Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Tale of Two Cases: Mobile Goods Require Uniformity of State Statutes
Nationwide uniformity of commercial laws has always been a fundamental goal of the drafters of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. One area, though, that has continually eluded standardization is perfection of liens on mobile goods. Financiers of mobile goods, including vehicles, vessels, trailer homes and modular offices, must grapple with arcane certificate of title statutes that vary widely from state to state. Other state statutes that regulate title and lien interests in mobile goods can become a trap for the unwary. The nature of mobile goods makes uniformity among state statutes a compelling issue for financiers.
Two recent Federal Court of Appeals decisions, In re Charles, 323 F.3d 841 (10th Cir. 2003) and In re Kroskie, 315 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2003), illustrate the perils of lien perfection on mobile assets. In re Charles, a decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, addressed a novel perfection issue in Kansas. The facts were as follows: Robert Charles entered into a “Master Lease Agreement” with The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. (CIT) which gave him a leasehold interest in several trucks. CIT was named as the owner of the trucks on the certificate of title issued by Kansas. Three years later, Charles filed for bankruptcy. The trustee in bankruptcy argued that the “Master Lease Agreement” was a disguised security agreement and that the interest in the trucks was unperfected under Kansas law because CIT was not named as a lienholder on the title certificate.
The bankruptcy court determined in favor of CIT, holding it had “substantially complied with the perfection requirements for motor vehicles under Kansas law.” The district court affirmed.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?