Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Perfecting Lease Payment Streams
In August 2006, the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the 'panel') decided In re Commercial Money Center, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1080, *11 (9th Cir. 2006) ('CMC'). The panel held that payment streams stripped from equipment leases constituted payment intangibles under the Uniform Commercial Code (the 'UCC'). By thus expanding the collateral classification 'payment intangibles' under the UCC, this decision raised significant questions of law related to secured transactions and increased the risk associated with the securitization of lease payment streams.
More specifically, the decision in the CMC case is significant for two reasons: 1) by misconstruing an interest as either chattel paper or a payment intangible, it is now possible for a holder to unassumingly fail to perfect its interest in such chattel paper or payment intangible; and 2) it is now much easier for subsequent purchasers of securitized lease payment streams or of the associated chattel paper, or lenders taking a security interest therein, to fall victim to duplicate fraudulent transactions involving such payment streams or associated chattel paper. Since the prior sale of securitized lease payment streams which are classified as payment intangibles will be perfected automatically (without filing a UCC financing statement or taking possession of the underlying lease documents)there will be no notice to subsequent purchasers or lenders of such prior automatically perfected interests in the same lease payment stream. While attorneys, business professionals, and scholars discuss possible responses to these problems, it is up to legal practitioners to protect their clients in the interim. This article reviews the CMC case and its practical implications, provides an overview of some proposed amendments to the UCC with respect to such problems, and discusses suggestions of how to protect clients in the post-CMC environment.
Facts and Holding of CMC
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?