The New York Uniform Commercial Code Comes of Age

This growing divergence between New York UCC law and the remainder of the states should be of enormous concern. As New York statutes lag further behind other states, the incidence and risk of erroneous UCC section cross-references in legal documents and memoranda rises. Further, the applicability of judicial decisions under other state UCC laws to New York statutes (and vice versa) is increasingly drawn into question. All of this presents a trap for the unwary practitioner.

The Modernization Act

The 2010 UCC amendments have prompted New York legislators and commercial law experts alike to take a closer look at this unfortunate state of affairs. That focus has given rise to an effort to bring the New York statutes into the 21st century through an aptly (and somewhat ambitiously) named piece of legislation, the Omnibus Uniform Commercial Code Modernization Act (the Modernization Act). See 2013 NY Senate Bill S5901. The Modernization Act was introduced in the New York State Legislature in June 2013 and, as of submission of this article for publication, is undergoing review by the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Modernization Act has the full support of the New York City Bar Association Committee on Commercial Law and Uniform State Laws (the NYC Bar Committee), which has closely monitored, reviewed, analyzed and issued a number of reports and recommendations on proposed revisions to the UCC. Others following its progress have described the act as “necessary to modernize New York's commercial law, preserve New York law's relevance and usefulness for parties that wish to transact business in the state, and sustain New York as a jurisdiction of choice for conducting domestic and international business.”

This article discusses what the proposed revisions will mean to practitioners.

The Amendments

Article 1

Article 1, titled “General Provisions,” contains definitions, underlying principles and fundamental concepts that apply throughout the different articles of the UCC.

As noted above, NCCUSL and ALI proposed a set of revisions to Article 1 (RA 1) in December 2001. In April 2004, the NYC Bar Committee issued a 30-page report analyzing RA 1. Although the Committee found RA 1 to be in many respects an improvement on existing NY UCC Article 1, it was also troubled by an expanded definition of “good faith” that added the objective test of “observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing” to the subjective “honesty in fact.” See NY UCC ' 1-201(19). It was even more troubled by a revised choice of law provision (RA '1-301) that allowed parties almost complete autonomy in choosing the governing law for a transaction provided one of the parties was not a consumer and public policy would not be violated. As a result, the committee refused to recommend adoption of RA 1 to the New York State Legislature. Note, compare NY UCC ' 1-105 and RA 1 '1-301(e), (f).

Six years later, it was a much different story. In July 2010, that same committee issued a second report, again analyzing RA 1. By that time, RA 1 had been adopted in 37 states and the Virgin Islands, and introduced in the legislatures of three additional states. In its second report, the committee recommended that RA 1 be adopted subject to only one major exception. In the committee's view, the existing definition of “good faith” in NY UCC ' 1-201(19) should be retained without alteration.

The choice of law issue had seemingly evaporated. Why? Of the states that adopted RA 1, only one jurisdiction, namely the Virgin Islands, had adopted RA 1 ' 1-301. The remainder of the states stayed with the “reasonable relation standard” of existing ' 1-105. As a result, in 2008 the sponsors amended RA 1 ' 1-301 to be virtually identical to former ' 1-105, hence retaining the “reasonable relation” test. See NYC BAR Association Report, July 2010, at 4.

The Modernization Act reflects the recommendations of the NYC Bar Committee. Although the New York State Senate Introducer's Memorandum in support of the act (the Introducer's Memorandum) notes that it contains many technical revisions, it identifies four changes of a more substantive nature. See 2013 Legis. Bill Hist. NY S.B. 5901. These are: 1) a new section that replaces existing NY UCC ' 1-102 (which will instead become part of NY UCC ' 1-103) and clarifies that the substantive rules of Article 1 apply only to a transaction to the extent it is governed by another UCC article; 2) a revised NY UCC ' 1-103, which provides that, unless “displaced” by UCC provisions, general principles of law and equity, such as the capacity to contract, estoppel, duress, principal and agent, and the law merchant, are not preempted but rather supplement the UCC; 3) deletion of existing NY UCC ' 1-206, which is a specific UCC (although non-uniform) statute of frauds provision relating solely to sale of personal property, in favor of the more general statute of frauds provisions of New York General Obligations Law ' 5-701, as well as specific statute of fraud sections contained elsewhere in the UCC; and 4) a revised NY UCC ' 1-303 to allow “course of performance” to be used in addition to “course of dealing” and “usage of trade” to interpret a contract. See NY UCC ” 2-201 (goods), 8-319 (securities) and 9-203 (security interests).

In addition, the committee recommended adopting only part of RA 1 ' 1-308 so as preserve existing New York law on accord and satisfaction ' permitting an express reservation of rights to avoid an accord and satisfaction otherwise effected by a payment or acceptance of a payment (currently contained in NY UCC ' 1-207).

Articles 3 and 4

Article 3, which is titled “Commercial Paper,” provides the rules relating to negotiable instruments. Article 3 confines its coverage to drafts, checks, certificates of deposits and notes. See NY UCC ' 3-103, cmt 1. Article 4, titled “Bank Deposits and Collections.” These two articles collectively provide the framework for check processing in this country. New York's Articles 3 and 4 became effective in 1964 based on the 1951 version promulgated by NCCUSL and ALI and, with few exceptions, have not been updated since then. Given the enormous technological developments over recent years in check processing and bank operations and procedures, it is almost astounding to realize that the commercial center of the United States contains the most archaic set of state laws in this area.

The amendments are largely intended to reflect current convention and market practice, as well as check collection and processing procedures. For example, revised Article 3 will include within its scope notes with variable rates of interest, and checks not expressly made payable to order or bearer. It will eliminate outmoded requirements, including that allonges (indorsements) to notes be physically attached to the related instrument. Currently, NY UCC ' 3-202(2) states: “An indorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and on the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof.”

The revisions expressly bring cashiers' checks and tellers' checks within the definition of “check.” See the Introducer's Memorandum at 3 and proposed new NY UCC ” 3-104 and 4-104. They provide that the original payee of a stolen check and forged indorsement retains its right to be paid by the drawer and the drawer retains its right to be credited by the payor bank for an unauthorized payment. See the Introducer's Memorandum at 3.

They also impose, consistent with federal regulations governing check collection, a comparative negligence standard when both the payor bank and its customer have been negligent in connection with losses arising from an unauthorized check signature or a check alteration. See Federal Regulation CC, 12 C.F.R. ' 229.

Additional matters addressed in the revisions include increased information requirements in regard to stop check orders and obligations on customers in regard to post-dated checks, recognition of electronic presentment of checks, greater flexibility for banks in regard to the times for “posting” a check and other changes intended to recognize the automated check processing and clearing house systems that are now prevalent.

To some extent the changes wrought by the revisions to Articles 3 and 4 may be too little too late. Many of the rules and requirements relating to electronic processing of checks are now governed by federal regulation, said by some to be the result of the lag by New York in updating its statutory requirements. See the Introducer's Memorandum at 4.

Article 7

UCC Article 7 deals with documents of title for goods. Current NY UCC Article 7 governs warehouse receipts, bills of lading, delivery orders and other documents treated in the regular course of business as evidence that the holder has the right to control the goods they cover. See NY UCC ' 7-101, cmt.

Article 7 also addresses the transfer of rights in goods when stored or shipped, such as the liens of warehousemen and carriers, and their enforcement, as well as allocation of the risk of loss of goods while held in storage or during shipment.

Like NY UCC Articles 2 and 3, NY UCC Article 7 became effective in 1964 based on the original 1951 version of the statute, and has been little changed since. NCCUSL and ALI proposed revisions to the statute in 2003 (RA 7). Those revisions were reviewed and recommended for adoption by the NYC Bar Committee in December 2011.

Also like the changes proposed to NY UCC Articles 3 and 4, the revisions under RA 7 bring the UCC provisions governing documents of title into the modern era. The most significant changes effected by RA 7 are recognition of electronic documents of title. The Modernization Act would modify the definition of “document of title” in NY UCC ' 1-201 to expressly provide for electronic documents and, through a new NY UCC ' 7-106, set forth what constitutes “control” of such electronic documents. RA 7 ' 1-201 states:

An electronic document of title means a document of title evidenced by a record consisting of information stored in an electronic medium. A tangible document of title means a document of title evidenced by a record consisting of information that is inscribed on a tangible medium.

Similar to the treatment of electronic chattel paper under revised Article 9, RA 7 provides that control of an electronic document of title is the equivalent to possession and indorsement of a tangible document of title.

Article 9

The proposed revisions to Article 9 (RA 9) contained in the UCC 2010 Amendments have been the subject of many recent treatises. Among the most notable of these changes is creation of a set of rules for determining the correct individual debtor names for purposes of filing UCC financing statements.

RA 9 offers two alternative regimes for states under RA ' 9-503. Under Alternative A (the “only if” rule), a debtor's name on such person's driver's license is the only correct name to use for an individual debtor on a UCC financing statement. Under Alternative B (the “safe harbor” rule), the name on a driver's license is a correct name, but not the only correct name, against which to file. The Modernization Act contains Alternative A, the path chosen by all but eight of the 52 jurisdictions that, as of submission of this article, have either proposed for adoption or adopted the UCC 2010 amendments. Note, based on the tracking website maintained by the Uniform Law Commission, RA 9 has now been adopted in 37 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and is pending in five states.

Non-Uniform Changes

The Modernization Act also contains two notable non-uniform changes. The first such change would amend NY UCC ' 9-04 to clarify that provisions in a deposit account control agreement that protect the depositary bank from liability in certain circumstances do not interfere with “control” over a deposit account for perfection purposes. Specifically, a new ' 9-104(d) would confirm that a secured party has control over a deposit account if it satisfies the requirements for control otherwise contained in ' 9-104 even if the duty of the depositary bank to comply with instructions originated by the secured party is subject to conditions other than consent of the debtor.

The second non-uniform provision would actually modify Article 8. This provision is in response to Highland Capital Mgt LP v. Schneider, 8 NY.3d 406 (Crt. App. April 2007), the controversial ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals. In Highland, the court ruled that promissory notes not traded on an exchange could, in certain circumstances, constitute “securities” under Article 8 rather than instruments under Article 3. The court reasoned that since the definition of “security” under NY UCC ' 8-102(a)(15) includes interest in an issuer or its property “the transfer of which may be registered upon books maintained for that purpose, by or on behalf of the issuer,” and since in that case the maker of the notes could (although it did not) maintain such a registry, then the notes would be considered “securities.” To override Highland , the Modernization Act will revise NY UCC ' 8-103 to provide that an interest in an issuer is not a security under Article 8 merely because the issuer maintains records other than for registration of transfer or could but doesn't maintain books for registering transfers.

Conclusion

Few practitioners seem fully aware of the extent to which the New York Uniform Commercial Code has fallen behind other states. Many assume at their peril that New York is in the forefront rather than the rearguard of adopting states. This undeserved assumption is fertile ground for error among practitioners. Moreover, the failure to adopt amendments to modernize the UCC risks loss of New York's status as a preeminent commercial jurisdiction, a loss that could have a major adverse impact on the state's economy. It falls to the state legislature to remedy a problem that has been long overdue for correction.

Barbara M. Goodstein, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a partner at Mayer Brown. This article also ran in the New York Law Journal, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.

'

New York justifiably prides itself on being one of the world's major financial and commercial centers. In addition, very few would dispute that New York is a, if not the, preeminent commercial law jurisdiction. As such, it is the jurisdiction of choice for a vast majority of all commercial transactions, both domestic and international. Parties in large non-consumer transactions with no connection whatsoever to New York often choose its law to govern their transactions, and New York statutes permit them to do so. See New York General Obligations Law ' 5-1401 and NY UCC ' 1-105. Jurists of state and federal courts located in New York City are among the world's most experienced in resolving complex commercial law disputes.

What most people do not know is that the New York Uniform Commercial Code is outdated. New York is the only state that has not adopted the 1990 amendments to Articles 3 (Negotiable Instruments) and 4 (Bank Deposits and Collections). Its Article 1 (General Provisions) does not reflect the many changes recommended in 2001 by the National Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL)) and the American Law Institute (ALI), which changes are now in effect in all but five states (New York, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina and Wyoming) and Puerto Rico. New York UCC Article 7 (Documents of Title) does not contain any of the amendments proposed by NCCUSL and ALI in 2003 (RA 7). Although RA 7 has been enacted in 45 states and the District of Columbia, the New York State Legislature has yet to consider enactment of RA 7.

Last, but certainly not least, the significant revisions to Article 9 proposed by NCCUSL and ALI in July 2010 (the 2010 UCC amendments) are now effective in 45 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, but not in New York. Note, Alabama, Arizona, New York, Oklahoma and Vermont have not adopted the 2010 amendments, although they are now proposed for adoption in all such states. They are also neither effective nor proposed in the Virgin Islands.

This growing divergence between New York UCC law and the remainder of the states should be of enormous concern. As New York statutes lag further behind other states, the incidence and risk of erroneous UCC section cross-references in legal documents and memoranda rises. Further, the applicability of judicial decisions under other state UCC laws to New York statutes (and vice versa) is increasingly drawn into question. All of this presents a trap for the unwary practitioner.

The Modernization Act

The 2010 UCC amendments have prompted New York legislators and commercial law experts alike to take a closer look at this unfortunate state of affairs. That focus has given rise to an effort to bring the New York statutes into the 21st century through an aptly (and somewhat ambitiously) named piece of legislation, the Omnibus Uniform Commercial Code Modernization Act (the Modernization Act). See 2013 NY Senate Bill S5901. The Modernization Act was introduced in the New York State Legislature in June 2013 and, as of submission of this article for publication, is undergoing review by the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Modernization Act has the full support of the New York City Bar Association Committee on Commercial Law and Uniform State Laws (the NYC Bar Committee), which has closely monitored, reviewed, analyzed and issued a number of reports and recommendations on proposed revisions to the UCC. Others following its progress have described the act as “necessary to modernize New York's commercial law, preserve New York law's relevance and usefulness for parties that wish to transact business in the state, and sustain New York as a jurisdiction of choice for conducting domestic and international business.”

This article discusses what the proposed revisions will mean to practitioners.

The Amendments

Article 1

Article 1, titled “General Provisions,” contains definitions, underlying principles and fundamental concepts that apply throughout the different articles of the UCC.

As noted above, NCCUSL and ALI proposed a set of revisions to Article 1 (RA 1) in December 2001. In April 2004, the NYC Bar Committee issued a 30-page report analyzing RA 1. Although the Committee found RA 1 to be in many respects an improvement on existing NY UCC Article 1, it was also troubled by an expanded definition of “good faith” that added the objective test of “observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing” to the subjective “honesty in fact.” See NY UCC ' 1-201(19). It was even more troubled by a revised choice of law provision (RA '1-301) that allowed parties almost complete autonomy in choosing the governing law for a transaction provided one of the parties was not a consumer and public policy would not be violated. As a result, the committee refused to recommend adoption of RA 1 to the New York State Legislature. Note, compare NY UCC ' 1-105 and RA 1 '1-301(e), (f).

Six years later, it was a much different story. In July 2010, that same committee issued a second report, again analyzing RA 1. By that time, RA 1 had been adopted in 37 states and the Virgin Islands, and introduced in the legislatures of three additional states. In its second report, the committee recommended that RA 1 be adopted subject to only one major exception. In the committee's view, the existing definition of “good faith” in NY UCC ' 1-201(19) should be retained without alteration.

The choice of law issue had seemingly evaporated. Why? Of the states that adopted RA 1, only one jurisdiction, namely the Virgin Islands, had adopted RA 1 ' 1-301. The remainder of the states stayed with the “reasonable relation standard” of existing ' 1-105. As a result, in 2008 the sponsors amended RA 1 ' 1-301 to be virtually identical to former ' 1-105, hence retaining the “reasonable relation” test. See NYC BAR Association Report, July 2010, at 4.

The Modernization Act reflects the recommendations of the NYC Bar Committee. Although the New York State Senate Introducer's Memorandum in support of the act (the Introducer's Memorandum) notes that it contains many technical revisions, it identifies four changes of a more substantive nature. See 2013 Legis. Bill Hist. NY S.B. 5901. These are: 1) a new section that replaces existing NY UCC ' 1-102 (which will instead become part of NY UCC ' 1-103) and clarifies that the substantive rules of Article 1 apply only to a transaction to the extent it is governed by another UCC article; 2) a revised NY UCC ' 1-103, which provides that, unless “displaced” by UCC provisions, general principles of law and equity, such as the capacity to contract, estoppel, duress, principal and agent, and the law merchant, are not preempted but rather supplement the UCC; 3) deletion of existing NY UCC ' 1-206, which is a specific UCC (although non-uniform) statute of frauds provision relating solely to sale of personal property, in favor of the more general statute of frauds provisions of New York General Obligations Law ' 5-701, as well as specific statute of fraud sections contained elsewhere in the UCC; and 4) a revised NY UCC ' 1-303 to allow “course of performance” to be used in addition to “course of dealing” and “usage of trade” to interpret a contract. See NY UCC ” 2-201 (goods), 8-319 (securities) and 9-203 (security interests).

In addition, the committee recommended adopting only part of RA 1 ' 1-308 so as preserve existing New York law on accord and satisfaction ' permitting an express reservation of rights to avoid an accord and satisfaction otherwise effected by a payment or acceptance of a payment (currently contained in NY UCC ' 1-207).

Articles 3 and 4

Article 3, which is titled “Commercial Paper,” provides the rules relating to negotiable instruments. Article 3 confines its coverage to drafts, checks, certificates of deposits and notes. See NY UCC ' 3-103, cmt 1. Article 4, titled “Bank Deposits and Collections.” These two articles collectively provide the framework for check processing in this country. New York's Articles 3 and 4 became effective in 1964 based on the 1951 version promulgated by NCCUSL and ALI and, with few exceptions, have not been updated since then. Given the enormous technological developments over recent years in check processing and bank operations and procedures, it is almost astounding to realize that the commercial center of the United States contains the most archaic set of state laws in this area.

The amendments are largely intended to reflect current convention and market practice, as well as check collection and processing procedures. For example, revised Article 3 will include within its scope notes with variable rates of interest, and checks not expressly made payable to order or bearer. It will eliminate outmoded requirements, including that allonges (indorsements) to notes be physically attached to the related instrument. Currently, NY UCC ' 3-202(2) states: “An indorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and on the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof.”

The revisions expressly bring cashiers' checks and tellers' checks within the definition of “check.” See the Introducer's Memorandum at 3 and proposed new NY UCC ” 3-104 and 4-104. They provide that the original payee of a stolen check and forged indorsement retains its right to be paid by the drawer and the drawer retains its right to be credited by the payor bank for an unauthorized payment. See the Introducer's Memorandum at 3.

They also impose, consistent with federal regulations governing check collection, a comparative negligence standard when both the payor bank and its customer have been negligent in connection with losses arising from an unauthorized check signature or a check alteration. See Federal Regulation CC, 12 C.F.R. ' 229.

Additional matters addressed in the revisions include increased information requirements in regard to stop check orders and obligations on customers in regard to post-dated checks, recognition of electronic presentment of checks, greater flexibility for banks in regard to the times for “posting” a check and other changes intended to recognize the automated check processing and clearing house systems that are now prevalent.

To some extent the changes wrought by the revisions to Articles 3 and 4 may be too little too late. Many of the rules and requirements relating to electronic processing of checks are now governed by federal regulation, said by some to be the result of the lag by New York in updating its statutory requirements. See the Introducer's Memorandum at 4.

Article 7

UCC Article 7 deals with documents of title for goods. Current NY UCC Article 7 governs warehouse receipts, bills of lading, delivery orders and other documents treated in the regular course of business as evidence that the holder has the right to control the goods they cover. See NY UCC ' 7-101, cmt.

Article 7 also addresses the transfer of rights in goods when stored or shipped, such as the liens of warehousemen and carriers, and their enforcement, as well as allocation of the risk of loss of goods while held in storage or during shipment.

Like NY UCC Articles 2 and 3, NY UCC Article 7 became effective in 1964 based on the original 1951 version of the statute, and has been little changed since. NCCUSL and ALI proposed revisions to the statute in 2003 (RA 7). Those revisions were reviewed and recommended for adoption by the NYC Bar Committee in December 2011.

Also like the changes proposed to NY UCC Articles 3 and 4, the revisions under RA 7 bring the UCC provisions governing documents of title into the modern era. The most significant changes effected by RA 7 are recognition of electronic documents of title. The Modernization Act would modify the definition of “document of title” in NY UCC ' 1-201 to expressly provide for electronic documents and, through a new NY UCC ' 7-106, set forth what constitutes “control” of such electronic documents. RA 7 ' 1-201 states:

An electronic document of title means a document of title evidenced by a record consisting of information stored in an electronic medium. A tangible document of title means a document of title evidenced by a record consisting of information that is inscribed on a tangible medium.

Similar to the treatment of electronic chattel paper under revised Article 9, RA 7 provides that control of an electronic document of title is the equivalent to possession and indorsement of a tangible document of title.

Article 9

The proposed revisions to Article 9 (RA 9) contained in the UCC 2010 Amendments have been the subject of many recent treatises. Among the most notable of these changes is creation of a set of rules for determining the correct individual debtor names for purposes of filing UCC financing statements.

RA 9 offers two alternative regimes for states under RA ' 9-503. Under Alternative A (the “only if” rule), a debtor's name on such person's driver's license is the only correct name to use for an individual debtor on a UCC financing statement. Under Alternative B (the “safe harbor” rule), the name on a driver's license is a correct name, but not the only correct name, against which to file. The Modernization Act contains Alternative A, the path chosen by all but eight of the 52 jurisdictions that, as of submission of this article, have either proposed for adoption or adopted the UCC 2010 amendments. Note, based on the tracking website maintained by the Uniform Law Commission, RA 9 has now been adopted in 37 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and is pending in five states.

Non-Uniform Changes

The Modernization Act also contains two notable non-uniform changes. The first such change would amend NY UCC ' 9-04 to clarify that provisions in a deposit account control agreement that protect the depositary bank from liability in certain circumstances do not interfere with “control” over a deposit account for perfection purposes. Specifically, a new ' 9-104(d) would confirm that a secured party has control over a deposit account if it satisfies the requirements for control otherwise contained in ' 9-104 even if the duty of the depositary bank to comply with instructions originated by the secured party is subject to conditions other than consent of the debtor.

The second non-uniform provision would actually modify Article 8. This provision is in response to Highland Capital Mgt LP v. Schneider , 8 NY.3d 406 (Crt. App. April 2007), the controversial ruling of the New York State Court of Appeals. In Highland, the court ruled that promissory notes not traded on an exchange could, in certain circumstances, constitute “securities” under Article 8 rather than instruments under Article 3. The court reasoned that since the definition of “security” under NY UCC ' 8-102(a)(15) includes interest in an issuer or its property “the transfer of which may be registered upon books maintained for that purpose, by or on behalf of the issuer,” and since in that case the maker of the notes could (although it did not) maintain such a registry, then the notes would be considered “securities.” To override Highland , the Modernization Act will revise NY UCC ' 8-103 to provide that an interest in an issuer is not a security under Article 8 merely because the issuer maintains records other than for registration of transfer or could but doesn't maintain books for registering transfers.

Conclusion

Few practitioners seem fully aware of the extent to which the New York Uniform Commercial Code has fallen behind other states. Many assume at their peril that New York is in the forefront rather than the rearguard of adopting states. This undeserved assumption is fertile ground for error among practitioners. Moreover, the failure to adopt amendments to modernize the UCC risks loss of New York's status as a preeminent commercial jurisdiction, a loss that could have a major adverse impact on the state's economy. It falls to the state legislature to remedy a problem that has been long overdue for correction.

Barbara M. Goodstein, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a partner at Mayer Brown. This article also ran in the New York Law Journal, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.

'