Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Dec. 31, 2015, amendments to the conflict of laws provisions under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) will be active. Lessors should ensure that they search in the right jurisdictions and register their security interests in accordance with the new rules. A brief summary of the amendments is set out below.
Summary of Current Law and Amendments
Under the PPSA, the question of where to register in order to perfect a security interest is answered according to the type of collateral being granted as security. The amendments clarify the appropriate place to perfect security interests in the following:
Perfection of a security interest in Intangible and Mobile Collateral is governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor (i.e., the lessee) is located. Currently, a debtor is deemed to be located at the debtor's place of business or at the debtor's chief executive office if there is more than one place of business. Since the PPSA does not define the term “chief executive office,” it is often unclear where a secured party should perfect its security interest in transactions involving Intangible and Mobile Collateral.
The amendments simplify the test for determining the location of the debtor by replacing the current rules under the PPSA with the rules set out in the chart below.
There are additional rules addressing registered organizations that are organized under the laws of the United States as well as trusts.
Since the equipment most lessors finance falls under Intangible and Mobile Collateral such as motor vehicles, trailers, and other heavy equipment that is usually used in more than one jurisdiction, lessors should pay careful attention to the new rules to determine where to register.
Transitional Rules
The amendments include transitional rules, the most significant of which are:
Other Provinces
Until other provinces change their conflict of laws rules to align with Ontario's new rules, secured parties may have to register their security interests in multiple jurisdictions. For example, for the Intangible and Mobile Collateral of a British Columbia-formed corporation that has its sole place of business in Ontario, the new rules under the Ontario PPSA state that British Columbia law governs the perfection of a security interest in that collateral and accordingly, a secured party should register under the British Columbia PPSA. However, the current rules under the British Columbia PPSA state that Ontario law governs the perfection of a security interest in that collateral and accordingly, a secured party should register under the Ontario PPSA. In cases such as this, a secured party should register under both the Ontario and British Columbia regimes in order to protect its security interest.
The expectation is that some provinces will follow the changes made to the Ontario PPSA in the coming months.
Key Items
The following are a few key action items for lessors:
On Dec. 31, 2015, amendments to the conflict of laws provisions under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) will be active. Lessors should ensure that they search in the right jurisdictions and register their security interests in accordance with the new rules. A brief summary of the amendments is set out below.
Summary of Current Law and Amendments
Under the PPSA, the question of where to register in order to perfect a security interest is answered according to the type of collateral being granted as security. The amendments clarify the appropriate place to perfect security interests in the following:
Perfection of a security interest in Intangible and Mobile Collateral is governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the debtor (i.e., the lessee) is located. Currently, a debtor is deemed to be located at the debtor's place of business or at the debtor's chief executive office if there is more than one place of business. Since the PPSA does not define the term “chief executive office,” it is often unclear where a secured party should perfect its security interest in transactions involving Intangible and Mobile Collateral.
The amendments simplify the test for determining the location of the debtor by replacing the current rules under the PPSA with the rules set out in the chart below.
There are additional rules addressing registered organizations that are organized under the laws of the United States as well as trusts.
Since the equipment most lessors finance falls under Intangible and Mobile Collateral such as motor vehicles, trailers, and other heavy equipment that is usually used in more than one jurisdiction, lessors should pay careful attention to the new rules to determine where to register.
Transitional Rules
The amendments include transitional rules, the most significant of which are:
Other Provinces
Until other provinces change their conflict of laws rules to align with Ontario's new rules, secured parties may have to register their security interests in multiple jurisdictions. For example, for the Intangible and Mobile Collateral of a British Columbia-formed corporation that has its sole place of business in Ontario, the new rules under the Ontario PPSA state that British Columbia law governs the perfection of a security interest in that collateral and accordingly, a secured party should register under the British Columbia PPSA. However, the current rules under the British Columbia PPSA state that Ontario law governs the perfection of a security interest in that collateral and accordingly, a secured party should register under the Ontario PPSA. In cases such as this, a secured party should register under both the Ontario and British Columbia regimes in order to protect its security interest.
The expectation is that some provinces will follow the changes made to the Ontario PPSA in the coming months.
Key Items
The following are a few key action items for lessors:
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
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.