercut
MBank’s position; secured creditor needs to be aware of
possible restructuring of underlying arrangement and
consequences for position
x. No loss of status of PMSI status (to the extent the original PMSI
debt survives) in non-consumer-goods transaction. 9-103(f). No
loss of PMSI even if:
1. the purchase-money collateral also secures an obligation
that is not a purchase-money obligation;
2. collateral that is not purchase-money collateral also
secures the purchase-money obligation; or
3. the purchase-money obligation has been renewed,
refinanced, consolidated, or restructured.
a. Billings – PMSI survived assignment and
refinancing (which meant new note and new SA).
xi. Important to note that Bankruptcy Code gives preferential
treatment to PMSI’s by not allowing those liens to be avoided even
for household items, professional items, and health aids that
ordinarily are exempted under BC 522(f)
xii. Cross-Collateralization
1. Security agreement terms will often look forwards and
backwards; Language will cover now assets and future
assets; Also now debts and future debts
2. All done through single SA and single FS
3. Need to track PMSI status
a. Generally only PMSI status for then assets and then
debts; Not for cross-collateralization: past or future
debts for now assets or past or future assets for now
debts
4. General rule often called off for inventory (9-103(b)(2)) –
PMSI status for all debts under FS.
V. Proceeds
a. Proceeds Perfection Mechanics
i. 20 Days Automatic Perfection (9-315(c), (d))
ii. After 20 days perfection will continue IF one of the following tests
of 9-315(d) can be met:
(1) filed FS covers original collateral; AND
14
a. the proceeds are the type of collateral that can be
perfected by filing in the same office where the
original FS was filed; AND
b. the proceeds in question have not been acquired
with cash proceeds (i.e. cannot be proceeds of cash
proceeds) ***
(2) – the proceeds are IDENTIFIABLE CASH PROCEEDS. 9-
315(b) defines when commingled proceeds are identifiable.
(3) – the security interest has been perfected in a manner other